Ethical - Legal Issues on Arthroplasty

[Harrison]

By now, some of you have noticed that BIG ad from Jim Sokolove�s office on this site regarding injuries from artificial disc replacement. As the web site owner, the placement of the Google ad creates a litany of issues for me, all of which are of ethical. Their ad is:

Artificial DiscInjured as a result of artificial disc surgery? Contact us today.

Why do I care about this ad? Well, for starters:

1. The legal firm appears to be �digging in� by going after Johnson & Johnson initially, as the Charite� was the first approved disc with widespread adoption. As we all know, there were some problems with some implants, most of which occurred with a small number of untrained or allegedly incompetent doctors.

2. The firm is considering legal action against other disc manufacturers.

My concerns are:

1. America is full of litigious activities; e.g. suits against medical device companies, many of which drive up legal costs that involve people like us. As well, lawsuits hinder innovation, product development and the general commercialization of technology that transforms and improves our lives. My life. Your life.

2. Some medical negligence has certainly occurred in the arthroplasty field. Who am I, or who are we � to decide how this justice or the possible abuse of the medical malpractice system plays out?

So, should I allow their ad to run? (I can filter it out). Please post your thoughts, and/or respond to the poll. Your replies may help me decide what to do. Moreover, for better or for worse, your feedback may be helpful to the purveyors of medical technology and the lawyers too.

These questions have no �right� answers; so in the meantime, let�s keep the dialogue alive. Just a reminder about the audience of this forum -- people from all occupations and many countries (between 40-45 regularly) read this forum.


Quick poll on legal & ethical issues

[sfmcfar]

Harrison,

I have another ethical question for you, and feel free to move it to another thread if you'd like. Let's say that a surgeon recommends someone for ADR. This surgeon not only financially benefits from performing the surgery, but in fact may be receiving compensation from the AD manufacturer. In any other field, this would be a conflict of interest. How can the surgeon separate his interests from his patient's?

[JeffreyD]

I'm only for banning ads that are morally evil. Do ambulance chasing lawyers count?

Seriously, in America, where money clouds all issues, it is unfortunately the patient who loses. There are far too few doctors who actually place the patient's best interest above all else.
My .02............


Jeff

[cervie queen]

If your site makes any money by having this guy out there, why not? IF we have to click on the sleazebag for you to make money, why not? He'll just find other ways. While, sadly, there are some ADR recipients who might need this guy's services. I feel we need to show all the warts as well as Angels.

[mmglobal]

Do they pay every time we click?

I believe that, in theory, our community should be able to more than cover the costs of hosting with minimal prodding. As we all know....

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; In practice, there is.

-Chuck Reid

If we can cover the costs of hosting, I would prefer to do it without google ads. If not, we must resort to whatever means necessary to keep the site running.

I know doctors who have done such a poor job or have shamelessly pushed an ill-advised surgery. Legal action against them would not be unethical. At first blush, I'd agree that someone going after the deep pockets of J&J are probably part of the scum-sucking lawyers who give the other 1% a bad name. (Sorry Bill, Amy, and others...) It will be tough to sort through which ads are unethical and which are not. I'm glad that I won't have to decide and will support whatever Rich decides.

Mark

[sahuaro]

My reaction is that the ad is in a way educational--it makes this community aware of a "cottage industry" which is coming out of ADR. And if it helps pay for the website, so much the better. However, concerning the issue of lawsuits, don't people who participate in clinical trials sign waivers of liability?

[Carmont]

Most of us are educated enough and aware enough to make a decision about advertising. Bottom line, that's all it is, isn't it?

[luvmysibe]

I concur with most of the previously stated posts. It would be wonderful for the site to be free of any form of commercialism; however, I realize that may not be feasible. Many of us who join the forum read advertisements with a critical eye.

[Alastair]

I have a strong feeling we have tried without adverts and we were "cash poor" . I think the adverts do pay for a lot of the site.

Personally I felt we started with NO COMMERCIALISM - - -but we cannot be perfect.

Life is a compromise - -- some of those UK people advertising are No No`s - - - - just ignore it and take no notice maybe folks.

Lets get on with what we do best - - -seeing patients through ADR and offering facts and advice to all spine patients
Best
Alastair

[wbaker68]

I can say, like Amy sometimes the deep pockets are just as responsible as the "scum" sucking doctors(goes both ways) who jump into the practice without enough experience.

Aren't those who release their product responsible for how the product is used at least in some respect?

Anyway, my 2 cents.

Bill a.k.a. "ambulace chaser"