![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 51 to 75 of 86. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on October 15, 2004, at 21:25:40
In reply to Re: think about it---PC, posted by bride2be on October 15, 2004, at 19:17:42
Not your fault and certainly statements made recently are not what the rest of us, and I do feel comfortable speaking for the group, think!
Big huge hug for as long as you need.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on October 15, 2004, at 21:27:46
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by Toph on October 15, 2004, at 20:53:05
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2004, at 4:25:33
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by Toph on October 15, 2004, at 20:53:05
> PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>
> partlycloudy> BUGGER OFF
>
> AuntieMel> You've been so helpful today I was hoping you could do what my mommy did to my booboos.
>
> TophI'm sorry I haven't been around, but I'd like again to ask everyone to be civil, which includes not pressuring others. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Toph on October 16, 2004, at 7:21:12
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2004, at 4:25:33
I apologize for the scatological humor, whenever someone scratches my car I get this vengeful urge. I'll try to work on passively accepting this kind of vandalism from now on.
This group is an amorphous living thing composed of independent living cells. Their connecting bond may be tenuous but it is real, having at least something to do with a mutual desire to congregate with similar cells and, in part, because of a love-hate feeling for you, I suppose. When attacked, the group goes into the fight-flight mode like any living entity. When I told Mary to 'kiss my *ss' it was only because she scratched my damn car. If I deserve a time out maybe its for the best. I've been kind of hypo-manic lately and PB hasn't helped.
-Toph
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2004, at 16:07:03
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on October 16, 2004, at 7:21:12
> I apologize for the scatological humor, whenever someone scratches my car I get this vengeful urge. I'll try to work on passively accepting this kind of vandalism from now on.
>
> When attacked, the group goes into the fight-flight mode like any living entity.Thanks. Urges like that are understandable, but two wrongs don't make a right. And there are other alternatives besides fight, flight, and passive acceptance. And living entities heal when scratched...
Bob
Posted by Toph on October 16, 2004, at 17:33:56
In reply to Re: scratches, posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2004, at 16:07:03
> Thanks. Urges like that are understandable, but two wrongs don't make a right. And there are other alternatives besides fight, flight, and passive acceptance... >
> BobOh, that's right, Bob. I completely forgot about weggies.
-Toph
Posted by saw on October 18, 2004, at 2:16:09
In reply to Re: think about it » bride2be, posted by partlycloudy on October 15, 2004, at 19:14:33
Partlycloudy, you have my full support and agreement on this subject.
I won't say anymore than that!
Sabrina
Posted by alesta on October 21, 2004, at 4:00:56
In reply to A civil venue for accusations, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 15, 2004, at 11:53:29
I am not quite sure what all this debating is about over here on admin, but I would like to speak out..as one of those individuals who unwittingly became nearly suicidal after one of my "productive discussions" with dr. bob, I am advocating a need for change in this forum. Just because you yourself have not been traumatized by the admin experience doesn't undermine those who have. I suffered greatly and needlessly. This is something I never expected to happen at a forum supporting mental health. I feel this combination of puritanical civility guidelines and an admin board to debate them is a recipe for disaster, and is not in the best interests of its members. I hope that my view here is not pounced upon and rejected, but this is a risk I'm taking. And until you have been in one of those notoriously frustrating, fruitless coversations with dr. bob under the guise that you're actually making progress, I suppose you will never understand why he evokes such strong emotions in some of us e.g. atticus, and other people I know who shall remain nameless. There are other communities without all this stressful debating and civility guidelines and they are calmer, more supportive environments to be in. Perhaps Dr. Bob could learn something from those sites.
I may not return here to admin in an effort to protect my mental health, as I know all too well how uncivil it can get here. But I just wanted to express my opinion. Thanks for listening.
amy :)
Posted by SLS on October 21, 2004, at 6:51:49
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 15, 2004, at 12:19:51
> Do they claim to be interactive medical education sites administered by a physician?
