Refractive Community Responds to Public Postings of Private Physician Correspondences
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Correspondences
Cataract & Refractive Surgery Today recently informed readers that
excerpts of private e-mails exchanged between physician members of the
International Society for Refractive Surgery (ISRS) had been posted on
the public Internet newsgroup alt.lasik-eyes, causing substantial
concern among the refractive surgery community. The newsgroup can be
accessed by the public from the Web site www.lasikcourt.com by
clicking on "Links." ISRS recently provided us with the following
statement in response:
"It has come to the attention of ISRS that certain individuals may
have made, displayed, and disseminated copies of copyrighted and
confidential materials taken without authorization from our private
computer network. Attorneys for ISRS have notified these individuals
of the apparent violations they may have committed and have demanded
that they cease any unlawful activity. ISRS is currently investigating
the methods by which material has been misappropriated from its site
and intends to take all action necessary to protect its interests and
the interests of those whose right to privacy may have been violated."
In connection with this incident, Herman Sloane, MD, of Chicago, whose
private comments were among those published, said, "Although many of
the conversations seem innocuous to us, they may be quite shocking
when taken out of context and viewed by a public not normally exposed
to such candid exchanges."
SOURCE: Pillsbury & Levinson, LLP press release.
Gary Anderson
but I do agree that there is a privacy issue. I
would be very interested in hearing some ideas as
to what refractive surgery practitionners would
consider "fair" when the general public tries to
understand their opinions on LASIK.
Do they believe that it is a great service? Are
they motivated by the money? At what point do
business concerns outweigh "minimal" patient
risks?
These are some concerns that the general public
has. Unfortunately, the marketing that the
refractive surgery puts forth does not shed very
much light on these matters. This is why the
"private correspondence" gets threw up on bulletin
boards. I fully agree that taking messages out of
context is a serious problem and just the
disclosure is a real privacy issue.
Some people would call this practice "getting
even". Others would call it "whistle blowing".
The refractive surgery practitionners would
probably call "invasion of privacy". What's the
alternative? I would really like to know what
type of "whistle blowing" the refractive surgery
industry would be willing to support.
<Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery
Quality Assurance glenn....@usaeyes.org> wrote
in message
news:4i4r4vg7e8poov4aq...@4ax.com...
Brent Hanson
Are these the postings to which your so-called "press release" refers?
http://www.lasikcourt.com/isrs/bb_01.html
http://www.lasikcourt.com/isrs/bb_02.html
http://www.lasikcourt.com/isrs/bb_03.html
If so, Pillsbury & Levinson ought to refund their fees to ISRS, as
they have NOT "notified these individuals of the apparent violations
they may have committed and have demanded that they cease any unlawful
activity."
If Pillsbury & Levinson did issue such a "press release", I would like
to thank them for providing access to my web site.
Larry Bickford
and forums that we should not consider things we post really "private".
Anything we say should be things we fear not if repeated.
So being forewarned, then what was is considered private should be so
and you should respect that privacy as a matter of respect,
consideration, honesty, ethics---whatever. As you should expect things
that are private to you to remain so.
I would hope privacy would go beyond the need to legislate it and come
from ourselves, because when you give that up, you've given up.
That being said, there's plenty of available literature in professional
journals, transcripts of seminars and meetings. Lots of stuff which
speaks clearly of the benefits and successes of refractive surgery and
plenty which investigates the problems, risks and the serious
complications and horrors.
So please let's civilize the discussion here and, well, discuss and not
argue and flame. I know the folks who suffer from bad outcomes feel
they either want to save others from their grief or bash the profession
in their anger and sadness. But those who are happy are welcome here,
too, and it's nice to hear of successes.
Here's a good one!
I propose that you folks on both sides of the issue get together and
develope a FAQ document to post here. Both sides. Referenced referrals
and guidance. Then move the daily discussion to new stuff that reflects
changes in the thinking or content of the FAQ.
"Just the facts, sir."
