Jump to content

Did Dr Hakan Doganay use fake accounts for publicity?Read this and decide it yourself


paleocapa89

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Senior Member
I just want to ask one thing that I often see on this site:

 

I really appreciate that anyone can express his/her opinion on this site freely. However what I often see is if a doctor's ethic or work is questioned by a patient, then it seems to me that the operators of this site often come and stand up for the doctor in question.

 

I don't understand how can they stand up for anyone or how can they recommend anyone if this site disclaims any kind of responsibility towards basically anything. To me the word recommend implies taking responsibility towards the recommendation.

 

This is the Terms of Services:

 

"...The physicians suggested on our Web Sites are to the best of our knowledge quality hair restoration physicians. However, Media Visions cannot vouch for these physicians, their experience, their credentials or the quality of their care...."

 

"...Web Site visitors are expected to do their own due diligence and research in selecting a physician and/or treatments. Media Visions and the Web Sites, and their employees, our partners, affiliates, sponsors, providers, licensors, or merchants make no warranties or guarantees, express or implied, as to the results or quality of care provided by the physicians or treatments presented on these Web Sites. We expressly disclaim any liability arising from consultation with, or treatment from, any of the physicians and their clinics presented on these Sites. ..."

 

..."THE WEB SITES CONTAIN FACTS, VIEWS, OPINIONS, STATEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIRD PARTY INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. THE SITES DO NOT REPRESENT OR ENDORSE THE ACCURACY, CURRENTNESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY ADVICE, OPINION, STATEMENT OR OTHER INFORMATION DISPLAYED, UPLOADED OR DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE SITES. ANY RELIANCE UPON ANY SUCH OPINION, ADVICE, STATEMENT OR INFORMATION IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK..."

 

I wonder whether they actually visited Dr Doganay in person before they recommended him to the audience of this site.

 

This post is where things really go off the rails. You're essentially demanding that the forum bear legal responsibility for conduct of the clinics. That's unrealistic, and as an attorney, I would never allow a client like the forum to get into a situation where it could be held liable for the (mis)conduct of entirely independent clinics. The forum can, to the best of its ability, try to assess the practices and quality of hundreds of clinics around the world and aggregate that information into recommendations, but it is impossible for the forum to exert control over medical practices or even be aware of changes in protocol unless informed by the clinics themselves--which may not always have an incentive to do so. If the forum bore liability for the clinics' results, it would not exist. Period.

 

Think about it--if you recommend a mechanic to your friend and the mechanic's repairs fail or he/she rips off your friend, your friend can't secure a legal judgment against you. You can't make someone pay you back for suggesting a concert that sucked. Life--and the legal system--demands that you take responsibility for the decisions you make using the information available to you.

 

The only entities that can and should bear some actual responsibility for clinics are legal/governmental regulatory entities, which have actual authority to certify and penalize doctors.

 

I wouldn't have drafted the disclaimers you cite above any differently for one of my clients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

Alright, I understand and accept your explanation. Legally it makes sense. I don't think either that they should carry responsibility towards the outcomes of the procedures. However, If I were a repair patient (and sadly I might end up as one) and my mission was to create a website to help educate people about hair transplants so future patients can evade the same mistakes that I did, my number one priority would be to make sure the quality of information and the quality of doctors I recommend are in fact reliable and unquestionable. That would mean total transparency and strict and continuous quality control towards my recommended affiliates.

 

I guess it's a choice whether you want to be an aggregator of information (with no intent to monitor the quality or validity of information) or an "authority" over and a manager of an alliance of recommended quality HT doctors. In the second case in my opinion there need to be some kind of quality control in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
This post is where things really go off the rails. You're essentially demanding that the forum bear legal responsibility for conduct of the clinics. That's unrealistic, and as an attorney, I would never allow a client like the forum to get into a situation where it could be held liable for the (mis)conduct of entirely independent clinics. The forum can, to the best of its ability, try to assess the practices and quality of hundreds of clinics around the world and aggregate that information into recommendations, but it is impossible for the forum to exert control over medical practices or even be aware of changes in protocol unless informed by the clinics themselves--which may not always have an incentive to do so. If the forum bore liability for the clinics' results, it would not exist. Period.

