Non-Recommended Doctors / Blacklist

[Bill - Seemiller]

Originally Posted by Pat - Publisher of this Community - in a different thread

 

I could certainly put together a very long BLACKLIST of the notorious and mediocre based on years of patient input. But I've chosen to point people toward the light rather than focus on the dark. I guess it's like the old mother expression "If you don't have some thing good to say then don't say any thing at all."

 

I wonder if this would be worth considering. I certainly can see why it's better to direct patients to the "light", however, it might not be a bad idea to make potential patients aware of the "dark". The way I see it...here is/are the pro/pros

 

Pros:

 

1. Perspective Patients will know which doctors to stay away from which I have to say is a HUGE pro. Many doctors are asked about on this forum and are neither recommended nor on the coalition, and even some of the veterans have no indication on how to advise them about that particular doctor...but can only try to steer them toward the "sure thing". It would be nice if we could point out reasons why a particular doctor is bad news so people don't take unnecessary risks.

2. Veterans will be more aware how to advise perspective patients regarding these doctors that are asked about.

3. It might encourage these doctors to get their act together to be removed from the list

 

Cons:

 

1. Previous patients of these doctors may experience hard feelings

2. Debates or "wars" might break out depending on who is taking what personally.

3. Could any of these doctors bring about lawsuits? I'm not a lawyer...and I don't know if there would be a case...but could it be seen as slander?

 

I don't know...these are just some thoughts...what does everyone else think?

 

Bill

[Bill - Seemiller]

Originally Posted by Pat - Publisher of this Community - in a different thread

 

I could certainly put together a very long BLACKLIST of the notorious and mediocre based on years of patient input. But I've chosen to point people toward the light rather than focus on the dark. I guess it's like the old mother expression "If you don't have some thing good to say then don't say any thing at all."

 

 

I wonder if this would be worth considering. I certainly can see why it's better to direct patients to the "light", however, it might not be a bad idea to make potential patients aware of the "dark". The way I see it...here is/are the pro/pros

 

Pros:

 

1. Perspective Patients will know which doctors to stay away from which I have to say is a HUGE pro. Many doctors are asked about on this forum and are neither recommended nor on the coalition, and even some of the veterans have no indication on how to advise them about that particular doctor...but can only try to steer them toward the "sure thing". It would be nice if we could point out reasons why a particular doctor is bad news so people don't take unnecessary risks.

2. Veterans will be more aware how to advise perspective patients regarding these doctors that are asked about.

3. It might encourage these doctors to get their act together to be removed from the list

 

Cons:

 

1. Previous patients of these doctors may experience hard feelings

2. Debates or "wars" might break out depending on who is taking what personally.

3. Could any of these doctors bring about lawsuits? I'm not a lawyer...and I don't know if there would be a case...but could it be seen as slander?

 

I don't know...these are just some thoughts...what does everyone else think?

 

Bill

[the B spot]

Hey Bill! You know, you are doing a DAMN fine job around here, and I hope everyone appreciates it!!!!!! Keep it up!!!!!

 

Anyway, it would not be in the site's best interests to post a "blacklist" or "Bad Clinic" list.

 

While we are allowed free speech that is protected, posting such a list would be considered a statement of FACT.

 

While those of us who frequent the internet, talk to clinics, patients, prospective patients, view results during and post-op are able to EASILY spot shoddy work, no such fine line exists to govern the HT industry (reasonable expectations clause)

 

Thus, it would be easy to sue Pat or HTN if indeed such a statement of fact was posted (regardless of TRUE or FALSE) because a Doc doing stadium seating mini's is still providing a "cosmetic improvement" to the patient, who most likely signed a risk waiver prior to surgery.

 

What I think works best is the person who wants to know why this surgeon or that surgeon is NOT in the Coalition; AND, what makes the Coalition Docs so much better?

 

Here is where those of us who care about others and want to "inform" can step in a make comments as "opinions" in order to try an educate and point out what we consider "deficiencies" in Dr. Quacks work, versus the outstanding work provided by Dr. Awesome Coalition Doc for the same or less cost than Dr. Quack.

 

It seems to be working more and more because we have started to really come together as an actual community and less and less pissing contests are taking place.

Regardless of your doc being Dr. Hasson and mine being Dr. Shapiro, we can communicate, share, and educate without malice or ignorance.

 

NOT the case a few years back!

 

While I think we have made TREMENDOUS strides, there is still much to do. People like yourself, Hairbank, Gorpy, Pat, Robert, Jotronics and the countless others who post here with solid opinions and advice make this a great forum and lend continual credence to the notion that lay-people can and should offer criticism to physicians.

