Topic

doctors

10 petitions

Update posted 2 days ago

Petition to Yelp, United States Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, healthgrades , Yelp

Remove online reviews of doctors!

Doctors and other healthcare providers are reviewed on online review sites, similar to other businesses.  We, however, are not like those other businesses.  These online reviews are an open forum to the public written by patients, who are allowed to share their stories and photos explaining their experiences that they had with their doctor.  Often these reviews are negative and accuse the doctors of complications or mismanagement from medical visits, treatments and procedures that they have had.  Unlike other businesses, we, the doctors, are not allowed to respond, to defend our case or share any facts or photos to the public because of HIPAA and medical privacy laws.  We, the doctors, find this extremely unfair and unjust.  If patients are allowed to review us, then we should be able to defend the review and be able to state publicly our side of the story.   This is a clear cut prohibition and violation of our rights to defend ourselves and to protect our names and reputations. These reviews that are often one sided, impact our livelihood and medical practices. They also cause emotional distress to the doctors, who cannot explain their side of the story that is out in the public forum for others to read and believe.   Also, many doctors fearing poor reviews will overprescribe and overtest just to "satisfy" patients.  We, the doctors, should not be pressured to do things to get good reviews.  We want to provide medical care not customer care.  This affs the care to our patients and society as a whole.   We ask for immediate withdrawal of ALL doctors and providers, who are affected by HIPAA and medical privacy laws, from being reviewed on these online review sites. Until we can defend ourselves, a review should not be posted to which we cannot respond.

Physicians Working Together
37,458 supporters
Started 6 months ago

Petition to American Osteopathic Association Board Of Trustees

Keep Osteopathic Medicine Osteopathic

The defining characteristic of what makes Osteopathic Medicine different than non-Osteopathic Medicine is the osteopathic content that is taught and tested at different levels of a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine's training. The American Osteopathic Association (AOA) is the largest association of Osteopathic professionals in the U.S. and also oversees the Osteopathic Certifying Boards of Specialists. The AOA leadership is in the process of creating Osteopathic Specialty Board exams that are devoid of osteopathic content. The individual Osteopathic specialty boards, the AOA house of delegates, the AOA-affiliated societies, and the AOA members at large have not request a board exam option that has absolutely no osteopathic content on it. We feel that: 1. in order for someone to become osteopathically board certified in an osteopathic medical specialty there needs to be osteopathic content on that osteopathic certifying exam. 2. The AOA offering an Osteopathic certification specialty board exam option that is devoid of osteopathic content does not promote osteopathic medicine. 3. Osteopathic certification specialty boards should be in keeping with the objectives of the AOA and only strive to maintain and improve upon a high standard of Osteopathic medical education. 4. If the AOA certifying specialty boards offer a board certification option that is devoid of osteopathic content, it is tantamount to the AOA declaring that osteopathic content is not an essential part of Osteopathic Medicine. 5. With growing dissatisfaction of the American people with mainstream medicine and an Opioid crisis of epic proportions, now, more than ever, it is in the best interest of the public health for the AOA to dedicate itself to only promoting Osteopathic medicine and all those that are interested in practicing osteopathically. 6. There is a "DO Difference" and it ought to be promoted and celebrated and expanded upon. Keep Osteopathic Content in all Osteopathic Specialty Certification Board Exams!!

Rebecca J. Bowers, D.O.
2,836 supporters
Started 2 years ago

Petition to North Carolina General Assembly, Roy Cooper, Josh Stein, NC Department of Health

NC Rule 9(j) Requires a Right to Sue Letter is Unconstitutional.

