Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Ken's concerns about misuse of net info
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:48:24 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20In-Reply-To: km@speedy.cs.pitt.edu's message of 28 Aug 92 13:15:49 GMTLines: 68

In <16238@pitt.UUCP> km@speedy.cs.pitt.edu writes:
> 
> 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.

I think this is a valid, nontrivial concern & this newsgroup ought to be able
to address it.  I have some ideas;  see below.

> 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.

Is this concern greater than, similar to, totally unrelated to, (etc.) the
ways in which it potentially arises in, say, cocktail party conversations? 
when physicians write popular books?  letters to the editor or op ed pieces in
local newspapers?  what happens when yr sister-in-law's 2nd cousin phones you
up & asks you about something you learned in med school? 
when your date asks you a question about her/his __________ (fill in the blank)? 
etc., etc., etc.

How do you usually handle such situations, & would that work in this newsgroup?

suggestion:  i have offered to donate some of my time to improving this
newsgroup in whatever ways its members see fit.  the suggestion that seems to
have generated the most positive response (according to my e-mail) is the
construction of a(n) FAQ file.  i have checked into this & found that this is a
non-trivial undertaking (there is even a news.admin group for maintainers of
FAQ files!).  however i am still willing to do this (at least for, say, the
next year, after which i wouldn't mind turning over the job to someone else).

there is already an entry in the news.announce.newusers FAQ file (entry #41 -- maybe
some folks don't read that far...) that tells new netters *NOT* to post to
sci.med or *.pets looking for medical or veterinary advice, but to seek out an
appropriate f-t-f encounter w. the appropriate health care professional. Such a
statement could be reiterated in a sci.med FAQ file, along with any disclaimers
the docs in the newsgroup might want to make.

i think a good sci.med FAQ file could really help solve some of this newsgroup's recent
difficulties, & (as i said before) i am willing to do the work of creating &
maintaining such a file (at least initially) ***BUT*** --->

	I am ONLY willing to do this if it is actually the consensus
	of a fairly substantial # of sci.med participants that this is
	something we (collectively) want to have because we think it 
	would benefit the group.  I *DON'T* want to put the time into
	doing it if the majority of the group doesn't want it, or doesnt
	care (or doesn't think i'm a good person to be doing it).

So i'm calling for a straw poll:  please e-mail me a BRIEF response (something
like "FAQ-yes, lets try it" or "FAQ-no" or "FAQ-yes, but someone else, not
you")  I am particularly interested in hearing from: docs on line (i.e., do you
think this could address ken's concerns); frequent posters; lurkers, etc.,
i.e., a cross-section of this newsgroup.  I will post results.

Sorry this is so long.

------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA