NationStates Jolt Archive

I like any doctor that isn't stingy with the prescription pad.

There has been a bit of kerfuffle over the RateYourMD (http://ratemds.com/index.jsp) site. Of course, the Association representing medicial professionals in Canada is asking that it be shut down, while patient advocates insist that the site is an essential tool in helping people choose a doctor.

What are your thoughts on the issue?

More background:
As angry patiens vent online, Doctors sue to silence them (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112568868274630508-LCeEmJwsVCTdLbpUXciwtBVJsek_20060914.html).

I like the idea of such a site. In fact, i used a similar site to pick my professors for Uni. Getting the opinions of other people is usually really helpful, especially if they are all very similiar. I mean it could be harmful if there is a certain MD that that had only one rating, and it was very bad, but thats the exception. I encourage people to use sites like that :)

I like the idea of such a site. In fact, i used a similar site to pick my professors for Uni. Getting the opinions of other people is usually really helpful, especially if they are all very similiar. I mean it could be harmful if there is a certain MD that that had only one rating, and it was very bad, but thats the exception. I encourage people to use sites like that :)

Maybe they could hide the votes until a minimum number of votes are collected?

I can understand why anonymous sites would be a problem, as it allows no chance for the doctor to respond to the criticism or even to know if it isn't just somebody with a vendetta who has never been a patient.

However, if a patient feels that the service they received was bad enough to make a website or post their name to a website, then they absolutely have that right. If the doctor finds her name on that site, and wishes to open a discussion with the patient to explain and possibly change their view of the experience, fine.

In fact, that is one thing I'd add to these sites. Allow the doctor to respond to the accusations. It would still be a bit skewed in the direction of the patient, as the doctor cannot reveal any confidential information, but it would give an opportunity for the doctor to try and explain whatever it was that the patient saw as wrong.

My medical insurance provider allows registered customers of its service to rate individual doctors and practices on a variety of things.

I have found it to be useful.

I like the idea of such a site. In fact, i used a similar site to pick my professors for Uni. Getting the opinions of other people is usually really helpful, especially if they are all very similiar. I mean it could be harmful if there is a certain MD that that had only one rating, and it was very bad, but thats the exception. I encourage people to use sites like that :)

I think there is some benefit in it, however doctors are healthcare professionals not nervice providers.

Often a patient will think they need something but will be wrong, or there will be good reasons why the patient should not have that treatment - currently a doctor can refuse a patient treatment on medical grounds, however if this sort of site became widespread they might feel pressured to provide a 'treatment' as they are now a service.

In addition - any complaints could easily lack context, understanding or a full explination, and there could be no right of reply as it would seriously compromise the patients privacy. If a patient convinces themselves they need a drug and their doctor refuses they can post about how the Dr was unhelpful and refused to provide the treatment they needed etc etc and there would be no legal way the doctor could write back saying "the patient has X condition which means this drug would do Y" or "the patient is already on Z medication and this medication conflicts" etc etc.

Consider yourself, in your working position (in whatever capacity that is). Should your clients be able to anonymously post up on a website their comments on your abilities as a professional?

How is this different than someone taking out an anonymous ad in the paper declaring you to be an incompetent douchebag?

Consider yourself, in your working position (in whatever capacity that is). Should your clients be able to anonymously post up on a website their comments on your abilities as a professional?

How is this different than someone taking out an anonymous ad in the paper declaring you to be an incompetent douchebag?

Anonymous, no.

Registered and identified, I would welcome it.

Consider yourself, in your working position (in whatever capacity that is). Should your clients be able to anonymously post up on a website their comments on your abilities as a professional?

How is this different than someone taking out an anonymous ad in the paper declaring you to be an incompetent douchebag?

Ok, well lets say you have made your self an appointment and you have been waiting in the reception room for 3 hours, in a nasty enviroment, then you go back to meet the doctor and he/she is rude, can't determine anything, or even misdiagnosis you. Wouldn't you want to warn people not to go to that doctor, to prevent further incidents from happening to other people?