 

Think about it--if you recommend a mechanic to your friend and the mechanic's repairs fail or he/she rips off your friend, your friend can't secure a legal judgment against you. You can't make someone pay you back for suggesting a concert that sucked. Life--and the legal system--demands that you take responsibility for the decisions you make using the information available to you.

 

The only entities that can and should bear some actual responsibility for clinics are legal/governmental regulatory entities, which have actual authority to certify and penalize doctors.

 

I wouldn't have drafted the disclaimers you cite above any differently for one of my clients.

 

Love how Paleo is now trying to blame and go after the moderators of this site, yet still does not fully own up and take responsibility for his own ignorance and lack of due dilligince initially. Next he is going to start blaming individual posters, so maybe we should all add our own disclaimers before posting opinions, otherwise I supect we are next.

 

Paleo, there is a comprehensive due dilligience process performed by the moderators to assess surgeons for recommendations which does involve a visit to the clinics. I think you are freakin out of your freakin mind if you then expect them not to disclaim legal responsibility - they would have gone out of business if they never did that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Love how Paleo is now trying to blame and go after the moderators of this site, yet still does not fully own up and take responsibility for his own ignorance and lack of due dilligince initially. Next he is going to start blaming individual posters, so maybe we should all add our own disclaimers before posting opinions, otherwise I supect we are next.

 

Paleo, there is a comprehensive due dilligience process performed by the moderators to assess surgeons for recommendations which does involve a visit to the clinics. I think you are freakin out of your freakin mind if you then expect them not to disclaim legal responsibility - they would have gone out of business if they never did that.

 

I think your attack towards me is uncalled for. I am not trying to blame anybody for my own faults, nor going after the moderators of this site. I have accepted responsibility for my own faults and my lack of research numerous times. (although I could ask how should one do a proper research if the source of the information disclaims any accuracy, currentness or reliability of the information provided).

 

All I'm trying to do is to point out some inherent errors in the system to help it make a better and safer place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

Paleo, my man, I mean this sincerely--your work is done here. There's nothing more for you to do.

 

You've done a tremendous service to the forum. You've unearthed a wealth of insight and information. You've made many reconsider their pre-op due diligence and re-think how and who they should proceed with as a surgeon. You've learned about yourself and your own mistakes in the process too... I think.

 

At minimum, it'll bring about some restructuring, and even more skepticism to the forum. At best, the moderators will modify their recommendation process, and maybe even update the look/feel of the site to make this happen (long overdue).

 

All that should matter right now is achieving the best possible outcome. Results. That's it bud. You should already feel vindicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
although I could ask how should one do a proper research if the source of the information disclaims any accuracy, currentness or reliability of the information provided)..

 

 

Exactly!!!!! That is actually why the onus should be on you and you alone to make sure you are doing more due dilligince than just going with a surgeon just because he/she/them is recommended by this site. I made that mistake, and am suffering the consequences for it. I can't blame the clinic, and I certainly cannot blame the moderators of a website. Its all on me, and me alone as I made the choice. I really do think there is enough imformation on this forum and out there for patients to make an informed decision about this type of elective surgery. Its a crying shame it is not as easy as just being able to pick any recommended surgeon, but it is what it is, and I personally believe that Pat and Bill do the best they can, and at the end of the day, the world is definitely a better place because of this forum than without it. If one does the proper research, then you should come to a point where you end up with a top 5 of Hasson, Rahal, Shapero, and Konior for FUT, and Feriduni, Loronzo, Erdogan, Shapiro and Konior for FUE. It took time, but thats where I ended, and if you don't end up with enough knowledge to make the right decision, then its probably just laziness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Exactly!!!!! That is actually why the onus should be on you and you alone to make sure you are doing more due dilligince than just going with a surgeon just because he/she/them is recommended by this site. I made that mistake, and am suffering the consequences for it. I can't blame the clinic, and I certainly cannot blame the moderators of a website. Its all on me, and me alone as I made the choice. I really do think there is enough imformation on this forum and out there for patients to make an informed decision about this type of elective surgery. Its a crying shame it is not as easy as just being able to pick any recommended surgeon, but it is what it is, and I personally believe that Pat and Bill do the best they can, and at the end of the day, the world is definitely a better place because of this forum than without it. If one does the proper research, then you should come to a point where you end up with a top 5 of Hasson, Rahal, Shapero, and Konior for FUT, and Feriduni, Loronzo, Erdogan, Shapiro and Konior for FUE. It took time, but thats where I ended, and if you don't end up with enough knowledge to make the right decision, then its probably just laziness.