What if this same site were administered by a plumber?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 21, 2004, at 7:10:00
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 15, 2004, at 13:59:20
> If people would suffer from the site being shut down, that suggests a clinical relationship in which the site is operated to relieve suffering,
I think this statement might represent an important error in logic. I think there would be people who would suffer from the shut down of just about any kind of support forum, despite a lack of a clinical relationship with a moderator. I think there would even be people who would suffer from the shut down of CNN. Support and education can exist independent of medical clinical management. If you will notice, Dr. Hsiung NEVER submits posts offering medical clinical advise. He could just as well be a plumber in the way he functions here. Even plumbers have opinions as to what constitutes civil discourse. Does a plumber have the option of moderating his website in the way he pleases? I don't know.
- Scott
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 21, 2004, at 13:04:35
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by SLS on October 21, 2004, at 7:10:00
Sorry, this only came to me last night.
Is this a Dr Bob thing, or are you doing the same for other Doctors who run peer support sites?? Are you also building a case against Dr Grohol for example?
Thankyou,
Nikki
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:22:00
In reply to Mary Bowers, posted by NikkiT2 on October 21, 2004, at 13:04:35
> Sorry, this only came to me last night.
>
> Is this a Dr Bob thing, or are you doing the same for other Doctors who run peer support sites?? Are you also building a case against Dr Grohol for example?
>
> Thankyou,
>
> NikkiI understand this discussion has grown lengthy and not all of the content is clear, potentially frustrating the efforts of some to understand my style of support education.
I think I stated early on that our reviews have suggested sites administered by medical professional where administration is the product of an interactive group of professionals tend to be less harmful to a minority of participants than are sites such as this where a single practitioner formulates policies for use of an emerging technology without the benefit of an empowered and interactive group of administrative peers. Evidence that some people have expressed a sense of being hurt while participating here is abundant, especially in the archives of this administrative page. Robert Hsiung's consistent reply has been that this site can't be all things to all people, and that those who might feel hurt here can go elsewhere. Our hypothesis is that if there is a way for him to reduce the frequency of incidences of harm here, including participating in an empowered administrative group of peers that can override his policies, he has an obligation to either provide those protections or to advise participants he is not employing available means to protect them from his own misjudgements or from harm resulting from his experimental approaches.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:26:51
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by SLS on October 21, 2004, at 6:51:49
> > Do they claim to be interactive medical education sites administered by a physician?
>
> What if this same site were administered by a plumber?
>
>
> - Scott
Then no one could reasonably develop an expecation that they are participating in a site administered by a medical professional, and no one could appeal to medical licensing authorities for relief. But if the plumber suggested that he or she is offering the benefit of clinical and professional medical experience in administration of the site, he could potentially be called before licensing authorities for practicing without a license.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:45:38
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by SLS on October 21, 2004, at 7:10:00
Persistent offerings of opinions by a psychiatrist deliniating what is civil and what is not civil can be viewed as medical opinions about appropriate behavior. If a licensed plumber called people uncivil for posting information that conflicts with the opinion of the plumber, he could potentially face action by other plumbers whose opinions he has called people uncivil for embracing. People can civilly call other peoples opinins wrong, or specious. But they may not call other people uncivil for holding those reasonable opinions contradicting the opinions of others. The plumber can offer contrary opinions, but when he calls expressin of those respected opinions of other professionals uncivil, he would seem to be committing an element of a libelous offense, specifically by suggesting that others are earning a living my innappropriate means.
I am starting to wonder if the interpretation of civil Hsiung proffers is in fact composed by attorneys. Statements that could make others feel hurt or put down could be interpreted as libelous, so he might have a compelling reason to systematically exclude them. But since an attorney might have offered a legal opinion that Hsiung offers as the opinion of a phsyciatrist about what is "Civil", it is easy for clients to reach the conclusion that civility is a medical, rather than a legal standard. Civility, from the perspective of a doctor, implies behavioral and character standards. The standard at play, however, seems to be a legal standard designed to protect Hsiung not from malpractice suits, but from libel suits for facilitating the publication of libelous statements.