Thats why I agree with the site. There is a difference between someone taking out an add in the paper as you said, and someone warning the public of a bad doctor.

I wish this site would require registration. I really don't like that one can post anonymously and their comments are instantly visible. I think this site could be a great resource, but there needs to be some sort of quality control.

Consider yourself, in your working position (in whatever capacity that is). Should your clients be able to anonymously post up on a website their comments on your abilities as a professional?

How is this different than someone taking out an anonymous ad in the paper declaring you to be an incompetent douchebag?

Ok, well lets say you have made your self an appointment and you have been waiting in the reception room for 3 hours, in a nasty enviroment, then you go back to meet the doctor and he/she is rude, can't determine anything, or even misdiagnosis you. Wouldn't you want to warn people not to go to that doctor, to prevent further incidents from happening to other people?

Thats why I agree with the site. There is a difference between someone taking out an add in the paper as you said, and someone warning the public of a bad doctor.

My doc is a dick. If you don't mind a doc that really doesn't care, then he is good. I am going for a new one.

He is good for the prescribing stuff. However *censored* insurance always tries to kill it arguing you should buy stuff from the store. After about 3 months of arguing, they eventually give in.

*censored* insurance people!

I'd rather see a website with people's opinions about doctors than risk having medical costs rise at a nominal fee to tax payers because someone is suing a doctor for malpractice.

There should however be safeguards to prevent people with a vendetta from leaving malicious messages. There should also, as someone already said, be a minimum number of votes before it's public.

Ok, well lets say you have made your self an appointment and you have been waiting in the reception room for 3 hours, in a nasty enviroment, then you go back to meet the doctor and he/she is rude, can't determine anything, or even misdiagnosis you. Wouldn't you want to warn people not to go to that doctor, to prevent further incidents from happening to other people?

Thats why I agree with the site. There is a difference between someone taking out an add in the paper as you said, and someone warning the public of a bad doctor.

Okay, well let's say you hate your doctor because he had sex with your girlfriend while you were dating her. So you decide to smear his name on this site, just to be a prick.

Is that fine too? And how are we going to know whether your concerns are valid, or based in jealousy?

Ok, well lets say you have made your self an appointment and you have been waiting in the reception room for 3 hours, in a nasty enviroment, then you go back to meet the doctor and he/she is rude, can't determine anything, or even misdiagnosis you. Wouldn't you want to warn people not to go to that doctor, to prevent further incidents from happening to other people?

Thats why I agree with the site. There is a difference between someone taking out an add in the paper as you said, and someone warning the public of a bad doctor.
But the site as it is - anomyonous with no right of reply - does not just allow for people to complain about instances as you ahve just said - it also allows you to make false or one sided or even misinformed claims (mis-misdiagnosis for example). It also means people can create multiple accounts to falsely make multiple claims.

Even when the patient *thinks* they are telling the truth they may well be wrong because they did not understand why the doctor refused a treatment or medication - and the doctor has no right of reply.

It is just so open to mis-use and abuse.

Not to mention...are you qualified to judge the professional merits of a doctor? Sure, you can comment on how their bedside manner was in relation to yourself...but how are you in any way qualified to tell other people whether or not the doctor performed to a reasonable standard in your case? On what are you basing that?

Not to mention...are you qualified to judge the professional merits of a doctor? Sure, you can comment on how their bedside manner was in relation to yourself...but how are you in any way qualified to tell other people whether or not the doctor performed to a reasonable standard in your case? On what are you basing that?

The fact that I died?

Its weird the only thing I can say about my doctor is to burn those damn purple shoes

Maybe this is more of a hypochondriacs anonymous type thing

The fact that I died?

And you're posting from the grave?

Your death needs to be proven to have been caused by the doctor.

Simply accusing the doctor of causing someone's death, absent proof...that's okay?

I would think in that case that the family would be suing for malpractice...not just airing their suspicions on the internet.

Okay, well let's say you hate your doctor because he had sex with your girlfriend while you were dating her. So you decide to smear his name on this site, just to be a prick.