 

Yes, I did the same mistake. And many more people might potentially make the same mistake. The thing is, if one is uneducated and see the word recommended one might think that it can be trusted. Recommended is a very strong word, and in this case it can be misleading. There is not even an order between the doctors (except for coalition/non coalition)

 

You probably did a very thorough research and you probably would recommend those doctors you mentioned without hesitation, and you probably would use any of those doc's services. Can the same thing be said about the many doctors this site recommends and the operators of this site? Would they go to any of those doctors for a procedure? Probably not. In that case isn't it a bit hypocritical to use the word "recommended"? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call them for example affiliated clinics or something?

 

I know, I am being naive again..

Edited by paleocapa89
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Yes, I did the same mistake. And many more people might potentially make the same mistake. The thing is, if one is uneducated and see the word recommended one might think that it can be trusted. Recommended is a very strong word, and in this case it can be misleading. There is not even an order between the doctors (except for coalition/non coalition)

 

You probably did a very thorough research and you probably would recommend those doctors you mentioned without hesitation, and you probably would use any of those doc's services. Can the same thing be said about the many doctors this site recommends and the operators of this site? Would they go to any of those doctors for a procedure? Probably not. In that case isn't it a bit hypocritical to use the word "recommended"? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call them for example affiliated clinics or something?

 

I know, I am being naive again..

 

I don't think the word recommended is misleading, especially with the disclaimer that goes along with it. That's exactly what the moderators are doing here, they are recommending certain surgeons they believe meet and exceed certain standards. Now we both might not agree with those standards, and by g-d there are some recommended surgeons who are average at best, but I believe the goal is to provide a list of surgeons who are solid and who are least likely to meet it up. Doganay probably met those standards at one point, but unfortunately for you, he seems to have dropped. Remember, you don't even know for sure your procedure was a failure, let's see in 3-6 months. The most important thing to remember is that the list is not one that identifies the best of the best surgeons, unfortunately we have to dig deeper to identify those. Maybe we should start our on website with the list of top 5 best of the best recommended surgeons, but even then it would be foolish to actually stand-Behind them and open ourselves up to being sued, and yes the Paleos of the world would come after us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

Paleo,

 

Your documentation is extremely powerful. Especially for some that may be monitoring and logging details from your thread. Many folks may not understand how powerful, but it is. It is the type of whistleblowing that is rarely seen. Some remain quiet, while some inform bystanders. There arent many folks that can utilize such logic to construct such in depth documentation and cross examinations. Safety of patients / consumers is extremely important, even when it comes to paid marketing, advertisement platforms across the web. Ethics is a standard that should be followed by all businesses. Consumer safety is paramount. Businesses should do what's right and to do so without deceit. Once trust is lost, it is lost. A lot of folks even those active on other forums are talking about your thread and experiences others have had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

I agree to disagree Stig. I think it is indeed misleading to highlight and use the word of "recommended" on the front page and have a disclaimer at the back which is not as evident to find and which basically says, "btw we take no responsibility for anything what so ever, so if you rely on any of the information that might not even be valid or accurate, it is your own risk". The two pieces of information are separated and the connection between them might not be evident to everybody.

 

And even if these doctors were pre-screened and they met some sort of standards before they got recommended, it seems that these recommendations should only apply to that particular moment in time when the screening was done. It seems that there is no quality control in place that assures that they are in fact continuously meeting those standards. So it would be more appropriate to display them like: XY doctor last met our standards of recommendations when we screened him in 2014.04.21.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
I agree to disagree Stig. I think it is indeed misleading to highlight and use the word of "recommended" on the front page and have a disclaimer at the back which is not as evident to find and which basically says, "btw we take no responsibility for anything what so ever, so if you rely on any of the information that might not even be valid or accurate, it is your own risk". The two pieces of information are separated and the connection between them might not be evident to everybody.

 

And even if these doctors were pre-screened and they met some sort of standards before they got recommended, it seems that these recommendations should only apply to that particular moment in time when the screening was done. It seems that there is no quality control in place that assures that they are in fact continuously meeting those standards. So it would be more appropriate to display them like: XY doctor last met our standards of recommendations when we screened him in 2014.04.21.

