![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 57. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
A review of the causes for disciplinary proceedings under the State of Illinois Medical Practice Act of 1987, administered by the Illinois Division of Professional Regulation, suggests several causes of action against Robert Hsuing M.D.
Previously on this board, there has been discussion of the lawfulness of Hsiung's ongoing self-styled human research projects, primarily measured against U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rules for human research conducted using federal moneys. In response to those complaints, Hsiung submitted his research project for review by the University of Chicago Institutional Review Board.
The previous complaints and ad hoc investigations by concerned Internet users did not explore Hsiung's responsibilities under Illinois Department of Health rules (77 Ill. Adm. Code 250.130), nor under the state MPA1987. Recent behavior by Dr. Hsiung suggests a need for further action, and for referral by qualified complainants to the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board (320 West Washington, Springfield, IL 62786)
Actionable violations of the Medical Practices Act include:
Section 1285.240 Standardsa) Dishonorable, unethical or unprofessional conduct
1) In determining what constitutes dishonorable, unethical or unprofessional conduct of a character likely to deceive, defraud or harm the public, the Disciplinary Board shall consider whether the questioned activities:
A) Are violative of ethical standards of the profession (such as safeguard patient confidence and records within the constraints of law; respect the rights of patients, colleagues and other health professionals; observe laws under the Act and pertaining to any relevant specialty; to provide service with compassion and respect for human dignity).
B) Constitute a breach of the physician's responsibility to a patient;
C) Resulted in assumption by the physician of responsibility for delivery of patient care which the physician was not properly qualified or competent to render;
D) Resulted in a delegation of responsibility for delivery of patient care to persons who were not properly supervised, or who were not competent to assume such responsibility;
E) Caused actual harm to any member of the public; or
F) Are reasonably likely to cause harm to any member of the public in the future.
b) Immoral Conduct
1) Immoral conduct in the commission of any act related to the licensee's practice means conduct which:
A) Demonstrates moral indifference to the opinions of the good and respectable members of the profession;
B) Is inimical to the public welfare;
C) Abuses the physician/patient relationship by taking unfair advantage of a patient's vulnerability; and
D) Is committed in the course of the practice of medicine.2) In determining immoral conduct in the commission of any act related to the licensee's practice, the Disciplinary Board shall consider, but not be limited to, the following standards:
A) Taking advantage of a patient's vulnerability by committing an act or acts which violate established codes of professional behavior expected on the part of a physician;C) Conducting human experimentation or utilizing unproven drugs, medicine, surgery or equipment to treat patients except as authorized for use in an approved research program pursuant to rules of the Illinois Department of Public Health authorizing research programs (77 Ill. Adm. Code 250.130) or as otherwise expressly authorized by law;
D) Committing an act or acts, in the practice of persons licensed under this Act in practice, of a flagrant, glaringly obvious nature which constitute conduct of such a distasteful nature that accepted codes of behavior or codes of ethics are breached;
E) Committing an act or acts in a relationship with a patient so as to violate common standards of decency or propriety; or
F) Any other behavior which violates established codes of physician behavior or which violates established ethical principles commonly associated with the practice of medicine.
c) In determining what constitutes gross negligence, the Disciplinary Board shall consider gross negligence to be an act or omission which is evidence of recklessness or carelessness toward or a disregard for the safety or well‑being of the patient, and which results in injury to the patient.----
Our household had already begun an investigation of Hsiung's compliance with 77 Ill. Adm. Code 250.130. It appears Hsiung has either obtained counsel or formulated his own opinions of what he can get away with under both the research rules cited in this paragraph, and under other provisions of the act cited above, by claiming that his activities in administering an electronic self-help group are not considered practice of medicine. More recently he seems to be staking out a position that this group, which serves as his primary subject of consideration in published research material, is not research. Both of the claims are specious.
Let’s take a step back, now, to consider the difference in this group and others operated by recognized medical institutions. This group is administered solely under the discretion of Robert Hsiung. Other groups are administered by groups of professionals, where peer's interventions can offer as checks and balances to protect members from the personal prejudices and foibles of any individual administrator.
Anytime a medical professional initiates a private practice that is unique from those of peers, we have reason to look more closely before accepting the merits of the practitioner’s claims. Professional peers keep each other within boundaries. While there may be other motivations for going it alone, it is reasonable to consider whether a practitioner is working alone to avoid peer review.
