|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > July 2005 > Leukoma and malpractice on LME
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Leukoma and malpractice on LME
|
|
| serebel 2005-07-20, 2:12 pm |
| Someone named Jenny post of her post lasik problems
(dryness,Swelling,etc) on LME and Luekoma diagnoses interstitial
keratitus. Isn't that malpractice? He has never seen her but can
diagnose her over the internet. She has even posted that her
optometrist, who has examined her BTW, says no to interstitial
keratitus. But Leukoma still thinks she has it.
That is malpractice.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-07-20, 2:12 pm |
| Federal law makes it impossible for a doctor to diagnose over an open
Internet forum such as LaserMyEye. Even if a doctor makes a
"diagnosis", it is not a medical diagnosis in the eyes of the law.
Furthermore, the website's disclaimer clearly states all communication
is for information purposes only and is not medical advice.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| serebel 2005-07-20, 2:12 pm |
| I'm not stating malpractice in the legal sense, I should have clearly
stated this malpractice in the sense of really bad judgement on the
part of an optometrist.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-07-20, 2:12 pm |
| I see absolutely nothing wrong with a knowledgeable person advising
others based upon information provided by the patient. For that
matter, I do it all the time with researched information.
It is often helpful to indicate what malady may be affecting him/her
and what response to take. That response is almost always either
something that would not compromise the patient, and/or to seek an
examination and care of a professional.
I don't know about this particular case, but many patients who seek
help through these forums have a significant amount of data regarding
their condition and conclusions are often easy to form.
Of course, nobody in their right mind should accept ONLY the advice of
someone (anyone) over the Internet, no matter how knowledgeable that
person may appear to be. Nothing is as valid as an examination by a
competent physician, however Internet communication may help point the
patient in the right direction and away from harm's way.
If people were not seeking an answer to their medical question, then
what is the purpose of coming here? Just to rant and rave about a
particular opinion or agenda? What a dreadful place the Internet
would become if that were the end result.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-20, 2:12 pm |
| It's always nice to have a disclaimer on the website, however, it
isn't good enough legally. Also, it is not a medical diagnosis in the
eyes of the law, which makes it an unlawful diagnosis.
It is malpractice.
If someone identifies themselves as being a doctor, they are liable
for any information they give. This is why a certain person goes out
of his way to sign off as "I am not a doctor" just in case anybody
even made that assumption.
Also, one reason you see so few doctor's posting in newsgroups is that
they are liable for what they say.
One way of covering one's own XXX is to say something like "your
symptoms indicate that you might have (some affliction)". And then go
on to refer the patient to someone else. Of course, we all know that
certain people are only interested in trolling for patients - so they
aren't going to refer anybody to anyone.
Authority and liability go hand-in-hand.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 03:27:39 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Federal law makes it impossible for a doctor to diagnose over an open
>Internet forum such as LaserMyEye. Even if a doctor makes a
>"diagnosis", it is not a medical diagnosis in the eyes of the law.
>Furthermore, the website's disclaimer clearly states all communication
>is for information purposes only and is not medical advice.
>
>Glenn Hagele
>Executive Director
>USAEyes.org
>
>"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
>
>Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
>http://www.USAEyes.org
>http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
>I am not a doctor.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-07-20, 2:12 pm |
| A medical disclaimer on any Internet medium is superfluous. Federal
code and judicial case law has already established that a physician's
advice on an open Internet forum is not medical advise under the law.
I state that I'm not a doctor in each post because I am so often
thought to be a physician and I do not want to mislead. It is not an
issue of legality, but one of transparency.
In the first few months I was positing on Internet forums I did not
add this clarification, and confusion too often occurred. It is,
however, a nice compliment when someone refers to me as Dr. Hagele.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| serebel 2005-07-20, 2:12 pm |
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> I see absolutely nothing wrong with a knowledgeable person advising
> others based upon information provided by the patient. For that
> matter, I do it all the time with researched information.
>
That wasn't the case. The patient stated upon actual examination she
did not have interstitial keratitis. Leukoma then stated that he still
thinks that she had it. That is the point of my original post.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-20, 2:12 pm |
| I don't know why anyone would argue with SERebel... he is right that
the physician was wrong in what he did.
Frankly, what is legally allowed is irrelevant. It seems that courts
get things wrong quite often. I happen to think that the judicial
system gets it wrong more often than right. They get it wrong when
they fail to convict the guilty, and they get it wrong when they find
innocent people guilty. They also get it wrong when the punishments
are excessive or the punishments are trivial. As an example of that,
Martha Stewart got away with a 5 month sentence in a minimum security
"camp" for the exact same conviction as a black man got locked away in
a REAL prison for for 20 years.
The bottom line is, legal or not, the advice the doctor gave was
irresponsible and exceeded his area of expertise. He's a wanna be
ophthalmologist.
On 15 Jul 2005 20:11:30 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
>
>That wasn't the case. The patient stated upon actual examination she
>did not have interstitial keratitis. Leukoma then stated that he still
>thinks that she had it. That is the point of my original post.
>
>SErebel
|
| |
|
|