My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

http://www.stallman.org/articles/asked_to_lie.html

by gulbrandr • 14 years ago

524 230 14 years ago

morsch• 14 years ago

Note that the article is from 2011 (August 1 if you believe the headers). No direct relation to the "rms collapsed" story posted yesterday.

drostie• 14 years ago

It's a surprising statement for many reasons. First, I have traditionally thought of CC as somehow opposed to GNU, but here's Stallman releasing with CC. Second, it's a 2011 document -- had he not been to a doctor prior to 2011? unlikely, so maybe he just never noticed what he was signing?

Perhaps the most surprising thing is the "noderivs" part. One important text -- the GPL -- is also released as copyrighted, to discourage people from modifying the GPL in their COPYING documents in their repositories. But CC Noderivs prohibits any modification of this little snippet. I thought the whole point of free software was modifiability -- but Stallman doesn't think that this applies to free art? Meanwhile, it is not released as share-alike, which is the CC license which "copylefts" the work in the way that the GNU GPL acts to copyleft software.

_delirium2• 14 years ago

Stallman's mentioned at various times that he doesn't think modifiability is nearly as important for expressive type works. He has a very user-centric view on why software (and hardware) should be free, basically that users should be able to modify their own devices and share the modifications, or at least pay someone to make the modifications for them, as part of the right to fully use/customize/control your own computational environment.

Being able to modify and distribute copies of Stallman's 2011 narrative account of a doctor's visit doesn't seem (to me, at least) to implicate a similar right-to-your-own-devices rationale. Reuse in the artistic domain is more of a "remix culture" type of thing, which I think Stallman is sympathetic to, but it's not his core interest.

r4vik• 14 years ago

He releases his books under GNU FDL, so they can be remixed. But I assume he doesn't want people changing his blog posts. Makes sense to me.

jtheory• 14 years ago

I suppose people tend to think of rms as an idea more than a person, almost -- someone who adheres to a small set of principles with complete disregard for practicality or anything else.

It's not true, though -- and this shouldn't be surprising. A short blog post is not at all the same as software, and so it's pretty normal that he'd treat it differently.

One obvious reason -- to get his views out, and to gain respect from people who don't know him, it helps for them to encounter him making intelligent comments on related issues. If he lets others republish his posts and essays (statements of opinion, mind you, not software or documentation) without attribution and/or edited, he loses that chance with no gain in exchange.

Etc.

ernesth• 14 years ago

The noderivs clause is similar to the case of invariant sections in the GFDL. Stallman is quite consistent in considering that his writings do not need to be free.

chrisacky• 14 years ago

Could you imagine at the extremes if you had been refused treatment because of your refusal to sign this document, to which you knew to be untrue, and to which they could not provide you with the policy. I studied law for four years (haven't qualified) , but I'm still not even sure on the liability on this one (if there is any at all in this hypothetical).

It just shows how bureaucratic everything has become when a privacy policy contains 3000 pages, to which they clearly never refer to, and to which you are most likely the first person to have ever asked to actually see the policy.

Best wishes with your health Richard!

jrs2359• 14 years ago

Additionally, what about the fact that if the woman knew the Privacy Policy was 3000 pages and in a binder (which she claimed to be aware of) and knowingly accepts a statement she strongly believes to be untrue? Is this enough to invalidate the "contract" because it is blatantly known that full disclosure and meeting of the minds has not been met?

This also comes to mind during mortgages and car loans. Often the closer will just hand you a stack of papers and say "you need to initial here, here, and here, sign here, here, and here" and then expect/anticipate the person to do just that without reading the agreement. The closer ought to know that the signer has not actually read the document and therefore the initials and signatures don't represent what they are meant to represent... that the person has READ the whole thing and mindfully agreed to it! Agh!

wccrawford7• 14 years ago

When I bought a car, I read mine and they weren't surprised or upset. They patiently waited while I read it and initialed that I had done so.

techdmn• 14 years ago

I the first time I closed on a house, realizing ten minutes in that either I was going to be signing contracts without reading them, or everyone was going to be sitting around watching me read for three hours. There's a lot of pressure in a situation like that, even though I try never to sign anything without reading it.

pilsetnieks• 14 years ago

Also, what common binder can hold 3000 pages?

vacri6• 14 years ago

The privacy policy wasn't 3000 pages. Either Stallman didn't remember the story correctly, or more likely the receptionist was just making up a number to scare him off pursuing the issue. Even the thickest novels don't make it to 3000 pages; very few make it to 1000.

Hell, I'd be surprised if the privacy policy hit 3 pages.