To return to more specific complaints, consider that we have here a medical doctor who relishes idle contributions by primarily visitors suffering mental disorders that include speculation about wrestling with the doctor in his underpants. But the doctor today labeled a visitor uncivil for posting reference to a book by other medical professionals that said some self-help groups appear to function by serving as a surrogate addiction. This appears to offend the MPA1987 Section 1285.240 b)1)A) Immoral conduct in the commission of any act related to the licensee's practice means conduct which: Demonstrates moral indifference to the opinions of the good and respectable members of the profession;
A physician may adamantly disagree with a professional peer, but when a physician recruits participants in a research project, then slanders those participants as "uncivil" when they cite the opinions of other good and honorable physicians, that physician is acting immorally and in violation of professional ethics.
Hsiung's action today to slander yet another person he recruited to his site prompted our decision to post this information about his legal obligations.
Other tracks of our investigation, still underway, relate to the propriety of conducting research on clients who have not been offered informed consent about possible harm that may result, and his continual promotion of addictive behaviors without providing proper aid to those who get caught up in the behaviors he promotes, specifically participating in his research group. Internet addiction is recognized as a disorder, both by Hsiung through the ineffectual "anti-addiction" technical functions at this site, and by groups such as McLean Hospital that offer computer and internet addiction recovery services in Belmont, Mass.
Continued administration of procedures that are known to lead to addiction is in itself a violation of professional obligations, and cause for disciplinary action. Failure to provide adequate referrals for those suffering from addiction as a side effect of medical procedures comprises a violation of professional obligations.
We are also studying the distinction between self-help groups administered by members or by qualified social or psychological professionals and those administered by a physician. It is our opinion, which we are finding precedent to support, that a physician does not somehow sidestep his professional obligation by claiming to be merely an administrator of a group.
If the physician were involved primarily in the fiscal administration of a group, it would be one matter. When a physician becomes involved in the dialogue and dynamic of a mutual self-help group by chastising members, evicting members and setting standards of conduct within the group, it becomes impossible to separate the physician's behavior from the practice of medicine.
A further distinction lies in the purpose of the group. Administering a group organized primarily to help cope with routine life stresses might not comprise practice of medicine. Administering a group wherein claims of a health benefit are offered by a physician in relation to specific complaints that are within that physician’s area of practice, and when the physician is an active participant in dialogue comprises practice of medicine.
Daily labeling people as "uncivil" is nothing more than offering a diagnoses of anti-social personality disorder without conducting any prerequisite tests other than a measure against the physicians personal preferences for conduct.
These and other violations of professional codes of conduct are not only possible causes of action by the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board, they are cause for action in civil malpractice complaints brought by individuals who were harmed while participating in Dr. Hsiung's discussion group. If you have been harmed, or think you may have been harmed, save this message in a personal file and contact a malpractice attorney barred to practice in the State of Illinois. You might also consider reviewing the Medical Practices Act, especially the sections describing unprofessional conduct, in the context of your experiences at this site, and then contacting the Illinois Division of Professional Regulation.
In the mean time, if you are concerned about adverse behaviors you might have developed in response to Hsiung's persistent on-line behavior, you might consider contacting a group such as http://www.computeraddiction.com/ for prompt treatment of your symptoms, and further advice on how to prevent suffering additional harm at the hands of Dr. Robert Hsiung, (Ill. lic. no. 36079310)
We are also posting this message in the "adverse events" reporting page Hsiung was required to add to this site, so that he cannot hide it from proper review by his professional peers.
Posted by partlycloudy on October 13, 2004, at 14:37:19
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
Are you new to Babble?
Posted by jay on October 13, 2004, at 15:00:33
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
This community is no different than a MSN or Yahoogroup community. That's just how it is, and it is far from perfect, like all groups, but hey, that's the way the cookie crumbles. IMHO...
Jay
Posted by Toph on October 13, 2004, at 15:36:00
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
1987? Hmmm.
My thought is, the State probably reviewed the first guy who experimented with giving salt to manic-depressives. Years later hundreds of thousands of us are glad someone discovered the benefits of lithium.
Is is condescending to suggest that people who participate in PB of there own free will need the protections of the State?
Posted by AuntieMel on October 13, 2004, at 15:41:16
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
As evidenced by this administration board. The mere fact that it exists means that Dr. Bob listens to us and allows disagreement. That is all the morality I need.
This type of thing has been raised by 'newbies' before and never goes anywhere.
We are adults and can take care of ourselves, thank you very much.
Posted by pegasus on October 13, 2004, at 16:49:54
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
Dr. Bob may not be perfect, but he has created a wonderful forum that is helping many people cope everyday. Suing him seems so counterproductive. It could result in all of PB being shut down, which is not going to benefit anyone who reads or posts here.
