Not Only Am I Subversive, Now I've Been Banned From Commenting At medGadget

I don't put much stock in awards . . . especially annual ones. I've enjoyed the Hollywood writers strike if only because it has shut down a lot of the meaningless, vapid, incredibly overblown & superficial award-show hype . . . for "best this" or "best that". I chuckled heartily when the Golden Globes were reduced to a sad, sorry barely-an-hour news conference more or less hosted by Entertainment Tonight.

Woe is us. The world was "deprived" of seeing our favorite celebrities prance and preen down yet another red carpet.

One can only wish it happens to the Oscars. The less bad plastic surgery I see every year, the better.

Last week, I said my piece on Kevin MD's nomination for "2007's Best Medical Weblog" in medGadget's annual blog poll. And when a hospital CEO subsequently walked off with not one, but two medical blogging awards (including the one for ethics), I felt compelled to question the methodology of the poll. Who exactly was voting?, I wondered.

Within one or two comments on the thread congratulating the winners, I first had a nastygram delivered on one of my own (unrelated) posts, then a "warning" in my Inbox from medGadget (I talk about how I handled that in this post).

medGadget's crew was incensed. I was raining on the parade of the deserving winners. I needed to shut up about my "personal problems" and crawl back into my little dark corner of the blogosphere. medGadget was going to ban me if I did not stop referencing "third parties" (those third parties happen to be hospital administrators) in my comments.

Of course, after they threatened to ban me, they wished me "luck" and further successes with blogging.

Shades of Edward Cone and the N&R's John Robinson.

WHAT IS MEDICAL BLOGGING BUT PEOPLE (DOCTORS/NURSES/ADMINISTRATORS) TALKING ABOUT THEIR INTERACTIONS (GOOD AND BAD) WITH "THIRD PARTIES" (AND LOTS OF THE TIME THESE BRAVE MOSTLY ANONS ARE RAGGING ON PATIENTS)?

I just have the guts to name names and sign my own. And instead of ragging on patients, I'm ragging on the hospital lawyers and arrogant/crooked/clueless non-medical executives who would have had me turn my back on a critically-ill/dying baby.

The position these blogging doctors and administrators are taking is total hypocrisy.

Here's the e-mail exchange:

Dear Dr. Johnson:

We would like to kindly request you to suspend posting comments on our website that involve your personal matters with the third parties. We (or our Weblog Awards) have nothing to do with the issues that you raise. Furthermore, personal attacks towards other bloggers are not acceptable for us. You can use your own site for these and other matters.

If you fail to stop, we will have to ban you from posting on Medgadget.

We wish you luck and further successes in blogging.

Thank you,
Michael Ostrovsky, MD
EditorMedgadget.com
echocardiography@gmail.com

Here's my response:

Dr. Ostrovsky,

You gave a medical blogging award to a hospital administrator. Not one, but two. I take issue with that - I admit, in large part, because of my unpleasant personal experience with a hospital CEO (who got away scott-free - and still overpaid - with perjury and contempt) . . . as well the not-so-subtle trends I've observed lately in medical blogging.

I raised a question on your blog . . . as it turns out a "fair" question about who is voting in your online poll.

Your man "Gene" misinterpreted the question in a way that reflected negatively on me (invading and commenting on my blog on an unrelated post - instead of continuing the conversation on the thread - please note I have not threatened to "ban" him) . . . in order to deflect from the question I asked.

I responded. Nicely, I thought. I made some suggestions. Good ones, I think (if you really want your poll/award to mean anything). Gene himself admitted it was so.

Then "Fred" (whoever he is) popped in.

And I responded to him. Politely.

You (and Kevin) and all of the rest of the corporately-sponsored bloggers either "embrace" all medical bloggers or you don't. Someone who really wants to pull back that "veil" would link and include those of us brave enough to tell our medical horror stories - rather than marginalizing and ignoring us. Hearing these stories (and maybe the corporate world owning up to the fact that they actually happen) might actually help one of the young ones who have yet to be eaten by the monsters that feed on our profession.