From a medical regulatory standpoint, questions might arise over his failure to recognize as an artifact of his experience repeated misunderstandings among those he says have not been civil. I don't think we will find any other places on the Internet, certainly not at medically oriented sites operated by medical professionals, where a mental health practitioner persistently identifies writings of invited guests as not civil.
In case anyone is mulling over the related question, criticisms posted here of Robert Hsiungs practices are not liable to be seen as actionable libel because this is a context in which Hsiung has invited review of his administrative practice.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:48:02
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations, posted by alesta on October 21, 2004, at 4:00:56
Posted by partlycloudy on October 21, 2004, at 16:42:16
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:45:38
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 8:22:38
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » SLS, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:26:51
> > > Do they claim to be interactive medical education sites administered by a physician?
> >
> > What if this same site were administered by a plumber?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
>
> Then no one could reasonably develop an expecation that they are participating in a site administered by a medical professional, and no one could appeal to medical licensing authorities for relief. But if the plumber suggested that he or she is offering the benefit of clinical and professional medical experience in administration of the site, he could potentially be called before licensing authorities for practicing without a license.
>
It doesn't appear to me that Dr. Hsiung is practicing medicine. This is where all of your arguments might fall short. The presumptions of those who might interact here are just that, presumptions. It is up to the individual across the entire Internet to apply caution when using any site as a source of information or socialization. Caveat emptor must be the motto for anyone surfing the Net.Are the civility guidelines and their enforcement the only aspects of this site that troubles you? If not, can you be specific as to what are the others?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 8:50:15
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 13:45:38
> Persistent offerings of opinions by a psychiatrist deliniating what is civil and what is not civil can be viewed as medical opinions about appropriate behavior.
Again, this is an assumption being made by the individual for which there are no stated prescriptions of medical practice anywhere on the site.
> If a licensed plumber called people uncivil for posting information that conflicts with the opinion of the plumber, he could potentially face action by other plumbers whose opinions he has called people uncivil for embracing.
Can you cite a precedent for this in law? I don't think so.
> Civility, from the perspective of a doctor, implies behavioral and character standards.
Again, this would be an assumption made on the part of the individual for which the individual is solely responsible. Dr. Hsiung is acting as a moderator of his site, nothing more.
> From a medical regulatory standpoint, questions might arise over his failure to recognize as an artifact of his experience repeated misunderstandings among those he says have not been civil.
Again, Dr. Hsiung is not practicing medicine. I doubt his behavior here could possibly fall under the perview of a medical regulatory agency. Whether or not his behavior is liable for civil action is a point of law for which you might want to provide precedents.
> I don't think we will find any other places on the Internet, certainly not at medically oriented sites operated by medical professionals, where a mental health practitioner persistently identifies writings of invited guests as not civil.
The uniqueness of any site on the Internet is irrelevant to the issues you are proclaiming as actionable.
> In case anyone is mulling over the related question, criticisms posted here of Robert Hsiungs practices are not liable to be seen as actionable libel because this is a context in which Hsiung has invited review of his administrative practice.
Where do you get this stuff from? There can't possibly be any such limit to libel in law. Can you cite any precedent for this? If not, you should not make such statements as if they were points of law.
I think you might be investing your time in an endeavor for which you have little chance of succeeding. I am counting on your not knowing anything about which you speak.
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on October 22, 2004, at 10:18:54
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 8:50:15
Things were a lot more interesting when our opinions differed.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 11:52:20
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 8:50:15
> > Persistent offerings of opinions by a psychiatrist deliniating what is civil and what is not civil can be viewed as medical opinions about appropriate behavior.