Tloewald3• 14 years ago

Stallmsn didn't say it was 3000 pages long.

jrs2359• 14 years ago

I think you're nit picking and not focusing on the point. Regardless of the length (the lady either knew or didn't know how long the thing was) she didn't have it nor did she provide it to the gentleman to read. The office was still asking him to lie by requiring him to state he received and read something he obviously didn't receive nor read.

dudeguy999• 14 years ago

I see you've never dealt with the government. I wouldnt be surprised if it grew a couple % each year.

cpeterso• 14 years ago

What was the actual page count of the privacy policy?

spinlock2• 14 years ago

I've actually been denied treatment for exactly this reason.

jhrobert• 14 years ago

When everybody becomes a forced liar, it becomes easy for authentic liars to hide in the crowd.

kjhughes• 14 years ago

Actually, there can be no authentic liars if everyone's a forced liar. Nor can there be truth, or communication, for that matter.

forinti• 14 years ago

This is why I hate the bureaucracy in my country (Brazil). There's a clear penalty for trying to do things the right way (tons of useless and expensive paperwork), and nothing happens to the crooks who take advantage of the system.

idleloops3• 14 years ago

Terry Gilliam's film: Brazil spotlights the absurdity of bureaucracy. Is Brazil renowned for theirs?

outworlder• 14 years ago

Granted, one of the reasons why there's so much bureaucracy in this country is precisely the crooks. Society tries to protect itself, goes overboard, ends up with lots of complicated rules that enables the very thing they were trying to stop in the first place.

napolux• 14 years ago

Just an unneeded rant IMHO

idleloops3• 14 years ago

Interesting nonetheless. It draws some analogies with software license agreements. I start out trying to read them, but if they exceed a few paragraphs - I skip to the bottom, check the checkbox and proceed. I lie.

I guess one good thing about picking an off the shelf license to accompany software, is that at least it's probably more likely that I'll read and try to understand it.

biff• 14 years ago

In a practical sense, sure, people do this everyday.

In an ethical sense, it should disturb us that we are being required to lie as a matter of course to lead our everyday lives.

joshuafcole2• 14 years ago

It's not exactly an isolated case. When I turned 18 I was presented with the same document. To my mother's dismay, I pointed out the flaws and then marked in the necessary negatives in pen to render the document useless before signing it. Since the other party (a member with legal power at the clinic) did not sign after me, I'm not sure the form is actually binding on either of us. Could somebody clarify what precedent holds in the case of a single party signing a contract and having it accepted but not signed by the other?

EDIT: It occurs to me that I should mention that there is no place for the other party to sign on the document in the first place. There may have been a photocopied signature already on the form.

mkoivuni• 14 years ago

I know such precedent exists in cases like this where you are to sign a non-negotiable contract. This is why most EULA's are largely worthless especially when it comes to standard retail software.

Tyrannosaurs3• 14 years ago

You can agree to something through your actions regardless of whether you've signed something. If you are presented with a contract, don't raise any objections but don't sign it but then both parties act as if they'd accepted it (for instance you pay some money, they give you a thing), then it's likely that you'll both be deemed to be bound by the contract.

In this instance by presenting you with the form they likely legally signified their willingness to enter into the agreement.

zbuc• 14 years ago

Wha?

My old employer had a "non-compete" contract they wanted new hires to sign along with the rest of the employment contracts. The stipulations were basically that you couldn't work for any competitor within a year of leaving employment with them.

I disagreed with it on principle and signed the rest of the paperwork, but not that one, and no one ever mentioned it.

Now you're saying that I am bound by a contract I did not accept? How's that make sense? What about Kevin Smith at Paisley Park?

stordoff• 14 years ago

There usually is no need for them to sign it. They offer, you accept (with your signature as evidence), which is the essence of a contract. There is no need for them to "accept your acceptance".

As you changed the document, it may or may not be binding. Effectively you offered them new terms, and I wouldn't like to speculate as to if they accepted them (e.g. by treating you).

wccrawford7• 14 years ago

They need to accept the changes, if any. The lack of a place for them to sign is proof that they intended for it to be signed as-is, or not at all.

Contracts aren't valid unless both parties have accepted them. The doctor's office can't accept a contract they haven't read yet, and any changes to a contract make it a new contract.

tzs2• 14 years ago

I doubt that these documents are contracts. They aren't intended to create a legal obligation on the part of either party but rather are intended to be evidentiary documents to prove that the privacy policy was disclosed to the patient and the patient told the doctor's office that he understood it.

Your signature on the document is there to refute any future claim you might make that you were not presented with the privacy information.

I'm assuming the privacy form is a separate document. If it is part of a larger document then perhaps that document also includes elements that make it a contract. In that case the lack of signature on their end is probably not a problem.

It's a common belief that contracts must be in writing and signed. In fact only certain kinds of contract must be in writing and signed (the biggies are contracts that cannot be performed within one year, contracts that transfer interests in land, and contracts for the sale of goods for $500 or more).

Otherwise, all you need is for both parties to have agreed on the terms of the contract and a thing called "consideration". Consideration is a subtle and elusive concept but roughly it means each person obligated under the contract is getting something valuable in exchange for taking on the contractual obligation.