 

Bill has stated that that they do monitor an ongoing basis and clinics have been dropped from the list. That process is less transparent though as I have seen surgeons dissapear quietly from the list without a peep from the moderators. Can you imagine booking a surgery with a recommended surgeon, and then don't even know he gets thrown out or the reason why. To me that's my gripe with this forum. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they remove Doganay without even announcing it, maybe you should keep checking if his name is still on the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

There is a lot of discussion regarding the recommendation process, the use of this website and in particular Dr. Doganay. While our recommendation process may not be perfect, I like to think of the cop has 80% full rather than 20% empty. Yes, there are certainly things that we can improve on and are in the process of improving on. In addition, we are in the process of changing the look and feel of some of our websites. We are also looking at changing pieces of the recommendation process to be more thorough, which includes an ongoing evaluation process so that we can feel confident continuing to recommend surgeons. Just because a surgeon is approved for recommendation, doesn't mean they obtain tenure. Any surgeons recommendation can be discontinued if they don't continue to meet our high standards recommendation. That is why the question of whether or not we should continue with Dr. Doganay's recommendation exists.

 

I am still in the process of speaking with the surgeon and the clinic privately. I did receive an exclamation of all 12 to 15 cases people had concerns about. I have asked the clinic to provide a public explanation, however I am still discussing other things with the clinic privately.

 

I do feel that their private explanation regarding all 12 to 15 cases or satisfactory as each case has to be taken separately. However the reality is, we are not exactly sure how involved the surgeon is during the procedure anymore. I am waiting to hear back from them on this and have suggested that the doctor consider getting more involved like he used to which may take care of any possible quality control issues that exist. If the doctor does agreed to become more involved again, I think perhaps we can give him another chance and possibly just put him on probation to see how things go and whether or not they improve over time.

 

Regarding the potential fake accounts, there is no solid evidence one way or another. I agree that it looks bad and it is possible that the clinic used fake accounts to promote themselves. However, as long as this behavior does not continue, I think this alone can be forgiven and we can move on. But the greater issue of physician involvement and cases of poor growth must be addressed publicly by the clinic.

 

That said, this particular topic cannot go on forever either. The concerns have been brought to our attention and we are addressing them. Once the clinic responds and we come to a conclusion, it is time to move on from this topic.

 

I would like to know everybody's thoughts on everything I said above.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

Sorry Bill what exactly does probation entail? Are you going to post a big warning sign next to the doctor mentioning that the surgeon is on probation because his quality standards have slipped? If I was the doctor I would rather just be removed from the recommended list and work towards getting added back, and if I was a potential patient, and saw that, I would run for the hills. Or, are you juts going to keep everything as is with some small print somewhere that the doctor is on probabtion if anything at all. If its the later, then I think you are doing a massive disservice to potential patients that pick him for a procedure and I am afraid that your recommended listing then loses alot credibility. If the doctor is not currently meeting standards, then he should be removed until he can demonstrate consistently that he is meeting standards again - only then should he be added back. I think giving the doctor a 2nd chance like this just does a disservice to patients picking him, I really do. What happens if you keep him on the list, put him on probation, and he still doesn't improve - then what do you tell the patients that picked him duri ng that probation period? whoops sorry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Think about it--if you recommend a mechanic to your friend and the mechanic's repairs fail or he/she rips off your friend, your friend can't secure a legal judgment against you. You can't make someone pay you back for suggesting a concert that sucked.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but your analogy fails because in each of your examples, the recommender is not being paid (directly or indirectly) by the persons who are recommended. Here, it is. I think that complicates the question.

 

Life--and the legal system--demands that you take responsibility for the decisions you make using the information available to you.

 

I'm not so sure about this either. There can be negligence in referrals and recommendations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Guys,

 

There is a lot of discussion regarding the recommendation process, the use of this website and in particular Dr. Doganay. While our recommendation process may not be perfect, I like to think of the cop has 80% full rather than 20% empty. Yes, there are certainly things that we can improve on and are in the process of improving on. In addition, we are in the process of changing the look and feel of some of our websites. We are also looking at changing pieces of the recommendation process to be more thorough, which includes an ongoing evaluation process so that we can feel confident continuing to recommend surgeons. Just because a surgeon is approved for recommendation, doesn't mean they obtain tenure. Any surgeons recommendation can be discontinued if they don't continue to meet our high standards recommendation. That is why the question of whether or not we should continue with Dr. Doganay's recommendation exists.