 

Thanks Again Bill!

[Guest Cousin_It]

Bill...

 

This is a very interesting concept, and one which I believe if implemented properly can be invaluable with minimizing any backlash or legal responsibility. As standard practice a statement of this nature can be posted, this will alleviate all legal liabilities to the forum and make the member solely libel:

 

Members could be held legally responsible for damages to a persons reputation if a court were to find that the remarks constitute libel or defamation. Under federal law (the Communications Decency Act), because this forum does not censor feedback or investigate it for accuracy, this forum is not legally responsible for the remarks that members post, even if those remarks are defamatory. However, this law does not protect the person who leaves the feedback from responsibility for it.

 

Members commonly post their experiences with particular surgeons, good or bad, within the forum as it is thier right to do. Though this is a step in the right direction, I feel it can be improved on. The process members must go through to gather this information can be tedious and time consuming, running searchs, reading through a mountain of posts in order to disseminate the information. I feel that such a task may deter many and be problematic to those individuals seeking this information.

 

I propose we centralize this information into a category "Surgeon Reviews" "Feedback Forum", or whatever is determined appropriate, which will allow those doing the research to readily view information concerning that particular surgeon/clinic they are considering. This can be further subdivided to include each particular surgeon/clinic that a comment has been posted. With a minimal of effort a prospective client can read all the posts submitted for this doctor without wading through useless information. I believe that by facilitating this process by orgainizing it properly more people will take advantage of the information and become better informed of the "good" and "bad" associated with it.

 

All comments will be directly attributable to the individuals posting it, thereby relinquishing this forum as a whole of any liability. A format such as this is very common on the web. Reviews of products, services or for that matter anything abound. Naturally there must be guidelines placed on comments that border on libel by limiting information that is factual and without vulgarity. In addition perhaps a rating system can accompany the comment, a scale of 1 to 100, or the use of stars or anything that can note ones experience with the doctor.

 

I am sure there will be many kinks that need to be worked out before implementing, but I am sure that will the assistance of members comments it can be done. We in essence can become the "Consumer Reports" on the hair loss industry. Furthermore I do not see why this concept cannot be extended to reviews on hair loss therapies, certainly another "scam" of the web.

 

I am more than willing to assist in such an endeveour, and I am quite sure there are a number of members who will equally feel the same.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Thanks for the compliments B-spot. I do my best to assist and help people the best i can.

 

Interesting points from both of you (B-spot and Cousin It). That's why I posted it as a discussion....I can see how the my so called "cons" could potentially create a nightmare problem and surely we wouldn't want Pat to be responsible for damages of reputations, etc. Perhaps steering toward the good is the way to go. I also like what Cousin_It is saying, however I'm not sure how much different that would be then what the forum already has. We have a Surgeon review forum already where members are free to share their experiences...and I'm certain that we'd find the good, the bad, and the ugly IF we were to search the archives.

 

Not to mention it seems that the characteristics that mark a bad doctor are more subjective than objective. I'm sure every doctor, including the top coalition docs have some patients that are dissatisfied, and to them, they are a terrible doctor...so perhaps there is much more relativity involved than we wish there would be. Some patients simply have too high of an expectation, which has always been a problem, yet at the same time, one would have to argue that the doctor should make a determination of this before taking them on as a patient and simply not operate on them.

 

Much to think about...so I can see how creating a list like this might be biting off more than one could chew.

 

However, to expand upon Cousin Its idea, though different...perhaps, creating a seperate surgeon review page where it is listed by Dr. Whenever a doctor is mentioned or reviewed, a link back to that review is posted on the page, whether good or bad. That way, it will be up to the patient to determine whether or not that doctor is right for them.

 

Though arguably, all one would have to do is search the forum for a doctor's name and get the same type of data. However, the problem with this as I see it right now, is a doctor might be mentioned and come up in the search results, but it really has nothing to do with a patient review.

 

Anyway...so I have nothing conclusive...just thoughts and concepts...hmmmm....

 

Bill

[Pat - Community Publisher]

Bill,

 

Thank you for everyone's input on the concept and implications of creating physician/clinic blacklist.

 

This forum has always been open to genuine posts - the good, the bad and the ugly - about all physicians, including those who are recommended.

 

So in many ways patients can readily access negative comments and experiences about a clinic or physician going back over five years by using the "Find" feature on this forum.