If both parties agree to something and both uphold their end of the bargain then it doesn't really matter whether or not they actually managed to form a legally enforceable contract. That only matters if something goes wrong and one or more parties want to use the courts to enforce the contract or win damages for breach of contract.

If you have to sue someone over a contract you'll have to prove that there actually was a contract formed with them. That will be a lot easier if the contract was in writing and you had them sign it.

joshuafcole2• 14 years ago

Thanks for the information! I doubt it will come to a confrontation, but it's been an itch I couldn't scratch for almost a year now pondering the implications.

uberuberuber• 14 years ago

While the doctor's office may have been the proximate agent asking him to 'lie', the true culprit is the incomprehensible, self-contradictory system that elected and unelected bureaucrats in the US have cobbled together over the decades. If the doctor doesn't maintain that privacy paperwork (which as rms noted the police can view at will anyway), they will not receive reimbursement from CMS. There are likely other statutory issues with HIPAA that I'm unfamiliar with. It's difficult to fault them for not wasting their limited time/money resisting the paperwork requirements when it would only detract from patient care resources.

If he were actually In Extremis, the physician/nurse/EMS would treat him under implied consent. Technically a patient of sound mind can refuse care but in practice someone who looks like rms (beard discrimination) ranting about his privacy would rather quickly be hit with a B52 (50mg Benadryl, 5mg Haldol, 2mg Ativan). Emergency providers are in a bit of a quandary as they must choose between the possibility of missing a subdural hematoma on a patient refusing care and facing a wrongful death lawsuit, and facing a lawsuit for unlawful imprisonment and assault.

shasta3• 14 years ago

You should be careful just adding "not", because they can always claim they didn't notice you modified the agreement (I'm assuming no one on their staff signed or initialled your change).

Angostura• 14 years ago

To which the reply is "That's a shame, you should train your staff".

shasta3• 14 years ago

Snappy "replies" might not hold as much weight in a legal setting as you imagine.

gioele• 14 years ago

The European custom is to ask the other party to sign on the border of the lines where changes have been made, so they cannot claim that they did not notice a change made to a canned form.

Yet, this allow the signing person to add _other_ changes once the signatures are made, but this custom is useful in the classic 80% of the times (maybe 99% in this case).

mikeash• 14 years ago

Isn't the worst case that the contract is just invalid? If you made a change which they didn't see, then there's no meeting of the minds, and thus no contract. As long as you didn't need the contract anyway (it sounds like it's purely for their benefit), it's all the same.

droithomme• 14 years ago

I've run into the same routine with medical professionals. Also, many of these privacy notices have a clause that they can disclose your private information for certain reasons, then a list which includes "advertising and marketing" purposes with other entities. When I ask about this I am always told they would never do that, it is a standard notice and no one other than me has ever said anything. When I refuse to sign or ask to strike that part out I am told I am free to seek medical care elsewhere and signing the agreement to disclose my private medical information for marketing purposes is "a federal requirement". It's really quite disgusting and abusive.

The situation with web sites and software that have 10 to 100 page long (when printed) EULAs or Terms of Use are a similar concept. Much software these days makes you click a box saying you have read and understood a legal agreement that is far more complex than any employment or IP transfer agreement I have ever signed.

antidoh• 14 years ago

It must have gotten to the point by now that the mere length of a privacy policy, or EULA, is enough to convince the court that there effectively is no policy or no agreement, signed, seal broken or not.

legutierr• 14 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts_of_adhesion#Contracts...

jahewson4• 14 years ago

Either way because it's a License and not a Contract, by default you have no rights to use the software.

neurotech1• 14 years ago

No their is no federal requirement to allow personal information for marketing purposes.

A doctor friend mentioned that even if the patient agreement allows "advertising and marketing", a medical practice still has limits on what they can do before the Medical Board would pull their license, or potentially feds busting them.

Drbble3• 14 years ago

My favorite by far is that every policy says "we will only do X, Y, or as permitted by law", which is a wildcard that says they will do whatever they want unless it is forbidden for some other reason anyway.

These documents are not upper bound promises, they are lower bound warnings.

dr_• 14 years ago

The reality is, had the privacy notice been available appropriately, and had been signed, how do you know that it is enforced? Most practices are busy and run rather chaotically to think about that. By and large most medical groups do not want to share information about their patients with people who don't need it. We don't have marketers walking into our offices asking for specific patient information. We only share it with appropriate individuals, that have been authorized by the patient or who are clearly involved in the patients care for a particular condition.

I suppose there are databases out there with diagnoses of patients and the medications they take, but there are no patient identifiers in these databases, so it's basically an anonymous batch. That kind of anonymous data is going to be important to make further advances in healthcare IT, and healthcare in general.

wccrawford7• 14 years ago

You don't know if it's enforced or not until something happens. At that point, you can sue them because they didn't follow the contract.

But then, that's how all contracts work.

gizzlon2• 14 years ago

What happens if you just sign with a fake name? Is it still binding?

