Stone Age Thinking No Opinions Unless I Like Them!
Please tell me this is some sort of joke. A dream? Candid camera? Hold on let me look around the office . . . unfortunately not even Allen Funt’s ghost is anywhere to be seen. Guess I better keep writing . . .
The Wall Street Journal reports in its blog post entitled, “Doctors to Patients: Don’t Slam Us Online Without Permission” that certain doctors are now requiring their patients to sign a contract that requires them to get permission from the doctor before rating the doctor online. Amazing.
The first question that immediately comes to mind is why anyone would seek medical care from a doctor that is worried about what you might say about him or her online. I am guessing that solid doctors those that perform great work day in and day out could care less what you say about them online or anywhere else as long as you are being honest.
The second question that comes to mind is how unbelievably archaic this thinking is. It reminds me of a certain class action lawsuit that was recently filed in the Western District of Washington . . . the idea being that ideas and opinions are harmless if they are shared with only a few; but the minute they are shared through the big bad Internet, they need to be regulated, if not eliminated. C’mon! Let’s wake up and smell the digital coffee of the new millennium my professional friends. The reality is that the Internet and all of the information sharing that it offers is here to stay. And the fact that the Internet allows people to share ideas and opinions more broadly and efficiently is only going to perpetuate its ubiquity. To try to kill it through inane contractual provisions and lawsuits is simply Stone Age thinking.
The final question here is whether this type of contractual provision is even legal. Maybe a contract of adhesion, maybe a restraint on free speech I’m not an expert in either. But I do know that it feels wrong, and I am guessing that it will ultimately be a non-issue as these contract-pushing doctors are forced into retirement by their patients who prefer more modern-thinking doctors that do not fear the Internet or transparency.
Geez.
Mark
September 6th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
There are so many consumers like myself that will actually look for negative user reviews and low ratings when searching online, whether it’s for a law firm, physician, product, etc.
We want to see real ratings and reviews, and when a business gets slammed online, we’ll think “can we live with that?” and eventually make a decision based both on positive and negative online ratings and reviews. It turns out that consumers are smart.
That WSJ blog post tells me that the fine folks at Medical Justice don’t think I’m smart enough to make my own decision.
What makes me run away from businesses are fake ratings and user reviews from the businesses themselves. Unfortunately, it happens a lot (including attorneys). The last thing I want to see are 40 five-star ratings with fake, canned reviews from someone trying to convince me that other people actually wrote them on their own.
An example, just because an attorney has an “average” or lower Avvo rating certainly doesn’t mean I wouldn’t hire them.
September 11th, 2007 at 10:13 am
I am very disturbed that more and more judges get ranked by attorneys. These rankings are published and are the primary tool for the general public to make a choice when voting for a judge. Don’t we have it backwards? Should not a judge be ranking an attorney?
In addition, there is information already available, and part of the public record, that is excellent material for rankings. For example, Rule 11 in civil proceedings is invoked when a lawyer substantially misrepresents the truth in his pleadings and gets caught. A search for this keyword in e-filed pleadings would reveal some “very useful information” for consumers as to a lawyer’s ethics and respect in the courts.
Collection of data and opinions from judges would turn our court system right side up. Currently, we have the “privates” scoring the “generals” and the “generals” are kept in controlled silence. The incentives are backwards. Surely, as a capitalist nation, we understand that properly structured incentives are what makes the system work. To understand how it is NOT working, explain why a Texas Judge confessed to a Colorado Bar Association dinner meeting, that justice in Texas has more to do with “contributions” than the facts. Explain why a Colorado judge advises other newer judges in “DivorceEdition” Magazine (March ’07) that schmoozing with attorneys on their off time is one of the most valuable uses of their time. Who knows best what capabilities an attorney has in court? A judge. We must allow a judge to have some input that counts. Judges should be encouraged to enforce the rules instead of being intimidated by whether enforcement would offend a lawyer, leading to a poorer score from the lawyer!
Avvo is doing a wonderful service to our judicial system and clients. Count me in for voluntary service in my state (Colorado) to collect data and add it to the list of states served by Avvo rankings.