Greedy Trial Lawyer
Doctors Now Practicing Defensive Blogging
Category: Ho Hum
Doctor RW has just published his legal treatise on Avoiding Cross-Examination Meltdowns for doctors who may testify one day in defense of their medical care.
New details of Flea's trial offer yet another lesson in smart blogging
Recent discussions of blogging hazards have focused on patient confidentiality, saying things you wouldn't want your boss to read and, most recently, blogging about your malpractice trial. But new revelations about Flea's trial raise another hazard that has received little attention up to now.We tend to regard clinical topics as safe blogging material. Flea's case tells us that's not necessarily so. Clinical opinions, or opinions about text books and other clinical references, particularly strong declarative statements, could be used against you as a defendant when the clinical topic is relevant to the case you're defending.
What's a blogger to do? First and foremost, whether you're anonymous or open don't be dogmatic or absolute. Clinical medicine, after all, isn't that way. It is subtle and nuanced, so [1] be subtle and nuanced in your discussions. [2] Be careful how you describe clinical references. Up to Date may be helpful at the point of care but it's not "authoritative". Harrison's textbook may be a useful reference but it's not "the bible".
My take on Doctor RW's advice is that we may be witnessing the birth of defensive blogging by medical practitioners.
As it happens, in the history of medical malpractice trials I believe there may only be one or two reported instances in which any doctor/defendant has ever conceded any medical treatise or publication to be authoritative. I have concluded that one of the first courses in medical school must instill a fear of the word. It remains a puzzle why the medical profession collects and reviews so many non-authoritative books and journals.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.greedytriallawyer.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/529
Comments
The real reason is that in science (and medicine), there is no such thing as a "bible", a text that is given down from on high.
No matter what I might say in casual conversation, I would never testify that any scientific text or article, or any other piece of scientific writing was a "bible".
That is a fundamental difference between fact based bodies of information and everything else. Anything and everything is always subject to correction should it be found to be in error.
Posted by: daedalus2u at June 9, 2007 08:51 PM