They lie, you lie ..

mseebach• 14 years ago

What you write is inconsequential, it's that fact that you do that is important. If you can't write (not a big issue today, but has been not too long ago), you can sign with a X.

The signature itself doesn't carry a lot of weight. Signatures given under threat or deceit are void - which is why important stuff needs to be witnessed or notarized.

jrs2359• 14 years ago

This. The name doesn't matter. The signing act is all that counts. Before literate times the illiterate would "sign" by simply marking an "X" on the signature line. If you are under duress you may certainly sign your signature as "Under Duress", if the accepting party doesn't harm you right away at least when you show up in court to dispute it your can point out you signed it as such... but you better be ready to prove and show that you legitimately where under duress or the court won't accept your claim.

wccrawford7• 14 years ago

If you signed it, that's your mark. It doesn't matter what the mark is. That's why you can sign with an X if you can't write your name.

astine• 14 years ago

That would be fraud and you can go to jail for that.

ajarmoniuk• 14 years ago

In 2003 I wanted to import my car from France as I was moving back to Poland. As I bought the car in France, all official paperwork I had was the French registration card and a car "cession" document. There was no price stated on the cession document.

The official at the Polish registration office gave me a photocopied Belgian registration form and told me to fill that in, fill the price and sign for the seller (in other words, forge the seller's signature).

StavrosK• 14 years ago

I don't know how it is in the US, but here (Greece), most people aren't aware that you can modify contracts, or even that they're binding.

I've had various people come up to me with company offers and asking me to sign things, which, after I've read, I said, for example "I'm not authorizing you to use my email to send me things, so I'll strike this clause out". People (including the person who handed me the agreement) looked at me as if I were the most pedantic person in the world, or as if I were trying to make things fall upwards.

It's very disconcerting, because nearly everyone treats contracts as a "take it or leave it" affair. Sure, when you're getting a new phone, the employee doesn't have the power to agree to alter the contract, but in many cases you can do it.

ge0rg• 14 years ago

"... so I'll strike this clause out"

Unfortunately, this option is taken away from us in online transactions. There is no legally binding way to change the text of the contract, and you are even forced to tick these "I accept the terms of ..." check boxes before proceeding.

kragen3• 14 years ago

I edit online contracts this way all the time. Right-click in Chrome, "Inspect Element", right-click, "Edit element as HTML".

Keverw• 14 years ago

3,000 pages? Why would it need to be that long? Isn't that kinda extreme? I don't think any average person would even want to read that, and making a copy of that would just seem wasteful of paper... Couldn't they make it shorter?

dagw• 14 years ago

Another theory is that the person in question had no idea what the document looked like or where to find it, and just made up the 3000 page story in a hope to scare off the person asking for it.

rheeseyb• 14 years ago

Almost every day I agree to the terms and conditions of software that I have never read, and have no intentions of ever reading. In no way does this make it acceptable for the doctor's office to ask people to regularly agree to terms that haven't been presented with - my argument is that in this society in which we live it has become an acceptable practice to baffle the general public by dumping ridiculous amounts of legalese (with terms that are never in our favour) in front of us and making us sign it before we can use everyday services.

The worst bit about this is that most of these services then go on to take a big fat steamy dump on our personal rights and our privacy (I'm sure I don't need to give any examples here!), and there's nothing we can do because we agreed to the terms that were "clearly" laid out infront of us before we even used the service.

pnathan• 14 years ago

As a rule of thumb, I ask to see privacy policies. Usually they are not very long ( a few pages ).

planetguy3• 14 years ago

If anyone is ever wondering why nerds never rule the world, this is a perfect example of why.

Pedantry is the brakes that the universe puts on the very smart to stop them acquiring too much power.

VMG2• 14 years ago

nerds do rule the world

JoelMcCracken• 14 years ago

Not that I really disagree with you, but to wax platonic, maybe that the people who both rule the world and are nerds aren't really acting as perfect nerds as they rule the world?

josefonseca• 14 years ago

Here(Brazil) everything seems to work like that. You sign 200 pieces of paper each day and if you'd enforce everything you agree to in just one day, the legal system would halt.

Recently I tried to purchase a small stereo, one of those tiny little ones that just play radio and a CD. They demanded that I provide full personal information in order to give me my receipt. I know that demanding personal information in order to print a receit is illegal here. So I question the attendant. She says she can only print it with that data. So before I had a stroke, and after 15 minutes of stupid arguments, I go ahead and do what Stallman did: fill it with BS and negate the "I agree" thing at the end, signed it - bought the stereo.

That movie "Brazil" with the ridiculous 26bStroke6 form is not too far from reality now that I think of it.

limeblack• 14 years ago

Had a similar scenario happen when giving blood a couple months ago. They suggested there were closing in half an hour, but insisted that I give blood anyway. They took blood samples checking iron levels and then brought me over to a desk to sign a consent form. They promptly brought out a 200 page binder, saying I was required to read it prior to signing the form.

