Should doctors online should reveal their identity ?

RobFowl

In the UK the new GMC guideline for doctors using social media state that doctors should reveal their identity online.
Not too sure how that would go down here and none of the ones I know here do (myself included).
Would appreciate any opinions..

http://wishfulthinkinginmedicaleducation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/gmc-guidance-doctors-online-should.html

"Final
17 If you identify yourself as a doctor in publicly accessible social media, you should also identify
yourself by name.Any material written by authors who represent themselves as doctors is likely to be taken on trust and may reasonably be taken to represent the views of the profession more widely.
18 You should also be aware that content uploaded anonymously can, in many cases, be traced back to its point of origin."

Dozen Wicked Words

RobFowl wrote: »

In the UK the new GMC guideline for doctors using social media state that doctors should reveal their identity online.
Not too sure how that would go down here and none of the ones I know here do (myself included).
Would appreciate any opinions..

http://wishfulthinkinginmedicaleducation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/gmc-guidance-doctors-online-should.html

"Final
17 If you identify yourself as a doctor in publicly accessible social media, you should also identify
yourself by name.Any material written by authors who represent themselves as doctors is likely to be taken on trust and may reasonably be taken to represent the views of the profession more widely.
18 You should also be aware that content uploaded anonymously can, in many cases, be traced back to its point of origin."

Not a Dr myself, but I think the fact Boards strictly enforce that NO medical advice is offered or given, means your professional organisation should have no say in what you disclose about yourself, not on boards anyway.*


*Suppose this is all Boards specific though.

Ryder

Giving medical advice - real identity
Discussing healthcare issues - personal choice

echo beach

RobFowl wrote: »

Any material written by authors who represent themselves as doctors is likely to be taken on trust and may reasonably be taken to represent the views of the profession more widely"

No offence to you Rob. If you say you're a doctor I don't doubt it but I don't trust anonymous sources on the internet and I have no reason to presume that you represent the views of the profession 'more widely' even if you tell me your reg number.


Those who take everything they read on the internet on trust need their heads examined and by a real doctor, not a virtual one.

Vorsprung

echo beach wrote: »

Those who take everything they read on the internet on trust need their heads examined and by a real doctor, not a virtual one.

I think this is the bottom line.

Doctors shouldn't be giving advice over the internet anyway. We are trained to make calls based on history and examination.

There is a section in the Irish Medical Council guidelines that deals with telemedicine which covers medical advice given on the internet. It says that all advice has to be given on condition that the patient understands that a full assessment can't be made because you can't see the patient. That assumes that the patient understands this, that's a big assumption in some cases. In many cases patients just want reassurance that everything is ok, and if often is, but for my own part I don't make that call over the phone. Giving advice over the internet is indefensible.

EDIT - to answer the question, I agree with Ryder's comment.

sam34

echo beach wrote: »

No offence to you Rob. If you say you're a doctor I don't doubt it but I don't trust anonymous sources on the internet and I have no reason to presume that you represent the views of the profession 'more widely' even if you tell me your reg number.


Those who take everything they read on the internet on trust need their heads examined and by a real doctor, not a virtual one.

you would think that'd be a small group of people, but scarily it's not. look at the amount of medical advice threads we get here, when not one of us has provided our credentials to boards, we could be absolutely anyone, qualified or unqualified, with any agenda whatsoever, and yet people are willing to risk their health by asking randomers for advice. it's mind-boggling. I remember one particular one in which a guy had had a scan done and had the images, and was waiting to see a consultant, he posted up the images here asking for a diagnosis- a definite 'WTF are you thinking?' moment.

also, when the no-medical advice rule has been discussed on feedback here in the past, it's quite astounding the number of people who seemingly can't comprehend the reasons for it.

echo beach

sam34 wrote: »

and yet people are willing to risk their health by asking randomers for advice. it's mind-boggling.

I see what you mean, but asking for advice and taking it are two different things.
Most people don't get their health information from professionals but from their family and friends. They view the internet as an extension of this social circle, with the added benefit that it is much wider and includes various 'experts'. Often this advice they get is good, e.g. 'you should go to see the doctor about that' and other times it is pure rubbish but in the end it is the person themselves, not their barstool or virtual advisors, who have to take responsibility for their own health.

I agree that doctors should not give medical advice over the internet but this prohibition seems to be wider than that, suggesting that they shouldn't identify themselves as a doctor using an alias. Where does that leave those who comment on things like working hours or conditions? The warning that it may be possible to trace content back to you could be read as more than a warning.

chanste

Think there are a few issues here. Firstly having rules about doctors identifying themselves doesn't endorse seeking advice on the internet. There is a twitter feed from Dr. Christian Jessen (of Embarassing Bodies fame) which seems ok to me but it got me thinking that a lot of people here would disapprove of it. Example of a recent tweet had somebody ask if they can prevent cold sores from occurring to which he suggested a daily antiviral. I think the main issues of seeking advice on the internet are such that the person claiming to be a doctor doesn't necessarily have a medical qualification - I think this is dealt with in the above case because this guy has several TV shows and books which can direct you to his twitter account. The other main issue is the need for an examination of a person to give them any advice and while I agree in many cases, surely something like the question above about cold sores doesn't require an examination? So anyway, I know the rest of us probably aren't or won't be representing any TV shows any time soon, but just wondered what people's thoughts were on that. Often times the advice is simply to go see the GP with a friendly word or 2 about it being the kind of thing that would need to be seen. For the record I'm absolutely behind this forums policy on medical advice mainly because people won't know who they are getting advised by, but I can understand somebody seeing the forum as an extension of their social circle as echo_beach suggested.

I'm reminded of a time when I'd let a problem get way out of hand because of the cost of seeing a GP, and when I explained this to the person I'd finally seen about it, they thought I was having a go at them about whether or not their service was worth the money; this wasn't even relevant I just couldn't afford to go. We could in my opinion just be a little more understanding about this issue when people seek help here, they may simply not have the money to see someone and the medical card thing has many people fall through the cracks. I know I didn't have one when I really needed it... sorry that was a bit of a rant. I'm done now! :-)

MrCreosote

Looks like I'm going to have to shut down my @freemedicaladvice twitter account ("you're problem's diagnosed and treated in 140 character's!")

locum-motion

MrCreosote wrote: »

Looks like I'm going to have to shut down my @freemedicaladvice twitter account ("you're problem's diagnosed and treated in 140 character's!")

If you only have 140 characters, it's a pity that you waste so many of them on extraneous apostrophes and Es.

MrCreosote

locum-motion wrote: »

If you only have 140 characters, it's a pity that you waste so many of them on extraneous apostrophes and Es.

That's how we cool cats speak on twitter. Twitter English- Twinglish.

e.g. "@worriedparent runny nose+cough, you're child of Kartagener's syndrome. Thnx."

Kwekubo

On a slight tangent, this group seems to be having some success, without ever setting eyes on their patients.

discus

I reckon that such rules that involve revealing the people behind online personas are simply being put in place to stop bloggers from revealing the behind-the-scenes stories of the health service. The UK police are coming under a lot of similar pressure, two big cases being the bloggers PC Copperfield and Inspector Gadget (the former has been gone a while, IG has deleted his 4 years worth of blogging last week)