« Million Writers Award short list | Main | Winners of the 2010 Million Writers Award »

May 31, 2010

Comments

Wow. Now that's some slimy underhanded BS right there. Thanks for ruining a potentially good day...

Surely a more efficient system would be to just have the doctors write the reviews themselves. Or hire someone to do it for them--doctors are busy people, after all.

To hold people's health hostage over something like this makes me sick (no pun intended). You don't get a choice in whether you're sick or not, so you get no option of 'opting out'.

Glad I don't live in the US right now. I really hope this idea gets dropped and flushed down the drain like it deserves.

Not trying to depress people here. And it's quite likely this wouldn't stand up in court. But then again, it might. And with the way websites and internet service providers stand up and salute DMCA takedown notices, this could cause a lot of trouble for a writer.

The point is we shouldn't have to give up our free speech rights--or the copyright to things we write--in order to see a doctor.

Reason #673 to actually read things before signing them.

Remember that you can strike bits you don't like. The doctor or the gatekeeper/clerk can balk, which is of course their right, at which point you'll have to decide how much it is worth to you.

But don't think you have to meekly accept it. You can also educate other patients - Americans, not uniquely but rather vociferously, value their right to complain and whine, and if you present it to people who otherwise might not care about something seemingly esoteric as "be careful of doctors who want to take away your right to tell others about poor service", you might make headway.

I am a lawyer. I read the NY Times Article and have been thinking about posting some Slapp litigation material from my own state. However, I find myself wondering how the Drs. can "grab" comments from their patients under the DMCA? I suppose as a matter of contract it would legal, but it is so offensive. How can this be attacked? No doubt these are "adhesion contracts." "Um, like I know I am bleeding and I need to check into your clinic, but I would like to 'negotiate' this Copyright clause before I sign your admission form." Sure.

"I'm also wondering if the NY Times accidentally revealed the trade secret to Medical Justice's "tool" for dealing with online criticism."

I'm more paranoid, and cynical, so I'm wondering if the NY Times had to sign away their copyright ownership of comments related to Medical Justice as a requirement of interviewing them, and as such, was met with swift retaliation for having posted a comment that (correctly) besmirched Medical Justice's "reputation."

Bizzare - reminds me of the usual reaction to whistleblowers, dont fix the problem but make it illegal/sackable for people to blow the whistle, eg. after something is caught on camera, instead of fixing the problem, they ban cameras.

I always save copies of items from online editions of newspapers. I've seen way too many interesting articles get pretzeled out of shape after something's slipped out.

Wonder if signing something like this in order to receive medial attention counts as signing something "under duress"? That usually invalidates most contracts...

The comments to this entry are closed.