I opened up the binder and started to read, but quickly realized it was humanly impossible to finish it the remaining time. Several other people sat down next to me planning to give blood, signing the form without even opening the binder. I figured OK well, they aren't required to read the binder, but simply agree to the terms.

What surprised me, was that a lady taking blood, promptly walked over and said skip the binder.

I understand the desire to maximum blood taken from volunteers, but something is seriously wrong, when the people taking blood encourage and purposely take blood knowing there isn't enough time for the full required procedure to be preformed.

uslic001• 14 years ago

Blaming the doctor for Government mandated privacy policies due to HIPAA is not going to fix the problem. You have your wonderful legislators and the president to thank for this mess. If you have a problem with the law complain to your representatives to change the law. Every doctor office I have been to has shown me their privacy policy and none are 3000 pages long.

ceejayoz• 14 years ago

If every doctor's office you've been to has been willing to show you their reasonable length privacy policy, surely we SHOULD be blaming this particular doctor's office?

JBiserkov• 14 years ago

Offtopic: I liked how minimalistic the site looks, so I looked at the source - just a bunch of <p> with a h1 on top. The head was also really clean - a title, encoding, favicon and

  <link href="stallman.css" ... >

This a 404, but if you try to open /stallman.css you get http://www.stallman.org/stallman.css

Again, pretty minimal just a few rules and comments... and then this:

  /*
  This causes the entire page to be red when you click anywhere so I
  do not want it.  Not sure why we had it to begin with.
  07/26/2010 jcv
  :active {
  	color: #FF0000
  }
  */

rfugger3• 14 years ago

This article was beautiful to read on mobile!

Jun86• 14 years ago

What's really the problem with this situation is that it's really hard to point a finger to a single culprit in the system thereby pointing to a way to solve the problem. That's why it's a wicked problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem)

* The doctors cannot be blamed because they want to protect themselves (e.g. see the insane amounts of insurance required to practice medicine in the US to guard against suing by patients) and "the system" forces them to create such documents and have them signed.

* The patients cannot be blamed because, well, you don't want to sign your consent to a document that you haven't read and that may (and will) contain clauses that are clearly adversarial to you. But the issue is not just having access to the document, 99% of the people won't have the knowledge, let alone the patience, to parse such a legal document.

* The politicians are not to blame because they are just bowing to public pressure (and of course powerful lobbies) and many of these laws and practices are one way rachet-up, i.e. they can never be loosened (see, e.g. the overly strict sex laws in the US).

* The lawyers are not to blame because they are just being employed by people, i.e. they are not evil by themselves but may be put to evil use (similar to "guns don't kill people" defense).

For a recent example of suing madness (in a slightly different area) in the US consider that Nutella was sued and was fined $3.6M just because people couldn't read the clear nutritional sign (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/02/10/133565759/a-mom-s...).

I don't know what the solution is. But the US healthcare industry is converging to disaster if we don't solve problems like this.

raldi• 14 years ago

One solution might be to create a small number of standard documents. Then trusted experts could certify a few (like the UL seal of approval on electronics), and people could just ask the receptionist if their document has such an endorsement.

Another would be to create a consumer protection law that prohibits doctors' offices from doing certain things even if patients explicitly signed those rights away.

Jun86• 14 years ago

I believe there are already standard documents, e.g. the huge binder the receptionist was referring to in the OP certified by a few "trusted experts", i.e. lawyers. The question is by whom are these experts trusted, which in practice means who employs them. How would people get a list of these experts (government intervention?)

jrs2359• 14 years ago

Mostly agree. Except, the politicians ARE to blame! We need spined, "sensical" statesmen leading our government to workable solutions, not self-fish, egotistical wimps working towards "getting the meanest/loudest 'animal(s)' off our backs and getting re-elected".

Tort reform is where I would start if I was working towards a solution. Tort reform is often not done because 90% (pulled from the air based on recollections of other vague memories of articles and statistics) of politicians are lawyers! This is also why I laws are so horrifically written with legalese making it next to impossible for a layman to understand. Returning to Common Law (over statutory laws) and trials with citizen juries would do wonders for dispensing "justice" the way "the people" see right and fit.

Jun86• 14 years ago

You are, of course, right but up to a point: I believe in situations where politicians are widely blamed, the real problem lies elsewhere (typical example: EU economic crises). Politicians are trying to operate under many different constraints, economic, populist, etc., some do a better job than others.

In order to break the chicken and egg problem, a more effective way, I think, is to inform the public. For example, in this case how many people have even thought about what that consent signature means (I signed a form like that just yesterday) but if the consequences are made widely known than the public may pressurize the politicians to make changes. Nothing gets the attention of those guys as public opinion.

roc2• 14 years ago

Tort reform hasn't materialized very many benefits in the States where it's been attempted. I'm afraid it's a starting point at best [1].

