Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 11:52:20
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 8:50:15
> > Persistent offerings of opinions by a psychiatrist deliniating what is civil and what is not civil can be viewed as medical opinions about appropriate behavior.
>
> Again, this is an assumption being made by the individual for which there are no stated prescriptions of medical practice anywhere on the site.
>Medicine is the art or science of maintenence of health, and the prevention or cure of disease. At this site, Robert Hsiung practices administration of a health maintenance facility. A doctor who administers a hospital might be liable for medical mistakes he allows under his watch. One reason doctors steer away from administrative positions except those that oversee other trained and insured practitioners is because of the unique liabilities associated with holding a medical license. Whether self-help groups meet in a clinic under the supervision of clinical staff or elsewhere under self-directed leadership is a question often related to liability. If a doctor were holding a party at his home, and a guest fell ill, the doctor would not excuse himself of medical liability by standing back and limiting his contribution to abritrating which of the house guests was civil enough to provide information that could lead to the recovery of the doctors guest.
One standard a board might consider is how the doctor presents himself. In this case, Hsiung calls himself "Doctor", provides links to information about e-therapy, and about electronic clinical environments. His disclaimers scattered about the site might not outweigh his statements elsewhere asserting what is a clinical environment and whether the admittedly intentional therapeutic effect of an electronic site is a primary or secondary goal. Simply put, he cannot sustain a claim made here that this is not a clinic while claiming elsewhere that environments such as this are clinical.
If Hsiung is operating this pseudo-clinical facility with no liability protection for himself, that is his prerogative. He asserts he moved the servers to a facility he pays for because the University wanted to follow the money they were spending. But his book promo still asserts the Dr. Bob sites are affiliated with the University of Chicago. The university's insurers might not be fully aware of their risk profile in relation to his unique activities.
> > If a licensed plumber called people uncivil for posting information that conflicts with the opinion of the plumber, he could potentially face action by other plumbers whose opinions he has called people uncivil for embracing.
>
> Can you cite a precedent for this in law? I don't think so.A common element of the descriptions of libel in many states is the inference that a person is earning a living by dishonorable means. It is fair to criticize particular practices, but when the proponent of a practice is characterized as dishonorable, the matter often becomes the subject of a libel action. If however, a professional invites criticisms, the nature of the criticism has less standing than one that is advanced ad hoc outside a forum the professional created to invite review of his or her practices. I'll respond later in this post to your question about the implications of inviting criticism.
>
> Again, this would be an assumption made on the part of the individual for which the individual is solely responsible. Dr. Hsiung is acting as a moderator of his site, nothing more.
>You are repeating an assertion that is the foundation of our investigation, so it is not new information. Obviously, our opinion differs. It would be up to a regulatory body to decide who is responsible for commonly held percptions of a facility supervised by Robert Hsiung, M.D.
> > From a medical regulatory standpoint, questions might arise over his failure to recognize as an artifact of his experience repeated misunderstandings among those he says have not been civil.
>
> Again, Dr. Hsiung is not practicing medicine. I doubt his behavior here could possibly fall under the perview of a medical regulatory agency. Whether or not his behavior is liable for civil action is a point of law for which you might want to provide precedents.Any practice that is relevant to a medical review board is likely to be cause for civil action. I have doubts about the interest of a medical review board in some of his practices. I am aware it could be related to political issues. Since pharmaceutical companies are sometimes major contributors to the campaigns of politicians who appoint those boards, an understanding of the political climate that led to the current board make up is likely to effect the merits of your doubts or mine about a board's interest in protecting clients of a physician's medical self-help practice.
Depending on the particular inclinations of a board, his efforts to proclaim as not medical his offerings to people suffering the ailments he is trained to treat might very well be weighed against perceptions that he is presenting as a doctor. A board might listen long and hard to the complaint of a person about the man in a white coat that holds a medical degree, a license, and presents himself as the "doctor" in charge of a self-help group, and who posts at the top of each page citations of his book about electronic clinical environments and electronicly facilitated therapy.
> The uniqueness of any site on the Internet is irrelevant to the issues you are proclaiming as actionable.
>Let's classify that as "considering" not as "proclaiming." The uniqueness of a practice can be relevant to whether it is a medically accepted practice. Medical review boards determine what is actionable under their jurisdiction. Doctors who introduce unique practices may be the subject of closer scrutiny by review boards. If a person wants to advise a medical review board they are suffering at the hands of a physician who is administering purported self-care facilities which are unique, untried and unproven, and about which he is authoring books, journal articles and conference presentations, your authority to consider it irrelevant is no greater than my authority to consider it relevant. The real contest here, in matters that you or I can effect, is our individual authoritative tones. Your tone of authority will probably carry more weight with people inclined to agree with your point of view.
> > In case anyone is mulling over the related question, criticisms posted here of Robert Hsiungs practices are not liable to be seen as actionable libel because this is a context in which Hsiung has invited review of his administrative practice.
>
> Where do you get this stuff from? There can't possibly be any such limit to libel in law.
There can't? Are you familiar with libel laws of each of the 50 states? Have you heard of the "clean hands" doctrine?
>Can you cite any precedent for this?Yes. Will I for you? No.
>If not, you should not make such statements as if they were points of law.
>
>I am counting on your not knowing anything about which you speak.
Keep counting, then. I am counting instances in which clients of "Doctor Bob's" medical information service have claimed to have been hurt while using his services.
poster:Mary_Bowers
thread:403360
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/405887.html