>
> Again, this is an assumption being made by the individual for which there are no stated prescriptions of medical practice anywhere on the site.
>Medicine is the art or science of maintenence of health, and the prevention or cure of disease. At this site, Robert Hsiung practices administration of a health maintenance facility. A doctor who administers a hospital might be liable for medical mistakes he allows under his watch. One reason doctors steer away from administrative positions except those that oversee other trained and insured practitioners is because of the unique liabilities associated with holding a medical license. Whether self-help groups meet in a clinic under the supervision of clinical staff or elsewhere under self-directed leadership is a question often related to liability. If a doctor were holding a party at his home, and a guest fell ill, the doctor would not excuse himself of medical liability by standing back and limiting his contribution to abritrating which of the house guests was civil enough to provide information that could lead to the recovery of the doctors guest.
One standard a board might consider is how the doctor presents himself. In this case, Hsiung calls himself "Doctor", provides links to information about e-therapy, and about electronic clinical environments. His disclaimers scattered about the site might not outweigh his statements elsewhere asserting what is a clinical environment and whether the admittedly intentional therapeutic effect of an electronic site is a primary or secondary goal. Simply put, he cannot sustain a claim made here that this is not a clinic while claiming elsewhere that environments such as this are clinical.
If Hsiung is operating this pseudo-clinical facility with no liability protection for himself, that is his prerogative. He asserts he moved the servers to a facility he pays for because the University wanted to follow the money they were spending. But his book promo still asserts the Dr. Bob sites are affiliated with the University of Chicago. The university's insurers might not be fully aware of their risk profile in relation to his unique activities.
> > If a licensed plumber called people uncivil for posting information that conflicts with the opinion of the plumber, he could potentially face action by other plumbers whose opinions he has called people uncivil for embracing.
>
> Can you cite a precedent for this in law? I don't think so.A common element of the descriptions of libel in many states is the inference that a person is earning a living by dishonorable means. It is fair to criticize particular practices, but when the proponent of a practice is characterized as dishonorable, the matter often becomes the subject of a libel action. If however, a professional invites criticisms, the nature of the criticism has less standing than one that is advanced ad hoc outside a forum the professional created to invite review of his or her practices. I'll respond later in this post to your question about the implications of inviting criticism.
>
> Again, this would be an assumption made on the part of the individual for which the individual is solely responsible. Dr. Hsiung is acting as a moderator of his site, nothing more.
>You are repeating an assertion that is the foundation of our investigation, so it is not new information. Obviously, our opinion differs. It would be up to a regulatory body to decide who is responsible for commonly held percptions of a facility supervised by Robert Hsiung, M.D.
> > From a medical regulatory standpoint, questions might arise over his failure to recognize as an artifact of his experience repeated misunderstandings among those he says have not been civil.
>
> Again, Dr. Hsiung is not practicing medicine. I doubt his behavior here could possibly fall under the perview of a medical regulatory agency. Whether or not his behavior is liable for civil action is a point of law for which you might want to provide precedents.Any practice that is relevant to a medical review board is likely to be cause for civil action. I have doubts about the interest of a medical review board in some of his practices. I am aware it could be related to political issues. Since pharmaceutical companies are sometimes major contributors to the campaigns of politicians who appoint those boards, an understanding of the political climate that led to the current board make up is likely to effect the merits of your doubts or mine about a board's interest in protecting clients of a physician's medical self-help practice.
Depending on the particular inclinations of a board, his efforts to proclaim as not medical his offerings to people suffering the ailments he is trained to treat might very well be weighed against perceptions that he is presenting as a doctor. A board might listen long and hard to the complaint of a person about the man in a white coat that holds a medical degree, a license, and presents himself as the "doctor" in charge of a self-help group, and who posts at the top of each page citations of his book about electronic clinical environments and electronicly facilitated therapy.
> The uniqueness of any site on the Internet is irrelevant to the issues you are proclaiming as actionable.