And desiring simple laws that people can read and understand is like desiring simple code that people can read and understand. Sure, there's lots of code out there written with bad practices, acquiring years of cruft and in need of some refactoring, but there's also massive amounts of code that simply cannot be reduced to a 'simple' state. Some problems are complex and navigating them requires precise attention to numerous details.

So it is with law. Some things can certainly be simplified. But the process of simplifying does not guarantee a simple result.

[1] and a heavily politicized one, at that. What many advocate when they say 'tort reform' isn't a shift toward simplicity and fairness but a shift past perverse incentives to litigate and to a perverse disincentive to even pursue litigation. That is: instead of protecting, say, doctors from frivolous claims, it makes it increasingly difficult to sue doctors with even valid claims. And that's no better a situation from the neutral point of view.

tzs2• 14 years ago

> What's really the problem with this situation is that it's really hard to point a finger to a single culprit in the system thereby pointing to a way to solve the problem.

Couldn't this have been solved by simply having a copy of the privacy policy available in the sign-in area for the patient to read?

Jun86• 14 years ago

I don't think so. As others have stated, perusing dense legal documents while people are waiting for you just doesn't work. Even if we remove the time constraint, many people wouldn't be able to understand the legalese.

tomp2• 14 years ago

> Nutella was sued and was fined $3.6M just because people couldn't read the clear nutritional sign

Did you even read the article? It clearly says that Nutella was sued because it had misleading advertising, saying/implying that it was healthy, when in reality it contains a lot of sugar.

I know that Coca-Cola is bad for your health (it's pretty obvious that any sweet drink is bad for your teeth and makes you fat and probably not any less thirsty). But I would still want the company fined if it advertised Coca-Cola drink as being healthy.

Jun86• 14 years ago

All advertising is misleading in a sense, the question is where to draw the line: the legal complaint (http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/02/Nutella.pdf) states that the moms were duped because they saw TV commercials that showed moms feeding Nutella to their healthy families. Although I think the ""An example of a tasty yet balanced breakfast." label should be removed from Nuteall jars (which'll be done, http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2012/05/nutella-lawsuit-company...) I don't the millions of dollars awarded (I misstated this, actually it was $3.06M) makes sense, but then I'm no lawyer.

BTW, you can go to this site (https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/FrequentlyAskedQues...) and claim up to $20 if you've bought Nutella, no receipts asked (until the allocated $2.5M runs out).

igorsyl• 14 years ago

The medical industry is in need of disruption. Has anyone played with the idea of "seeing" a doctor located in a different country using a video app? I imagine the experience would be better than what most people deal with in the states. US doctors have too much power and they take advantage of it. A remote doctor would be under more competition and be willing to provide better service.

mahyarm3• 14 years ago

That doctor will not be able to authorize you to purchase restricted medications they recommend, or authorize your insurance to pay for various expensive procedures and test.

xxiao• 14 years ago

why does this have anything to do with hacknews?

VMG2• 14 years ago

case study of a badly designed system

rjb• 14 years ago

People sign contracts in their daily lives and in a variety of situations. Particularly hackers who are likely to work on a contract basis.

The valuable lesson here is that one should not feel shy about calling attention to the contents of a contract nor suggesting a change.

I remember years ago I was looking for an apartment through an apartment finding service. That wanted me to sign a contract that stated I would would be "fined" if I were to rent ANY apartment outside their service. I quickly called attention to it and asked them to print out a new version. They agreed.

casualreader• 14 years ago

Re:

"There is no real confidentiality of medical records in the US, since the police can get them under very easy conditions."

Very true. And sometimes police can obtain information without even having to ask.

I work for a regional pharmacy outlet and it is the company policy to transmit Pseudoephedrine (PSE) Sales Log Records to the local police department every week.

After writing a memo stating customers/patients should be at least given an informed consent that the information they are required by law to provide in order to purchase PSE is then released to the local police department - an act not required by law. I was told that PSE sales information is not considered Protected Health Information under HIPAA and thus not a breach of Federal privacy law. Granted since PSE is an over-the-counter product its purchase does not technically qualify as a 'medical record'. However, because PSE is purchased 'behind-the-counter' at pharmacies in the U.S. I believe there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the public's part in this regard.

The Board of Pharmacy in an e-mail clarification to this memo did not address HIPAA compliance but merely stated that the methamphetamine unit officers were 'approved' to receive such information and for all pharmacies to please kindly comply with their ongoing methamphetamine combating efforts.

I've taken a personal policy to comply with the company policy - having higher educational debt cheapens the price of selling one's self - but to openly share what is done with the records if asked. So far no one has ever asked me what is done with the records.

mkopinsky• 14 years ago

When a customer writes down his/her name and address in the log book of Customers Who Bought Meth Ingredients, I think the reasonable assumption is that this log book will be shared with law enforcement. This active - and very visible - step of recording the information makes that sharing quite likely in the customer's mind.

If this sharing were occurring based on scans of customer loyalty cards or the like, I would be more troubled.

pasbesoin• 14 years ago

This is a principal reason society need effective regulation: So that one does not need a fucking lawyer for every daily transaction.