Actually, an opinion section should be welcome and updated regularly.
Come on, give it a try. The only thing that can come of it is the
truth, in its many parts, assembled for easy absorption.
--LB
--
Dr. Larry Bickford, O.D.
Family Practice Optometry Eye & Vision Care
The EyecareConnection
http://www.eyecarecontacts.comSPAMTRAP
email: larrybic at mac dot com
**Information posted for educational purposes only. Consult with
your doctor for diagnose and treatment of medical issues.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>but I do agree that there is a privacy issue. I
>would be very interested in hearing some ideas as
>to what refractive surgery practitionners would
>consider "fair" when the general public tries to
>understand their opinions on LASIK.
I think what is considered "unfair" is when private emails between
doctors are inappropriately retrieved, quotes taken out of context,
and then published on someone's website.
>Do they believe that it is a great service?
Generally yes, but there are minority opinions that express concern
with doing surgery on healthy tissue for the sake of the convenience
of a reduced need for corrective lenses. By generally accepted
medical standards, LASIK is safe and effective.
>Are
>they motivated by the money?
There are not too many people in the US who became doctors to be poor.
To some degree, every doctor is motivated by money. Then again, so is
just about every other working stiff. I think the question is really,
"Are they motivated by money to the point of providing substandard
care in the name of profit?" There are examples of this. Thankfully,
they are few and far between.
>At what point do
>business concerns outweigh "minimal" patient
>risks?
And therein lies the rub. There are people who believe that no one
should ever receive refractive surgery of any kind for any reason.
There are others who seem to believe they have never seen an eye they
shouldn't laser. The first criteria to answer this question is what
you consider appropriate risk. The second question is who is
providing surgery beyond what you consider appropriate.
>
>These are some concerns that the general public
>has. Unfortunately, the marketing that the
>refractive surgery puts forth does not shed very
>much light on these matters.
No kidding, but then that is the nature of business. A hamburger
chain is not going to advertise the FDA approved amount of "rodent
parts" that are allowed in their burgers. Refractive surgeons are
going to tout the benefits as much as the legally can, then leave it
up to the informed consent process to educate the patient. Of course,
there are those who feel an informed consent is should be required
before buying a hamburger.
> This is why the
>"private correspondence" gets threw up on bulletin
>boards. I fully agree that taking messages out of
>context is a serious problem and just the
>disclosure is a real privacy issue.
Some people believe that anything that puts LASIK in a bad light
justifies the means by which it is achieved. Unfortunately, the
opposite sometimes seems to be true.
>Some people would call this practice "getting
>even". Others would call it "whistle blowing".
Hanson has provided links to where these postings are published on his
website. Read them yourself and decide if they are punishment or
protection.
>The refractive surgery practitionners would
>probably call "invasion of privacy". What's the
>alternative? I would really like to know what
>type of "whistle blowing" the refractive surgery
>industry would be willing to support.
Whistle blowing implies a secret. The need for whistle blowing
implies public health is at risk. Read the articles and see if there
is anything there that you believe benefits the public health by being
made public.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
http://www.usaeyes.org
glenn....@usaeyes.org
I am not a doctor.
LASIKdisaster
jk
to potential refractive surgery candidates at its own Web site,
www.usaeyes.org. "As part of my responsibilities for CRSQA, I monitor most
public Internet exchanges regarding refractive surgery," says Hagele.
"Normally, I just research answers for patients' questions and concerns, but
much of my time lately has been [spent] responding to the inflammatory and
misleading postings of anti-LASIK zealots."
============================================================================
=============
Looks like good ol Glenn is getting into the "Lasik police" mode policing
posible negative content made by surgeons and advising them so they can
inistitute damage control. The angle here is Glenn hopes more surgeons will
join CRSQA as they believe Glenn will look out for them on public forums.
Glenn, perhaps you should get a job?
"LASIKdisaster" <lasikd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b854ce72.03021...@posting.google.com...