>Let's classify that as "considering" not as "proclaiming." The uniqueness of a practice can be relevant to whether it is a medically accepted practice. Medical review boards determine what is actionable under their jurisdiction. Doctors who introduce unique practices may be the subject of closer scrutiny by review boards. If a person wants to advise a medical review board they are suffering at the hands of a physician who is administering purported self-care facilities which are unique, untried and unproven, and about which he is authoring books, journal articles and conference presentations, your authority to consider it irrelevant is no greater than my authority to consider it relevant. The real contest here, in matters that you or I can effect, is our individual authoritative tones. Your tone of authority will probably carry more weight with people inclined to agree with your point of view.
> > In case anyone is mulling over the related question, criticisms posted here of Robert Hsiungs practices are not liable to be seen as actionable libel because this is a context in which Hsiung has invited review of his administrative practice.
>
> Where do you get this stuff from? There can't possibly be any such limit to libel in law.
There can't? Are you familiar with libel laws of each of the 50 states? Have you heard of the "clean hands" doctrine?
>Can you cite any precedent for this?Yes. Will I for you? No.
>If not, you should not make such statements as if they were points of law.
>
>I am counting on your not knowing anything about which you speak.
Keep counting, then. I am counting instances in which clients of "Doctor Bob's" medical information service have claimed to have been hurt while using his services.
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 13:48:56
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » SLS, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 11:52:20
Hi Mary.
I wish I didn't have to plead ignorance regarding the points of law you bring up. It would make for a more enlightened discussion.
The law is interminably complex. I understand much of what you have to say, and can see how some of it might reach a threshold of foundation to be accepted for hearing in a court of law. Ultimately, I don't think anything will come of it because moderation of bulletin boards is a common practice, and I don't think that an argument describing an enforcement of civility as being a medical prescription will be accepted. Also, I am dubious that it can be found that Dr. Hsiung is practicing medicine here.
I think you will find that most everyone here who was present before the administration of civility guidelines will agree that many, many more people were being harmed by malicious posters than might be offended by the site's current moderation. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
I can't stress enough how important a resource this site is for the mentally ill. I am still depending on it for an answer to the treatment-resistant disorder I suffer from. It has been the best clearinghouse for treatment modalities and coping mechanisms I have seen. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
Your lawyerly arguments are interesting and sophisticated. Your resolve is firm. I wish neither were true. I guess you will do what you feel is right. I can tell that you are unwavering in your belief as to what that is. Such a huge number of people will be harmed should you be successful. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
I wish my illness would allow me the ability to read with comprehension, remember, and learn new things. It would make for a fair fight. I am convinced that I would kick your butt. :-)
I am grateful that you have decided to come to this site to interact with its participants. Thank you for the opportunity to dissuade you from your goal. Please forgive me should I overlook any of the details of your posts here. My reading abilities are limited to cursory skimming. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
- Scott
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 14:33:43
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » Mary_Bowers, posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 13:48:56
Thanks for the considerate reply.
More precise research on my part could also improve the quality of dialogue. Our research, to inform either "side" in this argument, could be helpful to anyone seeking counsel in these matters, or to counselors considering the merits of various matters related to this topic. I wonder if that is not a part of some fears expressed in reaction to my contribution -- not that I will complain to a medical review board, but that somebody with the professional standing and expertise will recognize the logical foundation I sketched out.
> I think you will find that most everyone here who was present before the administration of civility guidelines will agree that many, many more people were being harmed by malicious posters than might be offended by the site's current moderation. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
>This site is archived, so we can and to some extent have compared those data. We are not reaching the same conclusions as you have. It would be helpful to us if we could find site traffic statistics for the entire history of the site, rather than for the past 12 months.