Practices (meaning behaviors, not medical offices) like this should be shut down before they ever see the light of day, and confuse, inconvenience, and compromise the safety and integrity of thousands.

larrys• 14 years ago

Makes perfect sense that someone who is a binary thinker wouldn't be able to see that it was fine to sign this document in this particular case.

asdfdsa1234• 14 years ago

I am routinely asked for my Social Security number by doctors and dentists, although they don't need it and really shouldn't be using it. I decline in a probably vain attempt to limit my ID theft/privacy risk, but I always feel like a loony when I do.

rfugger3• 14 years ago

I recently had a similar experience at my dentist's office. I was asked to sign a waiver of liability, presumably for insurance purposes. It asked me to state that I had been informed of the risks of the procedure (tooth removal), including a long list of possible bad outcomes. I asked the dentist about this, and she said not to worry, most of those couldn't happen here. So I asked her to please strike the ones that couldn't happen, and explain the likelihood of the other complications, as her own document required her to do. After disgustedly doing this, and spending another 20 minutes fulfilling the other requirements of the document she wanted me to sign, she poked a needle in my mouth, yanked my tooth out, and walked away without saying another word.

She clearly blamed me for wasting her time, since other patients obviously sign the form and get on with it. I actually think the problem here was that the form was too short, and so I felt that I could actually reasonably go through it, as opposed to a lengthy legalistic form that I couldn't possibly be held to in court if it turned out to be unfair.

tomrod• 14 years ago

What a shame.

On one hand I feel some compassion for the onerous regulations and malpractice issues that require medical practitioners to pay for very expensive legal requirements.

On the other hand, they should follow their own policies without complaint!

WiseWeasel3• 14 years ago

It is ill-advised to spite your dentist soon before they get to work with sharp objects inside your mouth (or anyone, really).

scott_s2• 14 years ago

He didn't "spite" his dentist. He wanted her to explain the risks of the procedure - which I think is reasonable.

derleth• 14 years ago

That dentist is an ass.

Whatever else a medical professional of that type's job is, it is public-facing. That has implications up and down their practice, but one of the most basic is that they are expected to treat patients with dignity and respect.

I grew up around the medical world, and someone who acted like her would not have a good reputation among her colleagues, and it wouldn't matter if she was a DDS, MD, APRN, RN, or what.

rfugger3• 14 years ago

To be fair, she did do an excellent job pulling the tooth -- she was just frustrated at having to spend half an hour on a 3-minute procedure.

jeffpersonified• 14 years ago

So this is what the Occupy movement is so upset about!

steamer25• 14 years ago

Reminds me of when I refinanced my mortgage... The bank sent a 100(?) page copy of the contract for my review prior to signing in front of a notary public (in their employ). When arriving at the appointment they produced their own copy that may or may not have been modified with respect to my copy, expecting me to sign in short order.

I complied but only because I was dealing with an otherwise reputable organization. It does seem like there's plenty of room for improvement in these situations.

mibbitier2• 14 years ago

Doesn't this pretty much sum up all software licenses? No one reads pages and pages of text and then clicks "agree". They just click "agree".

mibbitier2• 14 years ago

Very glad I'm not a pedantic extremist. Seems like a horrible life to live.

The hardest thing is picking which battles to fight. Fighting all the battles possible isn't an effective use of ones time.

lr2• 14 years ago

Find a new doctor. I have never been to a doctor, dentist, etc., that did not have a copy of the privacy policy taped/laminated to the clipboard!!! Seriously, how hard can it be. She probably would have found the policy if Sallman had told her he was going to another doctor, and he was going to tell this doctor the reason why he left.

fffggg2• 14 years ago

You haven't visited many doctors and/or have been very lucky and/or haven't been paying attention.

I was referred to a specialist this week for a new injury. The specialist's office asked me to sign several standard looking forms, one of which had almost this exact language (you agree to the terms of our privacy policy).

Then just today I was at the pharmacy and after swiping my credit card for payment I was faced with another dialog "I have read and understood the pharmacy's privacy policy"

It's not as simple as "find a new doctor." First of all, I'm on an HMO and my choices are very limited -- in most non-urban areas there may not be more than a single practice or hospital, which uses the same paperwork for all patients.

Am I supposed to put obtaining my pain medication, or potentially life-threatening care on hold while I hunt around for a new doctor? I've seen and signed similar policies while admitting my infant daughter to the ER with a 105 degree fever -- you ask how hard it can be? It is literally impossible. Obtaining health care services is not like shopping for a pair of shoes, and there are often no alternatives available.

lr2• 14 years ago

My "Seriously, how hard can it be." comment was about clipping the privacy policy to the clipboard, not to finding a new doctor. Also, from what I can tell, Stallman lives in an urban area. My comments were directed at him.

Tisca• 14 years ago

3000 pages (1500 two-sided pages) would require a ~7" thick binder. Never seen one, just saying.

