I'll take door number 4

I like reviews. In fact, when I am looking at using or buying a particular item, I look for any and every review I can find. It's one of the reasons that I love amazon.com as much as I do...the ability to see what everyday users like me think about something. Granted, there are some out there who are idiots and use the reviews to demonstrate the exact level of their idiocy. But in general, most people really try hard to leave a helpful review, whether positive or negative.

Now comes a service that is trying to make sure consumers are not allowed to post anything online regarding their happiness or fury. In fact, there is a contract that can be given out that has language in it making it clear that the reviewer can even be sued. Some are even requiring that anyone purchasing from them sign it, or they will be refused service and told to find another provider.

Kind of grates on the nerves, doesn't it? Isn't it our First Amendment right to be able to tell others what we think of a particular service or product? What is the service or product was particularly terrible and, even worse, what if that service or product could post a health risk? Shouldn't other consumers have the right to learn more in order to best make a decision that might impact their very life in a negative way?

Now, let me ask you this - what if that service being reviewed was that given by a doctor? Does that change anything? Or does it still stand that everyone has the right to get more information before making a decision regarding their healthcare? Of course, as with anything, there are going to be idiots posting about doctors too. This is why those who have more common sense than the average box of rocks will take all reviews with a grain of salt. If there are one or two posters that have nothing to back up their claims, then you move on. However, if there are 10 or 15 people all saying the same thing, then it would be good to pay attention.

The doctors, particularly one Jeffrey Segal, said that what should really matter to patients are the medical skills of the doctor in question. While it is true that the medical skills should be the first concern, I happen to believe that only a doctor who takes the time to really listen to me and spend time with me (otherwise known as having a good bedside manner) is going to be able to fully utilize those medical skills. If they are too busy to pay attention to me, or are curt and brusque, then I'm not necessarily going to feel comfortable - and if a patient is not comfortable with their doctor, then things will get missed or simply never discussed.

Another comment made was that the doctor review sites are "not a good way" to figure out if a doctor is good or bad. Really? What exactly constitutes a "good way"? Having the doctor misdiagnose cancer? Maybe having surgery done on the wrong part? Worst case scenario - dying because you were trying to find out the "good" way whether or not you had a good doctor? Hm. Yep - seems like a good plan to me.

Of course, the best way to evaluate a doctor is to see that doctor at an appointment before committing to him or her. But I fail to see where getting more information beforehand is a bad thing. Some doctors are better than others at covering their own inexperience or lack of knowledge, and if you only have one visit to evaluate then that can be a tricky proposition. I know my insurance company will not cover a visit unless you have already decided to use them as a primary care doctor. And you can only change doctors 2 or 3 times before they begin to refuse coverage - and it can take up to 6 months just to make the change, leaving me stuck with Dr. Jekyll in the meantime.

When I buy a toaster, I check reviews - and I can return the toaster. What I CAN'T do is return a mistake made by a doctor.