> I can't stress enough how important a resource this site is for the mentally ill. I am still depending on it for an answer to the treatment-resistant disorder I suffer from. It has been the best clearinghouse for treatment modalities and coping mechanisms I have seen. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
>We believe we have seen better. We have not yet found a standard by which to measure, qualitatively, the merits of various sites, but open complaints of harm will probably be an element of any standard we might propose. It is possible that changes in administrative approach could move this site from near the bottom of our unqualified ranking of clinically facilitated mental health self-help sites to a position nearer the top.
> Your lawyerly arguments are interesting and sophisticated. Your resolve is firm. I wish neither were true. I guess you will do what you feel is right. I can tell that you are unwavering in your belief as to what that is. Such a huge number of people will be harmed should you be successful. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
>If people can be harmed by loosing the site, that suggests people who have lost access to the site because of adminstrative mandates might have been harmed. Doc Hsiung's position appears to be that noone can be harmed because they can always go somewhere else.
> I wish my illness would allow me the ability to read with comprehension, remember, and learn new things. It would make for a fair fight. I am convinced that I would kick your butt. :-)
>Maybe. Or your improved performance might require me to bone up some more, thereby strengthening my presentation and increasing the likelihood that my efforts will lead to substantive change in operation of the site. I can't assure you that you will find similar opportunities, but is possible that exercising to improve my comprehension, memory and capacity to learn have been therapeutic and have been a significant part of how I confronted problems in my own life such as those you suffer.
> I am grateful that you have decided to come to this site to interact with its participants. Thank you for the opportunity to dissuade you from your goal. Please forgive me should I overlook any of the details of your posts here. My reading abilities are limited to cursory skimming. This is something you should perhaps take into consideration.
>
>
> - Scott
>Very gracious of you, Scott. You are welcome, and thank you in return. We - you and I - are composing dialogue among a virtual large group, not writing courtroom briefs, so our level of expertise is probably appropriate for the venue. Whether or not you find the capacity to improve your virtual dialogue, your contributions - like mine - could become foundation for exchanges in more authoritative venues.
Posted by Toph on October 22, 2004, at 14:44:16
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » SLS, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 11:52:20
To be sufficient, consideration must have some value. Something that is completely worthless cannot constitute sufficient consideration. Promises by the parties bargained for and given in exchange for each other constitute consideration.
Consideration is what distinguishes enforceable promises from those promises which are gratuitous. Courts will not enforce gift or gratuitous promises but they will enforce promises which are supported by consideration. Consideration may consist of an act, i.e., doing that which one is not legally obligated to do, or a forbearance, i.e., refraining from conduct which one is privileged to engage in. Consideration is not simply doing what you are legally obligated to do in any event.
The compromise of a doubtful claim is supported by consideration so long as the claim is pressed in good faith and is the subject of a bona fide dispute. It is sufficient that the parties entering into the settlement or compromise thought at the time that there was a bona fide question between them, even if it later turns out otherwise. On the other hand, the release from the mere annoyance of unfounded litigation does not furnish valuable consideration.
In addition to meeting the above test, consideration must arise in the context of a bargained for exchange. This means that the promise must induce the detriment and the detriment must induce the promise. Stated another way, the act or forbearance must have been bargained for and given in exchange for that very promise for legal consideration to be present.
Mary, if Bob and I to have entered into a legal contract, what consideration did I offer Bob in exchange for his (or the group's) psychotherapy that I received?
-Toph
Posted by SLS on October 22, 2004, at 15:19:15
In reply to Re: A civil venue for accusations » SLS, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 14:33:43
Hi Mary.
I thought of a good question to ask you, but you might have already answered it elsewhere.
What would you like to see happen with Psycho-Babble?
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 15:44:51
In reply to Re: PBC - Please be considerate » Mary_Bowers, posted by Toph on October 22, 2004, at 14:44:16
Most medical services provided pro bono by a licensed practitioner are not exempt from state regulation. Good Samaritan laws in some states provide some exemptions.
I don't know what you gave Robert Hsiung, but I had to give him permission to use my posts in his publication ventures before I could post here.
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.