inignoct wrote:
] ] So, Mr. Dawson said, he was stunned this week to find
] ] that his name had been added to a little-known Internet
] ] database for doctors attacking "litigious behavior." His
] ] offense: filing a medical malpractice lawsuit against a
] ] Fort Worth hospital and doctor over the death of his
] ] 39-year-old wife, whose brain tumor was missed, and
] ] winning an undisclosed settlement.
]
] [ Some interesting issues brought up here... On the one hand,
] minimizing the frivolous or excessive lawsuits is a good
] thing, and benefits everyone, but it seems unethical not to
] distinguish the cases based on the details and merit of the
] actions. A balance needs to be struck between maintaining
] people's ability to punish bad doctors and limiting their
] ability to make boatloads of money on lesser claims. thoughts
] from the community? -k]

RYAN SEZ:
This is about assessing risk and an unfortunate side effect of the ease of internet publishing. This really is no different than what the house insurance people do-- if you put in a claim on your homeowner's insurance, they pay it out and then cancel your coverage. When you try to get new coverage, you discover your name has been put on a list of people who make claims.

Of course this is where I seem to think some sort of government regulation comes in, but then again, why make people play by rules? Unfairness is the American Way TM.

ryan is the supernicety wrote:

] This is about assessing risk and an unfortunate side effect of
] the ease of internet publishing. This really is no different
] than what the house insurance people do-- if you put in a
] claim on your homeowner's insurance, they pay it out and then
] cancel your coverage. When you try to get new coverage, you
] discover your name has been put on a list of people who make
] claims.

Or, if you bounce a check you get put in a system which makes it impossible for you to get a bank account. Or, in some cities (notably Vancouver), your ID is scanned when you enter a bar, and if you get kicked out you can't go to a bar again. It is a natural extension of credit reporting, and it is rapidly gaining ground as networking becomes less expensive.

There is a lot of thin logic parlayed about by the people who run these systems. They say that they simply collect data, and they are not responsible for how businesses use the data, or what data gets put into the system. Different businesses have different policies about gets put in, and what they do about it. (Typically in the case of checksystems branches will refuse you at outset but you can negotiate with the branch manager, so even companies don't have consistent policies.) Businesses frequently point you back to the database owner if you express a concern about the system. You are essentially left without recourse because no one will take responsibility for the content of the system.

You can see such diversion in this article. "We don't know anything about this system, but we're mad as hell about frivolous lawsuits." Clearly, the system encompases people who aren't involved in frivolous lawsuits, so what do frivolous lawsuits have to do with it?

I beleive that the government has an interest in regulating these systems, just as they regulate credit reporting databases. There should be clear rules about what sort of data can or must be reported, and on what basis. The data should have a clear meaning. A simple black list is not appropriate. What, When and Why. There should be rules allowing access to the data for those who are reported on. There should be a process for clearing ones name. There should be criminal penalities for inappropriate reporting. These rules will have to be broad enough to encompass any such database, as they are cropping up all over the place now.

This NYT article is a first step. I don't recall such coverage of checksystems. The website in question appears to be history. But this isn't going to get resolved until it becomes a public political issue in elections.