Is that fine too? And how are we going to know whether your concerns are valid, or based in jealousy?

Well, I'm sure if you have 5 positive feedbacks saying the doc is fantastic, and then you have one negative feedback that just totally smashes the guy, then people can use something called common sense, and realize that those 5 are right.

And I do agree with other posters in the point that people rating should have to register, and also to allow the doc to respond. That is only fair.

Well, I'm sure if you have 5 positive feedbacks saying the doc is fantastic, and then you have one negative feedback that just totally smashes the guy, then people can use something called common sense, and realize that those 5 are right.
I should assume that the 5 are right, because they are in the majority? Really?

Ten people rate a vacation spot. Seven of these people are nervous travellers, and prefer to be around other nervous travellers, totally removed from the locals. They love the vacation spot because they are isolated, cossetted, and generally led around on strings by the tour guides. They can't stand 'ethnic food', so the 'western cuisine' offered is to their taste. But I don't know any of this, I just know that they loved the vacation spot.

Three of the 10 hated the place. Hated it intensely. They wanted to mingle with the locals, eat local food, and have the freedom to roam around. But I don't know this either. They just rated the vacation spot poorly, and made random comments about specific things they hated.

I am someone more in tune with the three dissenters...but I don't necessarily know to value their opinion over the seven who wrote glowing reviews.

Can you see how glowing reviews can still be misleading? Because your particular experience is going to be very much based on your subjective expectations, that I am not necessarily going to know about as I read your review.

The fact that I died?

If you suffered a case of death and are now well enough to be able to post on a board rating your doctor you'd better be singing his praises from the rooftops.

I could very much do without the type of patient who trusts things he read online. There are too many of them today as it is, so maybe it's a good idea to trash yourself on one of these sites. Hmm... "this doctor called me an idiot for going on this site and trusting it!" - I'm liking this idea more and more.

Geez, there is no winning with you. I submit ;) Don't fucking submit, regroup and come back with something! There is a very compelling case for allowing this kind of commentary based on 1st amendment rights (or Charter rights in Canada). Give up that easily in real life and get eaten alive!

Btw, did you get my TG earlier? :)

Yes, and replied.

I could very much do without the type of patient who trusts things he read online. There are too many of them today as it is, so maybe it's a good idea to trash yourself on one of these sites. Hmm... "this doctor called me an idiot for going on this site and trusting it!" - I'm liking this idea more and more.
Weed out the idjuts? I like it!

I should assume that the 5 are right, because they are in the majority? Really?

Ten people rate a vacation spot. Seven of these people are nervous travellers, and prefer to be around other nervous travellers, totally removed from the locals. They love the vacation spot because they are isolated, cossetted, and generally led around on strings by the tour guides. They can't stand 'ethnic food', so the 'western cuisine' offered is to their taste. But I don't know any of this, I just know that they loved the vacation spot.

Three of the 10 hated the place. Hated it intensely. They wanted to mingle with the locals, eat local food, and have the freedom to roam around. But I don't know this either. They just rated the vacation spot poorly, and made random comments about specific things they hated.

I am someone more in tune with the three dissenters...but I don't necessarily know to value their opinion over the seven who wrote glowing reviews.

Can you see how glowing reviews can still be misleading? Because your particular experience is going to be very much based on your subjective expectations, that I am not necessarily going to know about as I read your review.


Geez, there is no winning with you. I submit ;)

Btw, did you get my TG earlier? :)

Weed out the idjuts? I like it!

You can never completely weed them out, just accept any sort of assuaging blessing in disguise... like, being trash-talked anywhere else. Would you really like to be liked by these Einsteins? Thought not.

Don't fucking submit, regroup and come back with something! There is a very compelling case for allowing this kind of commentary based on 1st amendment rights (or Charter rights in Canada). Give up that easily in real life and get eaten alive!


Yes, and replied.

Ah yes, I could, and probably will come back with something later. Right now though, its lunch time, and I am going to go focus on my food:D