Negative Patient Reviews and Online Defamation: A Guide for the Obstetrician-Gynecologist.

Physician review websites can serve as a means for patients to address physician actions, both good and bad. At times, patient reviews may be negative and perceived as defamatory. Yet there are specific legal requirements that must be met for an online review to be considered defamatory. Prior cases indicate that pursuing a defamation lawsuit, although appropriate in some circumstances, is oftentimes a difficult and futile endeavor. To avoid litigation, physicians can take proactive approaches to address questionable reviews and to bolster their online reputations.

Internet Disruptions in the Doctor-Patient Relationship.

The ubiquitous access by patients to online information about health issues is disrupting the traditional doctor-patient relationship in fundamental ways. The knowledge imbalance has shifted and the last nails are being hammered into the coffin of medical paternalism. Ready access to Dr Google has many positive aspects but the risk of undiscerning acceptance by patients of unscientific, out-of-date or biased information for their decision-making remains. In turn this may feed into the content of the legal duty of care for doctors and contribute to a need for them to inquire sensitively into the sources of information that may be generating surprising or apparently illogical patient treatment choices. In addition, patients, those related to patients, and others have the potential to publish on the Internet incorrect and harmful information about doctors. A number of influential decisions by courts have now established the legitimacy of medical practitioners taking legal proceedings for defamation and injunctive relief to stop vituperative and vindictive online publications that are harming them personally, reputationally and commercially. Furthermore, disciplinary accountability has been imposed on doctors for intemperate, disrespectful online postings. All of these factors are contributing to a disruptive recalibration of the dynamics between doctors and their patients.

"A Threat to All Texas Physicians:" TMA Backs Surgeon in Defamation Suit.

Miguel Gomez, MD's well-publicized legal fight isn't over yet. In its latest turn, the Texas Medical Association is still standing behind the surgeon as he fights to uphold a verdict against one of the state's largest nonprofit hospital systems for defaming him.

Confronting online social aggression in Hong Kong: A wake-up call.

Online bullying as a form of online aggression is an increasingly growing phenomenon that is experienced by all age groups. Apart from the use of technology, online bullying shares the same attributes as conventional bullying. This includes a power imbalance vis-a-vis the bully and the victim and the victims' feeling of helplessness. Its impact however, is greater resulting in severe psychological, social and mental health problems. Because online bullying presents a new type of challenge for lawmakers, educators and parents, there may not be a single solution to this social problem. The paper examines the existing laws in Hong Kong that may apply to online bullying, assessing its effectiveness as a means in redressing the power imbalance. It also looks at non-legal measures that can be adopted in Hong Kong to tackle the problem.

Forty-Five Years of Civil Litigation Against Canadian Psychiatrists: An Empirical Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: To extract the themes pertaining to prudent psychiatric practice from written court judgments in Canada. METHODS: We searched the medical and legal literature for cases involving civil litigation against Canadian psychiatrist and reviewed all available written judgments. We completed a thematic analysis of the civil actions against psychiatrists as conveyed by those written court judgments. We classified the cases according to the disposal status and the essential lessons from the decisions on standard of care and practice by Canadian psychiatrists. RESULTS: Forty such cases were identified as involving psychiatrists over a 45-year period. A subgroup included those dealing with limitation periods and disclosure applications. Thirty of the 40 cases (75%) were decided in favour of the defendant psychiatrists, including 2 dismissed for running over the limitation period. The cases that actually went to trial suggest that documentation and obtaining second opinions are protective against claims of negligence. Inpatient cases resulting in successful litigation against psychiatrists involved fatal outcomes, but not all fatal outcomes led to successful litigation. CONCLUSIONS: The key lessons from these cases are the importance and relevance of regular best clinical practices, such as documentation, obtaining second opinions, following guidelines, and balancing competencies in the expert and manager or advocate roles. Incorporating these practices should allay concerns about litigation against psychiatrists.

Exchanging honest employment references: avoiding the traps of defamation and negligent hiring.

In present-day reference checking, many of the same organizations that seek as much information as possible about people they wish to hire resist giving out more than a bare minimum of information to other organizations. The strongest force driving this minimal reference information release is fear of legal action taken because of something said about an individual in a reference response. Many employers seem so frightened of being sued that they share nothing of substance, usually not realizing that in supposedly protecting themselves against defamation charges they are sometimes increasing the risk of negligent hiring charges. However, truthful reference information can be provided with minimal risk if it is provided in good faith, given only to those who have a legitimate need to know, is strictly job related, and is not communicated maliciously. References must always be provided objectively with information verifiable in personnel files.

Is it ever justified for doctors to sue their patients whose allegations against them have been dismissed by the courts or the Health Professions Council of South Africa?

Doctors should be cautious about suing their patients, because it may generate bad publicity. Where a criminal or civil case or complaint to the Health Professions Council of South Africa by a patient about a doctor's professional conduct is withdrawn or dismissed, a doctor may only sue the patient for defamation if it can be proved that the patient acted from malice, spite or an improper motive. Doctors may only sue patients for malicious prosecution or abuse of civil proceedings if such patients acted with 'malice' and 'without reasonable and probable cause'. If a doctor successfully defends a case against a patient, the court will usually order the patient to pay the doctor's costs.

The risks and responsible roles for psychiatrists who interact with the media.

Journalists often turn to psychiatrists for analysis of medical, social, political, and cultural events that involve human behavior and illness. Once journalists seek their expertise, psychiatrists often rush to be helpful, which can lead to ineffective performance and to statements that may run afoul of principles of professional ethics. In this article, we discuss the bases on which the professionalism of psychiatrists may be impugned when they commit errors in their media presentations. Found within the Principles of Medical Ethics with Special Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry, the Goldwater Rule prohibits certain behaviors when psychiatrists share professional opinions with the public. We first discuss the Goldwater Rule, highlighting the events that led to its development and the professional response to its enactment. We then present a method to guide psychiatrists in their interaction with the media that will help them avoid violating ethics principles or the law. The method encourages knowledge of a framework of ethics principles that in turn guide the psychiatrist's behavior and thinking as he contemplates accepting invitations to interact with the media. The ethics-based roles include the Teacher, the Storyteller, the Celebrity Commentator, the Hollywood Consultant, the Clinician, and the Advertiser.