Comment by sanderson1 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sanderson1 | Hacker News Reader

A can see both sides of this story. I do want to make one thing clear. I think any public information is just that—public. There shouldn't be restrictions on how it is used other than in purposely misleading ways, which is probably how this doctor viewed the release of the information related to his medical background. I think the reporter was completely justified in what he did. I don't believe he was on some kind of witch hunt, out to destroy this doctor's career. From the sounds of it, he's doing a pretty good job of that himself.

On the flip-side, just because a doctor is sued for malpractice doesn't mean he's guilty of malpractice. I'm not familiar with the database, but if it doesn't list the outcomes of malpractice suits, it should. Simply saying a doctor has been sued 16 time for malpractice doesn't tell the full story. But in this case, him settling almost half of those cases, in my mind, does admit some level of guilt.

Do I think the doctor is right in wanted the use of this information restricted? No. Do I think he deserved discipline from the Medical Board? Probably. Do I see how inaccurately presenting information can hurt innocent people? Absolutely.

I'll go back to what I started with. Public is public. Just tell the full story. (which, by the way, I think was done fairly well in the article)

Agreed. The reporter's story is well-written, tries to be fair, but definitely takes a point of view. And that's OK; I think it's a good piece of public-interest journalism.

Sadly, the malpractice thing isn't as clear cut as you'd hope. The choice to settle a claim is usually made by the insurance provider, regardless of the wishes of the physician, so a settlement doesn't mean anything per-se: the insurance provider decides whether to settle by weighing a lot of factors, including many that have nothing to do with the actual facts of the case. A court of law—particularly in a jury trial—may not be the fairest way to adjudicate these issues, but the AMA routinely attempts to block any other proposals for holding doctors accountable (see the story: they supported the removal of the database as well) so malpractice suits and the occasional newspaper story are what we're left with in policing these docs.

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realized the role insurance companies played in malpractice settlements. I agree with knowtheory above, fight facts with facts and tell the whole story. It makes it really hard when people are actively trying to hide information that could be of interest to the public.

One of the reasons i posted this is because i think it's worth shining the Streisand Effect on it. It's ridiculous that HHS is running scared because of a single doctor over the interests of everyone else.

And it'll come out if Dr. Tenny's malpractice is out of the norm or not. You fight facts with facts, fighting facts with secrecy only makes us all poorer.

Except that, as mentioned elsewhere in the comment thread, you often can't publicly respond to these kinds of allegations because doing so reveals Protected Health Information (PHI) and violates HIPAA.

Yeah, but one doesn't even need to resort to HIPAA laden facts about specific cases.

Is Dr. Tenny out of the norm for malpractice suits? Are most cases settled out of court? What's the norm for settling, is it the Dr's wishes, or the insurance company's? Did the various hospitals/institutions involved have anything to say on Dr. Tenny's tenure working there?

There's a lot of information to be had that doesn't speak to specific patients.

Even if he is indeed out of the norm (and I'd imagine he probably is; most doctors don't get written up in the newspaper for having lawsuit after lawsuit), there is still a certain limitation in what he can say.

>On the flip-side, just because a doctor is sued for malpractice doesn't mean he's guilty of malpractice.

And there you have a fundamental problem of major parts of today's society: for many crimes (especially grave things like rape or child abuse), accusation is equivalent to guilt, irrespective of the facts.

>...today's society...

Has it ever been otherwise?

Well, it arguably got worse with the advent of the mass media, but technically you're right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com