My mother had a bleed out from both ends of her body in December 2015. The cover up started with Doctor of Nursing Center acting as primary physician who was entitled to sign the death certificate without verification of cause of death in North Carolina.  The doctor did not even have to view the body of my mother.  He was allowed to put down another cause for my mother's death just by picking whatever from mother's medical record. Which is an incorrect cause of death. After many lies from the doctor that he had made the amendment to cause of death. I finally started wondering around August 2016 if it was possible that my mother was murdered at 2am in the morning on 31 December 2015. Now, I am trying to get a right to sue letter which is required under Rule 9(j) and there is also a two year time statute to file a lawsuit. 31 December 2017 is the time the Nursing Center and doctor are aiming for so they cannot be sued. Then finding an attorney is like pulling one's own teeth.  Is the right to sue letter constitutional under NC Rule 9(j)? I say, "NO!"""VI. Constitutionality. In 2001, the Court of Appeals ruled that Rule 9(j)’s certification requirement violated the equal protection clauses of the North Carolina and United States Constitutions and article 1, section 18 of the North Carolina Constitution (“due course of law”). Anderson v. Assimos, 146 N.C. App. 339, 345–46 (2001). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Rule 9(j)’s certification requirement was not because the plaintiff’s claim was based solely on a res ipsa loquitur theory. Anderson v.Assimos, 356 N.C. 415, 417 (2002). Thus the Court of Appeals should not have addressed the constitutionality of Rule 9(j). Id. Our appellate courts have not squarely addressed the constitutionality of Rule 9(j) in the years since the Supreme Court issued this opinion. Because the 2011 amendments made Rule 9(j)’s requirements ever more stringent, new constitutional challenges may loom in the coming years. " "https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/additional_files/Rule%209%28j%29%20Special%20pleadings%20rule%20in%20med%20mal%20actionsUSE.pdf (In my opinion where NC has gone wrong is they have not set up a Medical Expert Board to oversee claims to mal-practice and neglect. The said Board should have to supply right to sue letter to the general public under NC Rule 9(j).) Solutions and Demands:1) Require Death Certificate to be signed by two others: a family member or close relation knowing the cause of death.  And have the cause of death typed instead of hand written by the doctor. 2) Require all bleed out deaths in NC nursing centers to be investigated. The Medical Examiner should be involved. 3) NC Rule 9(j) is requiring a right to sue letter to be able to sue medical communities. This rule is unconstitutional and is denying due process for NC citizens. Eliminate NC Rule 9 (j) and give relief to all damaged by this rule in the past. Furthermore, the right to sue letter for NC Rule 9(j) is not set up like EEOC or OSHA right to sue letters. Why not? 4) Require attorneys to be proactive in taking cases involving nursing center deaths. Why do attorney like vehicle accidents so much? Should an attorney like representing nursing center victims, too?Please contact all your NC Legislators on NC Rule 9(j) tell them it is not set up correctly; and ask them to fix doctors being neglectful when entering cause of death on death certificates.Your time and effort is totally appreciated and thank you.  

Valinda Norton
227 supporters
Update posted 2 years ago

Petition to Debbie Dingell, Debbie Stabenow, Gary C. Peters

Grant Sadeepa permanent residence for life-saving medical treatment

If Sadeepa Munasinghe returns to Sri Lanka she will die. In 2004, Sadeepa Munasinghe moved to the U.S. to study medicine. After a year of excellent grades, she grew gravely ill and the doctors were baffled. For months, Sadeepa’s health grew worse until she could barely eat, sleep or walk. Finally, in 2005 she was diagnosed with Wilson’s disease, a rare genetic disorder that causes the accumulation of copper in the eyes, brain, kidneys and liver. Untreated, it is fatal. And there is absolutely no treatment in her home country, Sri Lanka. At the Wilson’s Disease Association’s recommendation, Sadeepa sought treatment at the University of Michigan. She spent 45 days at U of M Hospital fighting for her life, bedridden and attached to feeding and peg tubes. Despite Sadeepa’s severe motor disabilities, she remained a full-time student and graduated from Eastern Michigan University with honors. However in order to maintain legal status, Sadeepa is forced to remain a full-time student. “The U.S. is forcing me to be a lifelong student or lose my legal status. Without legal status, I will be disqualified from receiving medical treatment and could be sent back to Sri Lanka where there is no treatment for Wilson’s.” Aside from being a good student, Sadeepa is a model citizen. She has constantly maintained legal status. Through volunteer work at a soup kitchen, temple, and various churches, her faith has inspired many.  With access to treatment and therapy, Sadeepa can live a long and healthy life. The introduction of a private bill to secure permanent residence for Sadeepa would allow her to complete her Master’s degree, obtain full-time employment, and support herself. In 2012, a private bill was introduced and passed which secured permanent residence for a Nigerian national so that he could enroll in a U.S. medical school. Thank you, Eva Weiss Please follow the campaign on Twitter at @HelpSadeepaStay and Facebook.com/HelpSadeepaStay

Eva Weiss
66,480 supporters