GigabyteCoin• 14 years ago

I'm surprised the conversation hasn't turned towards "Terms and Conditions" of websites.

As webmasters, many of us act like stallman's doctor's office every single day. By asking clients to agree to (and making it oh so simple to skip, and oh so daunting to read) the terms of using our websites.

jon_dahl• 14 years ago

"How about if I add 'not' to make it a true statement?" She accepted this. So I had my appointment.

That is an elegant solution to the problem.

kayge• 14 years ago

I was hoping he'd clarify whether he changed it to "... has not been provided to me..." or "... has !been provided to me..."

ChuckMcM• 14 years ago

I find arguing with the functionaries at the desk is ineffective, however since they are simply 'doing what they are told' they will often do what you tell them too. I signed a privacy policy where it stipulated the company would pay me $5,000 for each occurrence that it shared any of my information.

It went like this:

Receptionist: "You need to sign this privacy consent form."

Me: "I don't agree with that form so I won't sign it."

Receptionist: "Well if you don't sign it we can't help you."

Me: "Ok, how about this, give me another copy, I'll just mark it up a bit and we can both sign it, ok?"

Receptionist: "Uh, I guess so."

...I take the form, add various and sundry financial obligations, and restrictions on what they can do with my data, add a line at the bottom "representative date"....

Take it back to the receptionist.

Me: "Ok put your initials here, here, and here and sign at the bottom."

Receptionist: "Uh, ok."

Me: "Both copies, thanks."

I then asked on the way out where their legal office was. And and gave them one of the signed copies. The last I saw was that receptionist looking at their marked up form with a very puzzled look. :-)

nathanb• 14 years ago

If you tested that in court you would almost certainly find that the receptionist has not been granted the authority to enter the office into legally-binding contracts.

vidarh• 14 years ago

I don't think that's so much the point, though. It's a fun "hack". And while the receptionist may not have that authority, the end result was that he also did not sign their document, so he achieved his initial goal of not signing a document he did not agree to.

They have two choices: Treat him as if he signed nothing binding at all, or accept his version of the document.

lgleason• 14 years ago

The problem is that some of these documents try to intimidate patients by adding statements that the patient cannot sue even-though they are un-enforceable. I have also seen cases where doctors have sued patients who leave bad comments about them on websites that allow you to rate a doctor. Bogus malpractice suits are bad, but suing a patient for leaving a bad review is unbelievable.

MarlonPro• 14 years ago

Whatever happen to Social Contract? The worst thing that could ever happen in this country is if we start mistrusting established institutions.

Wait... as a geek, I enjoyed the story. If I was at the same establishment as Richard, I would be laughing my tail off!

jebblue• 14 years ago

Stallman seems far out to me on some issues but this is one that irks me too. I'm glad he wrote the entry.

mike626• 14 years ago

Richard Stallman: Consummate Pain in the Dupa.

stcredzero• 14 years ago

I just paid $44 to fax medical records to health insurance underwriters. The woman at the doctor's office was surprised the underwriters didn't access those records themselves. Also odd, they're also asking for all my other records for the past 5 years, when I already gave permission in a conference call for them to access those records.

Are they deliberately trying to discourage my application by burying me in expense and redundant bureaucratic busywork?

spinlock2• 14 years ago

My doctor thinks I have high blood pressure because things like this really get under my skin. I - like Stalman - have a bad habit of arguing with the admitting nurse over stuff like this.

drumdance• 14 years ago

Contracts and legal notices are like code. They spend most of their effort worrying about edge cases.

WalterBright2• 14 years ago

Kudos to Stallman for standing up to that nonsense.

virg1621• 14 years ago

If the office accepts Medicare, they are required to have those privacy notices on hand. You could definitely report them. It's a huge violation.

meatpopsicle• 14 years ago

I've had job offers that had similar language. I edited the contracts to make them true, initialed the changes, and got the other party to sign next to my endorsement. Once submitted, and not disputed within 72 hours, it's valid.

RMS has Eben Moglen advising him. I trust he can handle his contracts.

antithesis• 14 years ago

Grimmy things happen there. They ask Doctors to lie.

icodestuff• 14 years ago

When this happened to me at an urgent care clinic, I just didn't sign that form. Handed back the clipboard with the rest of the forms filled out. Either no one noticed, or they didn't care.

crusso• 14 years ago

You have to wonder where the "reasonable person" guidelines that most jurisprudence relies upon has to do with any of the things we sign off on today, as well as the click-through agreements.

For example, Who in the hell reads their iOS terms and conditions that they agree to in order to see what changes Apple has made this week? Every time I download a new app or grab upgrades, it seems that I have to agree to their 90 or 190(?) screen terms and conditions. It would be bad enough to read it the first time, but could you imagine re-reading it every time they sent out a new one?

I love my iPhone and I'm not about to make a moral stand by not using it or worse by reading those damned things - but they don't sit well with me.

My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

Related Stories