 

I am still in the process of speaking with the surgeon and the clinic privately. I did receive an exclamation of all 12 to 15 cases people had concerns about. I have asked the clinic to provide a public explanation, however I am still discussing other things with the clinic privately.

 

I do feel that their private explanation regarding all 12 to 15 cases or satisfactory as each case has to be taken separately. However the reality is, we are not exactly sure how involved the surgeon is during the procedure anymore. I am waiting to hear back from them on this and have suggested that the doctor consider getting more involved like he used to which may take care of any possible quality control issues that exist. If the doctor does agreed to become more involved again, I think perhaps we can give him another chance and possibly just put him on probation to see how things go and whether or not they improve over time.

 

Regarding the potential fake accounts, there is no solid evidence one way or another. I agree that it looks bad and it is possible that the clinic used fake accounts to promote themselves. However, as long as this behavior does not continue, I think this alone can be forgiven and we can move on. But the greater issue of physician involvement and cases of poor growth must be addressed publicly by the clinic.

 

That said, this particular topic cannot go on forever either. The concerns have been brought to our attention and we are addressing them. Once the clinic responds and we come to a conclusion, it is time to move on from this topic.

 

I would like to know everybody's thoughts on everything I said above.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

 

Bill,

 

I respect the balancing act you're up against and need to remain diplomatic. But im sorry, this statement below is unacceptable and a slap in the face to the group:

I am waiting to hear back from them on this and have suggested that the doctor consider getting more involved like he used to which may take care of any possible quality control issues that exist. If the doctor does agreed to become more involved again, I think perhaps we can give him another chance and possibly just put him on probation to see how things go and whether or not they improve over time.

 

"Suggested that the doctor consider getting more involved" ? He's the doctor!

 

Would we condone a technician doing a heart transplant? What about an assistant doing a knee replacement? What about brain surgery? Why are we so accepting of this horrifying trend in an already unregulated yet growing area of medicine.

 

And if he does agree to do the job he's responsible for doing we'll let him hang on probation? Time for some tough love man. The patients should not be forced to set the standards based on poor trends. A poor outcome is inevitable, but one produced by technicans rather than the doctor himself is not ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

To Bill:

 

This is a joke. After all the things that were discovered about this clinic, you truly believe the only concern is that "you are not exactly sure how involved the surgeon is during the procedure anymore"? But no problem because you have suggested him to "consider getting more involved"?

 

After all the things that were discovered, would you recommend him wholeheartedly? Would you have your own procedure at this clinic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

Question mods:

 

Would it be too much to ask each clinic to provide 3 results per month in order to remain in good standing? Cherry-picking results or even posting intermittently doesn't feel sufficient any longer.

 

Everyone would gain from this. Top doctors could further validate themselves, up and comers would have an easier time gaining credibility, and poor doctors would weed themselves out. Win / Win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Question mods:

 

Would it be too much to ask each clinic to provide 3 results per month in order to remain in good standing? Cherry-picking results or even posting intermittently doesn't feel sufficient any longer.

 

Everyone would gain from this. Top doctors could further validate themselves, up and comers would have an easier time gaining credibility, and poor doctors would weed themselves out. Win / Win.

 

Not sure whether that would be practical or even possible.

 

This forum needs to come to grips with the idea that held 10 years ago and has, in fact, secretly been the case all along: this is a sleazy business full of bad actors who are willing to say (and do) virtually anything to get your money. That's the reality of it. And no "recommendation" or other stamp of approval should be taken as a foolproof indication that a particular doctor isn't a bum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Question mods:

 

Would it be too much to ask each clinic to provide 3 results per month in order to remain in good standing? Cherry-picking results or even posting intermittently doesn't feel sufficient any longer.

 

Everyone would gain from this. Top doctors could further validate themselves, up and comers would have an easier time gaining credibility, and poor doctors would weed themselves out. Win / Win.

 

Esrec, well providing 3 results per month when surgeons such as Rahal perform 10 a week - lets say 45 in a month so 3 from 45 is still cherry-picking though isn't it? Someone like Konior or Dr Ron Shapiro who performs half of that would have less to choose from. I like the concept though, very good idea. Clinics can post all the best results, but what about the average or bad results?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...