![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 57. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Slinky on October 14, 2004, at 10:02:51
In reply to This is a poor idea of a game, posted by partlycloudy on October 14, 2004, at 9:53:41
It ain't me partly...I play no games like this just tease and make light.Sorry if your're upset..I'm just in a silly mood.
I'm never going to post here on site ever again because it is eggshell city ..my kind of posting is unwanted- I understand that.
I hope everyone appriciates this site like I have it's been a life saver in the past and I've known many angels here... but it ain't for me no more..
It's gone weird..or I'm weired.Love and light.
Love and light.
Posted by partlycloudy on October 14, 2004, at 10:27:57
In reply to Re: This is a poor idea of a game » partlycloudy, posted by Slinky on October 14, 2004, at 10:02:51
And I know it's not you, sweetie! Please don't go. Your posts are like magic spells that you weave around us. You HAVE to stay.
pc
Posted by tabitha on October 14, 2004, at 10:45:48
In reply to Re: This is a poor idea of a game » partlycloudy, posted by Slinky on October 14, 2004, at 10:02:51
you lovely egg, you. Last post ever? Yeegads! Don't make me go to PB Grief and start an "I Miss Slinky" thread.
Posted by Bobby on October 14, 2004, at 11:02:20
In reply to Re: This is a poor idea of a game » partlycloudy, posted by Slinky on October 14, 2004, at 10:02:51
Your posting style not wanted?!? You've been around for several years and you are one of the reasons that I still come here. I challenge anyone to question your importance here! Anyone! So eat a mangoe and settle down my dear. We love you much---right guys?
Posted by Dinah on October 14, 2004, at 11:33:32
In reply to Re: This is a poor idea of a game » partlycloudy, posted by Slinky on October 14, 2004, at 10:02:51
Your style of posts are very much appreciated.
I'm feeling rather ponderous at the moment, so I can't put this lightly or gracefully.
But please don't go, Slinky. All our lives are lightened and enriched for your being here.
Posted by B2Chica on October 14, 2004, at 13:49:55
In reply to A physician's moral indifference to peer opinions, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 13, 2004, at 14:23:22
i think everything i would need to say has been posted by all our wonderful community already.
However, although the legality 'seems' official, i can't help but think of those tv commercials that say...have you or anyone in your family been injured by 'xxx', if so please call 1-800-555-5555 for you too may qualify for a settlement.
and i can't help but wonder what miss Mary's connection to "computeraddiction.com" is. I mean at least Dr.Bob hasn't ever pushed treatment advertisements on any of us. hmmmmm.
the pbc comment upset me a bit. Some people complain when there is no administrator to help monitor boards and all chaos is loose, then others complain that there is...i believe his 'involvement' is the perfect amount. if each member reads the intro-they know when to expect a PBC from DocBob, and shouldn't be suprised. And i have never felt those pbc's are ANY attempt to 'label'. If each person actually read the intro, reads the rules, takes the little quiz then they understand what this site is all about and how it works.
By becoming members (whatever the sites purpose is) we AS ADULTS acknowlege and accept these rules and purposes.
AND for the record i in no way consider this site or Dr.Bob my medical/MH providers or substitute there of. I am under the care of mdoc, pdoc and T (IRL).
And i don't know that i consider this a comparison to 'medical' sites. Though Dr.Bob is a physician he in no way 'practices' through this website, and all the information is gathered and offered, never pushed or suggested to specific members.proud member 10 months (lurker-14mo)
B2chica.
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 14, 2004, at 14:47:48
In reply to Re: I believe this. .., posted by Slinky on October 14, 2004, at 9:37:18
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.