Let's all take a deep breath, and remember that this comes up all the time. People interpret Dr. Bob in negative ways all the time. And then people interpret him in positive ways. People threaten to sue Dr. Bob. People defend Dr. Bob. It's just part of the culture of PB, especially on the Admin board. Some of us find it hard to take, and so we don't read Admin very often. Some of us love the debate, and jump in with both feet.
I sincerely hope that no one ever truly does decide to sue Dr. Bob. I would hate to see Dr. Bob decide to take down this incredibly valuable resource to protect himself, or due to court action or for any reason.
Personally, nothing that I've seen on here in the 10 months in which I've been participating warrants that kind of action anyway. But that's just my opinion. I tend to see most of the negativity toward Dr. Bob as projection - just because I usually don't see the negativity myself - but I could be totally wrong and applying my own positive projection.
pegasus
Posted by Racer on October 13, 2004, at 17:00:52
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
I don't understand this vitriolic outpouring, because there is a disclaimer -- equivalent, I think, to informed consent documents -- when registering for this site.
What I really don't understand, though, is what you want out of all this? Do you want the site to close down? This site is a good resource for a lot of people, it contains a lot of good information in the form of links, the bulletin boards are a great source of information, support, and entertainment for a lot of people. I don't understand how that can be a bad thing?
Yes, Dr Bob does use this site as part of his research. So what? We were all informed of that when we registered. We're not identified in that research, we agreed in advance that he has copyright over the posts here -- but it's his site. He does the work. He provides the space. That's not a bad trade off, if you ask me. In fact, I'd have to say that we get the best part of this bargain.
What possible purpose does it serve to accuse him of unethical conduct?
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2004, at 17:08:57
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
> Both of the claims are specious.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Simus on October 13, 2004, at 17:21:26
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
Dr. Bob,
Thank you for the service you provide for us here at Psycho-Babble. This site has helped me through some very difficult times in my life.
Simus
Posted by justyourlaugh on October 13, 2004, at 17:22:38
In reply to Re: please be civil » Mary_Bowers, posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2004, at 17:08:57
i seem to have had way to many beers..
could you please sum up your post to something a little more brief...
what was the point?
jyl...
Posted by Cass on October 13, 2004, at 18:22:45
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
Hi Mary,
Are you an attorney? I tried to follow your post, but I must admit it was hard for me to follow. Maybe it's just my poor concentration. Since I'm not clear on everything you wrote, can I ask you a question to clarify? It seems like you are identifying PB posters as Dr. Bob's patients. Is that correct? If so, that's not true. We are not Dr. Bob's patients. We don't receive therapy from Dr. Bob. I believe all the posters know that because there is a question in the registration quiz about it, if I remember correctly. Dr. Bob can't be held responsible for physician practices since he is not our physician.
You also write, "Daily labeling people as 'uncivil' is nothing more than offering a diagnoses of anti-social personality disorder without conducting any prerequisite tests other than a measure against the physicians personal preferences for conduct."
I disagree. I go to lots of non-psychiatric related message boards where the moderators sometime ask posters to be "civil." This is no different. It seems like a leap in logic to say he is diagnosing anyone with an antisocial disorder.
You also write, "In the mean time, if you are concerned about adverse behaviors you might have developed in response to Hsiung's persistent on-line behavior, you might consider contacting a group such as http://www.computeraddiction.com/ for prompt treatment of your symptoms, and further advice on how to prevent suffering additional harm at the hands of Dr. Robert Hsiung, (Ill. lic. no. 36079310)"
If we become addicted to PB or develop any adverse behaviors, we must take personal responsibility for them. We are not children. No one forces us to come to PB. People can become addicted to anything. As far as I know, Dr. Bob has no way of harming any of us, and I don't believe he would if he could. Perhaps our feeling get hurt from time to time if we receive a PCB, but there are rules to this board, and if we don't agree with the rules, we don't have to post here.
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 13, 2004, at 18:53:40
In reply to Re: A physician's moral indifference to peer opini, posted by Cass on October 13, 2004, at 18:22:45
Okay is this a legal problem for a sham?
What is going on?
Why does the name Mary Bowers ring a bell?
Dr. Jeykl and Mr. Hyde assistant?
is this real?
Jai
Posted by partlycloudy on October 13, 2004, at 19:01:17
In reply to Cass excellent response...., posted by Jai Narayan on October 13, 2004, at 18:53:40
I agree, Cass sure has a way with words. And I think this is not anything to take seriously.