 

Very few things in life or in hair restoration are Black or White. That's why encouraging potential patients to read all posts referencing a physician (White, Gray and Black) by using the "Find" feature will give them a more balanced and diverse presentation of information. The visitor can then evaluate what they read, which will change over time as more info is contributed to this forum.

 

Members of this forum are certainly welcome to post their critique of any physician or clinic on this or any other thread/topic. As long as your posts are aligned with the facts you should find yourself within the law. I have yet to hear of a poster on this forum being sued.

 

I have been sued in the past for comments made by me and my moderator, all of which were ultimately resolved after plenty of anguish. But a recent court ruling has made it clear that those hosting a discussion forum can't be held liable for comments made by third parties. That is one more reason that a discussion forum is an ideal forum for hosting negative comments versus formalizing them on a website.

 

In addition, the logistics of trying to compile and update a blacklist that is fair and legal would probably become a nightmare.

 

But if members here would like to post their two cents on this thread about doctors they suggest patients avoid they are free and welcome to do so.

 

All the best (and worst), Pat

 

P.S. I have moved this thread over from "Questions and Answers" to "Experiences and Surgeon Reviews" where I think it is more appropriate and visible.

[Guest Cousin_It]

First I would like to applaud Pat on his move to title this section "Hair Transplant Experiences and Surgeon Reviews", certainly a step in the right direction to provide an exclusive area where members and prospective members, and perhaps even doctors can view patient experiences.

 

Bill, I am a bit confused by your statement:

 

"However, to expand upon Cousin Its idea, though different...perhaps, creating a seperate surgeon review page where it is listed by Dr. Whenever a doctor is mentioned or reviewed"

 

isn't that what I said?

 

"This can be further subdivided to include each particular surgeon/clinic that a comment has been posted"

 

Just wanted to clarify this, in case I was not too clear about it. Sometimes in the heat of the moment I may not express my thoughts clearly enough and take it for granted the reader will understand what I meant. I will try to be more specific in the future.

 

All this aside, I feel this segment can evolve as time progresses to offer members a feedback area with a minimum of superfluous information.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Pat,

 

Thank you for moving the thread to a more appropriate place and for your feedback. I think after all the facts have been presented it makes more sense to drop the blacklist idea...I brought it up as a discussion because I figured it was worth a consideration, for good or for bad...in this case, the cons outweight the pros, and since very few things are black and white, it's just as well.

 

Cousin_It,

 

You every well may have said the same thing...my head is clogged with a pretty nasty head cold...perhaps my senses have deceived me there, just like posting this thread in the questions and answers forum...whoops! so all that to say...I guess great minds think alike

 

Bill

[hairbank]

Good thread, Bill!

 

It a perfect world, I would love to have a "Blacklist" of HT surgeons who have butchered poor soles over the years. However, I think it would be very difficult, legally and otherwise, to devise such a list.

 

I believe our current system on HTN provides the checks and balances needed to be able to honestly evaluate and provide feedback on any surgeon in question. In the end, I believe we've stopped many from a trip to one of the known "hair mills" and offered them a seat in the chair of the best of the best from the Coalition.

 

I second B-spot's comments, Bill, .............you've offered wisdom to many here and you're comments and efforts are truly appreciated. Thanks so much for your contributions and offering such a detailed "blow by blow" of your HT's.......it's a huge help!

[Bill - Seemiller]

Thanks hairbank and again to B-spot! It's nice to know that I am appreciated here. And likewise...what would this forum be without you guys, hairbank, B-spot, Jotronic, Gorpy, and of course, Pat and Robert and the list goes on and on. It's you people that keeps me motivated in coming back to help others, knowing not only can I be here to help people, but that I have friends, peers also with a lot of knowledge. Cheers my brothers!

 

Bill

[NervousNelly]

Ofcourse it was my post about the need for doctors to showcase their work that started the discussion of a blacklist. As stated, in a perfect world it might be a good thing but unfortunately nothing is black and white. I'm quite certain that several of the coalition doctors that have been performing HT for several years have done some poor jobs. This ofcourse would not necessarily be do to lack of skill or moral integrity, but there are such drastic advancements in technology in the past few years. The "grey area" such as when was the surgery done is a huge factor in the outcome. I applaud the POSITIVE attitudes and sincerity that I've witnessed on this site and I would hate to change that.

By the way, my journey begins. I have my consult with Dr. Tessler next week. I'll keep everyone posted.

[Heliboy]

Bill,

Maybe because I am partial to shorter hair I think your hair looks best when shaved shorter. It seems to offer a better profile- but again I am a bit biased as I cut mine with a # 1 or 2 all the time. Your persistence in completing your goal has certainly paid off.