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

We just released a number of new features, some more obvious than others; and I wanted to highlight a few of them.

First, Cristin “Customer” Carey, our Customer Care Manager, blogged about the changes we made to the welcome message.

Another profile feature we added was allowing lawyer’s to mark industry recognition items as non-legal. Now, I realize there is something oxymoronic about non-legal industry recognition, but the reality is that a number of lawyers are adding items to the industry recognition tab that they believe are relevant to their legal practice (e.g., church leadership), even though such items are not technically recognition from the legal industry. By marking items legal or non-legal, lawyers can now properly display this information without confusing our scoring system.

For the lawyer with a disciplinary history, we now give the lawyer a place to explain his or her sanction(s). A number of lawyers asked for this, and it is information that is impossible to find unless you meet with the lawyer in person. To explain your sanction, simply log into your profile and go to the “Experience” tab. Under each sanction, there will be an area for you to tell your side of the story.

Finally, we continue to put a lot of work into our name search. It is still far from perfect, but in this release we have made a number of first name aliases so if you are looking for “Charles” but like to call him “Chuck”, you can find him using either name.

More changes to come!

Mark