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 13, 2004, at 19:25:25
In reply to Re: Cass excellent response.... » Jai Narayan, posted by partlycloudy on October 13, 2004, at 19:01:17
This is sounding quite legal. Do we have a lawyer in our group?
We need some legal advice....wish my dad were still alive. sigh.
any takers?
Jai
Posted by coral on October 13, 2004, at 19:47:49
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
" . . .physician recruits participants . . . " Gosh, I don't remember being recruited!
Coral
Posted by gardenergirl on October 13, 2004, at 19:52:25
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
Sigh, okay, here goes:
>Recent behavior by Dr. Hsiung suggests a need for further action, and for referral by qualified complainants to the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board (320 West Washington, Springfield, IL 62786).
Are we (the Babbler community) to assume that you (meaning the "we" you refer to throughout your post) are a qualified complainant? If not, golly, thanks for your public service here. It's so, er, prescient of you to provide it in advance of potential requests for same.
> Our household had already begun an investigation of Hsiung's compliance with 77 Ill. Adm. Code 250.130.
And your household would include whom? I find it odd that your post is unsigned. Surely something this serious begs for disclosure? (Oh and by my use of the word "surely" I am not calling you "shirley".)
Both of the claims are specious.
And your evidence to back this up?
>it is reasonable to consider whether a practitioner is working alone to avoid peer review.
I'm thinking of a word other than reasonable, but I can't think of an appropriate synomnym, and I certainly wouldn't be so bold as to characterize you or your post with something that also has clinical meaning.
>
> But the doctor today labeled a visitor uncivilOkay, here's the nit-picky part...Dr. Bob and his deputies in the past labelled *behavior* uncivil, not posters themselves. I know it's a semantic distinction, and I find myself surprised that you (meaning the plural "you" you refer to throughout) might have missed it.
> A physician may adamantly disagree with a professional peer, but when a physician recruits participants in a research project, then slanders those participants as "uncivil" when they cite the opinions of other good and honorable physicians, that physician is acting immorally and in violation of professional ethics.
Um, please see above.
>
> Hsiung's action today to slander yet another person he recruited to his site prompted our decision to post this information about his legal obligations.Ditto
> We are also studying the distinction between self-help groups administered by members or by qualified social or psychological professionals and those administered by a physician. It is our opinion, which we are finding precedent to support, that a physician does not somehow sidestep his professional obligation by claiming to be merely an administrator of a group.
Please cite your precendent.
>
> When a physician becomes involved in the dialogue and dynamic of a mutual self-help group by chastising members, evicting members and setting standards of conduct within the group, it becomes impossible to separate the physician's behavior from the practice of medicine.Holy cannoli! I'm glad my physician doesn't do this when he is "practicing" on me. In fact, I've never known any physician to consider such behavior as part of the practice of medicine. Imagine the coursework!
>
> A further distinction lies in the purpose of the group. Administering a group organized primarily to help cope with routine life stresses might not comprise practice of medicine. Administering a group wherein claims of a health benefit are offered by a physician in relation to specific complaints that are within that physician’s area of practice, and when the physician is an active participant in dialogue comprises practice of medicine.Please cite examples.
>
> Daily labeling people as "uncivil" is nothing more than offering a diagnoses of anti-social personality disorder without conducting any prerequisite tests other than a measure against the physicians personal preferences for conduct.Um, I hate to be repetitive, but please see response above related to labelling of people versus labelling of actions. And to be even more nit-picky, the words "civil" or "uncivil" do not appear anywhere in the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder according to the DSM-IV-TR (page 706). One thing that DID catch my eye, however, which I will share with the group just because I am free associating is criteria A(2) "deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure." I like that one. :)
>
> These and other violations of professional codes of conduct are not only possible causes of action by the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board, they are cause for action in civil malpractice complaints brought by individuals who were harmed while participating in Dr. Hsiung's discussion group. If you have been harmed, or think you may have been harmed, save this message in a personal file and contact a malpractice attorney barred to practice in the State of Illinois. You might also consider reviewing the Medical Practices Act, especially the sections describing unprofessional conduct, in the context of your experiences at this site, and then contacting the Illinois Division of Professional Regulation.So I understand the purpose of your post is to recruit members for some kind of *civil* (ironic, isn't it?) lawsuit? Do I have that right?