> http://www.crstoday.com/02_current/crst0103_01_news.html
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
I have been able to obtain excellent information about specific
surgeons from the Internet, including information in postings on these
newsgroups and from websites of patient's personal experiences.
An example of how the Internet distributed patient experiences have
been helpful is that whenever a doctor seeks our certification, one of
the things I do is search the Internet for anything negative about a
doctor and do the research necessary to verify the validity of the
information. The verified information is then evaluated to determine
how it may or may not be relevant to a doctor's request for
certification.
We re-evaluate CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeons each quarter and a
part of that re-evaluation is information we receive from patient
sources. It is common for me to run a search or reference a post I
read with information relating to one of our affiliated doctors.
Some of the quotes Hanson and others published were attributed to
CRSQA affiliated surgeons. In following up the information, I found
that the source was private emails and the doctors did not know that
private conversations were being made public.
Needless to say, everyone I contacted was concerned about what private
information was being made public and how private information was
accessed.
Obviously, Hanson and those who published the information expected the
doctors to learn of these events. Hanson even went so far as to thank
the author a ophthalmic trade news article for publishing his website
URL. If Hanson and those involved did nothing wrong, there should be
no concern that the authors of the private emails would know where
they are being published. It seems highly unlikely that Hanson would
have expected the doctors to never learn he had placed their private
conversations on his website. The fact that I was the one who
notified some of them is moot.
I "look out" for inaccurate information and accurate information that
is important to patient concerns. When someone attributes a statement
or event to a particular doctor (especially one affiliated with
CRSQA), it is very likely that I will verify that information. When
the statement is uncharacteristic of what a doctor would normally
state publicly, I'm certainly suspicious. In this case, the quotes
Hanson published appear to be authentic, but were meant to be private.
LASIKdisaster
The person sending the message to the list does not know to whom else
it will be sent. There could be 50 subscribers to that list, or
50,000. They might all be doctors, or might not be. Those doctors
apparently learned the hard way that you don't write anything to a
mailing list that you don't want published on the front page of the
New York Times or the National Enquirer. Interestingly, a discussion
about this issue has previously taken place on the www.seniordoc.org
forums, and the optometrists there apparently know better than to
behave as the refractive surgeons have.
Is the FBI still investigating this situation of doctors calling each
other whores and prostitutes on an internet mailing list?
Dan Abel
lasikd...@aol.com (LASIKdisaster) wrote:
> Mailing list messages are not quite the same as "private" e-mails.
> The person sending the message to the list does not know to whom else
> it will be sent. There could be 50 subscribers to that list, or
> 50,000. They might all be doctors, or might not be. Those doctors
There are mailing lists, and there are mailing lists. Some are open to
all to subscribe to and write to, and some allow only the list owner to
make subscriptions. Some allow only the list owner to write messages. I
belong to mailing lists with (I think) all possible combinations. It is
often possible for any member of a list to find out exactly who is
subscribed to that list. It depends on what software is used to manage
and maintain the list.
If in fact these doctors had a closed and controlled mailing list, then
they could expect a certain degree of privacy. Just like love letters
written to someone other than your spouse, though, you better be darn sure
of everyone you share them with.
--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
da...@sonic.net
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
private list only for members of the ISRS and a user ID and password
was required to particpate. It isn't quite like any other email. The
participants had a reasonable expectation to privacy. At the very
least, they had a reasonable expectation that their emails would not
taken out of context and be published on an anti-LASIK website.
Emails are like a microphone or a weapon. A microphone is always on
and a gun is always loaded. You never say anything in a room with a
microphone that you would not want broadcast and you never handle a
gun as if it is not ready to fire.
>Is the FBI still investigating this situation of doctors calling each
>other whores and prostitutes on an internet mailing list?
Last I heard, it is not a federal crime to call someone a whore.
Maybe a civil libel/slander case, but not a crime. I'm sure the FBI
will only want to determine if a crime was committed in the process of
obtaining and publishing the emails.