You are currently browsing the monthly archive for June 2007.
Yesterday I said that, “Blogging has proved in many ways to be a great way to gain expertise and get news.” I suspect some may question this statement, or dismiss it with a roll of the eyes.
I think there are a lot of statements about blogging that are probably way over the top, but I also think it would be dangerous not to realize that the practice is growing. While bloggers themselves can be hurt by their blogging because they forget about discretion, others can also be hurt.
I’ll deal with the danger below.
First, I want to point out the importance of blogging to some very powerful medical forces: pharmaceutical companies. Kevin MD led me this morning to the site of Peter Rost. Rost and his blogging have been profiled by Fortune magazine because he is shaking up pharmaceutical companies. With just a blog? Yes, a blog in the hands of a veteran Pharmaceutical executive who gets marginalized can be a dangerous thing. Recently another Pharmaceutical blog suggested that Pfizer needs to buy his silence.
If Pfizer is ever able to swallow its pride and offer Rost a decent settlement, it is highly likely that they would require that he never say a public word again about the company. And given the scale of pharma settlements, it is highly likely, IMHO, that Rost would feel duty bound to accept those terms. He has a house, wife and kids to provide for after all, and bloggging and publishing don’t make people rich.
Ironically, there are several pharma companies — AZ among them — who would love to be in Pfizer’s position right now for that exact reason.
This is all interesting in itself, but I am posting this simply to make the case that blogs can be powerful. A few days ago I posted on a medmal attorney who said that many angered or fearful patients come to him who don’t have a real medmal case, but simply have not been able to communicate with their physicians. I recently noticed confirmation about this issue in one of our major carriers’ website, who publish in their FAQ:
Don’t all those “value-added products” cause my premiums to be higher?
Quite the opposite. The additional services we offer our insured physicians are designed to help them spend their time in the treatment room and the operating room rather than the courtroom. Our focus is on preventing claims by helping physicians communicate more clearly with patients before treatment begins and keeping accurate records of patient consultations [emphasis added].
My point is that there are other things to fear beside litigation. The principle here for staying out of the courtroom also applies to staying out of the negative side of the blogosphere. The last thing you want is to find your practice blogged about somewhere where everyone can read it. One locally popular blogger could do a great deal of damage. You can’t control other people, of course, and if they are looking for a grievance or saying untrue things you can probably deal with it.
But we should all be aware of the potential pitfalls involved in not communicating clearly or making sure that patients’ questions are answered. This is a case where an ounce of prevention is much more valuable then the many pounds of cure that might be required.
Blogging has proved in many ways to be a great way to gain expertise and get news. Granted, this only happens in a small percentage of blogging, but since there are so many blogs, this still provides a great deal of benefit.
Lots of people are blogging now, including professionals.
Including doctors.
All well and good, but there is a downside. It is an obvious downside, but bloggers tend to forget it while participating in the blogospheric conversation. The blogger known as flea should serve as a reminder.
I hadn’t seen this post by Kevin, MD yet, so the hat tip goes to the GruntDoc, who wrote, “Flea was undone in court by his blogging. Incredible.” I’m not sure which part of this he finds incredible. I find it all to credible to believe that blogging about the details of one’s court case is an amazingly risky practice.
Kevin, MD wrote:
There is no anonymity on the web. If you blog under a pseudonym, people will find out who you are if they really wanted to. So with that in mind, blog as if the whole world is reading and knowing who you are.
It’s unfortunate for all concerned. For Flea obviously. But also for the medical blogosphere. The strength of blogging is its inherent openness and allowing the curtain to be “pulled back”. Now, every post will be filtered through this question: “Will this ever come up in a malpractice trial against me?”
I understand the wistfulness that we could all be more open. But the blogosphere, like all communication, needs to be treated with discretion. Attorneys always warn their clients about their communications, and there was no reason to assume one’s blog gave one freedom from those sorts of warnings. The only difference is that what you type on a blog is digitally recorded forever and can always be found by google.
So be wise.
PostScript (6/6/2007; 8pm): Here’s an analysis that says blogging may not have made that much of a difference in this case.
