From: gwr@hedonist-1.lanl.gov (Graham W. Redgrave)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: the evils of the term "netside manner" (Was Re: Diabetic coma)
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:54:45 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <16238@pitt.UUCP>, km@speedy.cs.pitt.edu (Ken Mitchum) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug26.232922.17792@javelin.sim.es.com> bgeer@javelin.sim.es.com writes:
[stuff deleted...]
|> >  Medical information that is not communicated in this
|> >manner may quite easily mislead someone into injuring themselves or
|> >others.  
|> >
|> 
|> Well, I view this as the final straw. As I have indicated before, I
|> have always been worried about the possibility of people taking the
|> net too seriously, of view information here as medical advice and to
|> infer some type of doctor-patient relationship from encounters here.
|> The increasing insistence from others regarding the tone, nature,
|> and content of postings from medical people here has me worried.
|> Gordon posted honest, factual information regarding spina bifida and
|> associated conditions, and is being reamed for it because of
|> "netside manner", whatever that is.

In my enthusiasm to explore the issue of Gordon Banks' presentation of the
information he gave on spina bifida as a way of exploring the relationship
between one net.communicant and another, I unwittingly crossed the line
of assuming that that relationship _is_ one of doctor-patient.  THAT IS
CLEARLY WRONG:  THERE IS NO DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP ON THE NET.  I tried
to say that I had realized my mistake in my last posting, but apparently
I have to say it louder.  So, two points:

	1)  There is some relationship between posters on the net, there
	    must be, else why would people get so pissed off at each
	    other? ;-).  What became clear to me from my communication with
	    Dr. Banks was that his relationship to me, since we don't know
	    each other except electronically, is primarily one of poster to
	    poster, and the fact that he is a doctor is secondary to the
	    fact that what he is doing is simply posting his opinions on the net.  
	    Granted he is influenced (heavily, even) by his profession and training, 
	    but so are we all.  I was wrong to think of him as Dr. Banks and should 
	    think of him as Gordon.

	2)  I was only attempting to discuss with Gordon (Dr. Banks still
	    feels better ;-)) his manner because I reacted differently to his 
	    post on spina bifida than I had to any of his other posts.  I wanted 
	    to know about "manner," and still do, since you thought I was "reaming"
	    Gordon.  I _was_ "concerned", but I must have come across as being
	    sanctimonious or something.  Believe it or not, I took great pains
	    with the wording of that post; the last thing I wanted to do was
	    increase the tension you or any of the mds here feel about posting
	    to the net.  There is such a thing as "netside manner," but everyone
	    is equally culpable (or not, I suppose) for the formal subtleties of 
	    his/her post.
	    
|> The possibility of a lawsuit arising from the use of information or
|> advice carried by the net is real, and as mentioned before, I do not
|> carry malpractice insurance. I no longer think posting information
|> here that could be even conceivably be taken as medical advice is a
|> viable proposition.
|> 
|>  -km
|> 

You're probably right about the lawsuits, and that sucks.  FYI, I'm not _at_all_ 
the litigious type.  Obviously it is your choice about whether to post 
medical information (it's not _advice_, right, it's only your opinion?), but I
for one would miss the contributions you and others make (not to mention feeling
guilty as hell for being one of the reamers that drove y'all away).

Sorry 'bout the length of this monster...

Graham

-- 
Graham Redgrave    |    --  I don't speak for the government, 
gwr@life.lanl.gov  |        but I wish the government would speak for me ...  --
Newsgroups: sci.med