>
> In the mean time, if you are concerned about adverse behaviors you might have developed in response to Hsiung's persistent on-line behavior, you might consider contacting a group such as http://www.computeraddiction.com/ for prompt treatment of your symptoms, and further advice on how to prevent suffering additional harm at the hands of Dr. Robert Hsiung, (Ill. lic. no. 36079310)
>
> We are also posting this message in the "adverse events" reporting page Hsiung was required to add to this site, so that he cannot hide it from proper review by his professional peers.Since you (meaning the plural you) are investigating on our (meaning the Babbler community) behalf, would you please share your investigator credentials with us?
And just for the record, I have never considered Dr. Bob to be my psychiatrist, to be practicing medicine by administering this site based on my observations since 2003, and I do not consider myself to be a *participant* (that is the word for human research. *Subjects* is passe) in a specific research study.
Sincerely,
gg/jwh
Posted by gardenergirl on October 13, 2004, at 19:53:11
In reply to Not to be nit-picky, but....dang it, I'm a moth!, posted by gardenergirl on October 13, 2004, at 19:52:25
Posted by alexandra_k on October 13, 2004, at 20:12:48
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
Okay. Because your post was so very long and I have no earthly idea who you are as I have never seen you post before I have to admit I skimmed it. The following struck me:
>Daily labeling people as "uncivil" is nothing more than offering a diagnoses of anti-social personality disorder without conducting any prerequisite tests other than a measure against the physicians personal preferences for conduct.
That was the paragraph that really stood out in my mind as indicating that your credibility is questionable.
Diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder must be made on the basis of DSM (or ICD) criteria, and an account of the subjects history must be taken. You seem to see this, but you then go on to accuse Dr. Bob of conflating incivility with anti-social personality disorder. To the best of my knowledge Dr. Bob has never attempted to diagnose anyone from Babble, and he would not do this. If you cannot provide evidence of his doing this then you should see that conflating incivility with anti-social personality disorder is more accurately reflective of a state of your mind than of anything that goes on on these boards. You should also be very careful making unsupported allegations which could result in your being libel.
I am used to reading technical works, but I have to say that I found your post to be confusing and full of pseudo-legal jargon which doesn't help people understand what you are saying.
Have you even read what Dr. Bob has to say about what his duties and responsibilities are as a Dr. who is moderating this site?
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2002/08/05/prca0805.htm#1
I don't really understand what your problem is, but your 'household' doesn't seem to want to participate in Babble in the sense of participating in the mutual support and education that benefits so many from this site. You seem more intent on making accusations.
It is my personal opinion that as you do not wish to participate in the support and education that is offered, perhaps you should find a site that is more suited to your style of communication, and perhaps one that is more in synch with your accusatory manner.
Perhaps aspects of the above are uncivil, and I apologise for that. I am just concerned about your breeding an atmosphere of hostility and accusation when there is little substance to your claims.
Yours respectfully,
ak9
Posted by Ilene on October 13, 2004, at 20:55:10
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
There's a world of difference between feeling dissed and shutting down a site. I don't think we have anything to worry about from Mary Bowers, whoever she may be.
Posted by verne on October 13, 2004, at 20:59:25
In reply to Re: A physician's moral indifference to peer opini, posted by Cass on October 13, 2004, at 18:22:45
I don't have much to add to all these excellent posts.
But about the idea of working alone to avoid "peer review" or hide something from one's peers - I can think of many valid reasons to work alone that have nothing to do with my peers.
Besides didn't you know? Dr. Bob has no peers.
verne
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on October 14, 2004, at 1:39:03
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
Posted by Slinky on October 14, 2004, at 9:37:18
In reply to I don't believe this. It's a test. (nm), posted by Shadowplayers721 on October 14, 2004, at 1:39:03
Wrestling in underpants?
Gosh , shocking.
Have you been unfaithful?
Wrestling's ok but leave your pants on ..I demand !Ok now delete my post
Posted by Slinky on October 14, 2004, at 9:40:36
In reply to mary..., posted by justyourlaugh on October 13, 2004, at 17:22:38
I've had no beers but my little span can't cope I'm dense..I just got the wrestling bit
The point is.......?
Posted by Slinky on October 14, 2004, at 9:48:21
In reply to Cass excellent response...., posted by Jai Narayan on October 13, 2004, at 18:53:40
> Why does the name Mary Bowers ring a bell?
Swapping the letters around *may* reveal the truth.
Posted by partlycloudy on October 14, 2004, at 9:53:41
In reply to Re: Cass excellent response.... » Jai Narayan, posted by Slinky on October 14, 2004, at 9:48:21
And yes I do know who this person is. 50 lashes with a wet noodle.
For getting poor partlycloudy so upset she posted silly things on the other boards in alarm.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.