But that's your call as a doctor.

I would encourage YOU to play nice . . . and reconsider some of the things you/Kevin/others are doing. Especially threatening a doctor-blogger.

I hope you don't mind me posting this exchange later today? I'm done with hiding in the shadows.

Respectfully,

Mary Johnson, M.D. FAAP

I wound up not posting the exchange. (1) Because I got side-tracked last night by that real-life that some local bloggers seem to think I don't have, and (2) because the dialogue on the thread continued . . . both with "Gene/Gene O" (who, it has occurred to me, may or may not be Dr. Ostrovsky) and none other than Paul Levy (the Boston-area hospital CEO who won the award).

Mr. Levy, in his last comment, was clearly more interested in portraying himself as the victim of an unfair "attack" than answering my questions (taking a page from corporately-sponsored Kevin's book). And his invitation to vote for him in next year's poll was just a bit too cute and smug. So I cranked up the heat on my next response.

It initially posted, but I discovered tonight (when I got home from ferrying my beloved Mama, in her role as angel and church deacon, to Winston/NCBH to visit a very sick friend) that it was deleted as "inappropriate". When I tried to post again, I found out I had been banned.

I had not saved the comment, and contacted Dr. Ostrovsky this evening . . . asking him to either post the comment, or send it to me so I could post it here. He chose to do the later and here we are.

And here's my "inappropriate" response to Mr. Levy (I've changed some syntax/corrected typos):

" . . . it is not that your characterization of me offends me. It just struck me as odd that you would choose to do so without knowing about me, my own values, or my approach to managing. And it really isn't a good way to persuade me or other CEOs to your point of view. For those of us growing up with the novel 1984, "Big Brother" means something very, very sinister, and I doubt if most CEOs would be inclined to feel warmly after being called that."

Paul, many many people in this blogosphere have called me names without really knowing me, my values or my approach to medicine . . .or really bothering to familiarize themselves with the powers of persuasion I've exercised on my blog.

I've found, in fact, that calling doctors names (in order to boost one's ego) . . . putting them down by attacking their character or sanity . . . might as well be an Olympic sport. Maybe medGadget can include the category next year.

If you want to really talk about "sinister", as part of the systematic destruction of my practice and reputation (I was fired - after being told to keep my mouth shut - for intervening in a bad-baby case/saving the child's life, then reporting what happened to peer review), one of your own kind called me a "liar" in my own hometown. It was a claim that was debunked by two very brave colleagues who came forward/wrote letters to JCAHO & the Feds on my behalf (very disgusted colleagues who subsequently left town too). Then this stellar example of your profession turned around and lied under Oath (ironically in his own "libel" suit) in order to save some money and get his way.

I asked you if you thought his management style was acceptable. You did not answer.

You don't need to "feel warmly" about the truth. You just need to acknowledge that stuff like this happens . . . that all hospitals are not run by beings as benevolent and understanding as you present yourself to be. Those of us on the receiving end of that kind of behavior are, perhaps, a little more jaded and skeptical than your average reader.

You also might acknowledge the reality that JCAHO is a sad, expensive,time-consuming dog & pony show . . . and that federal/state regulators (and law enforcement) often ignore their own rules and regulations in favor of the status quo.

This morning I see that Kevin has once again put up a "Terms of Use and Comment Policy Statement". Typical for Kevin.

I vote in local/state/federal elections. The things that really matter - and that might contribute to changing a system that trampled me. That's about it.

BTW, I've gotten the "I wish you well" line many times before. By people who then turn their backs and pretend I'm not there. I think the medical blogosphere needs to be better than that.

Once upon a time there was a blogger named Flea . . .

This excerpt from Dr. Levy's last comment (which I neglected to address) almost made me laugh out loud: This virtual world is a far throw from licensed TV or radio stations -- or even newspapers -- where there might be a legal or professional-standard driven imperative for "equal time."

It is apparent that Mr. Levy does not live in Asheboro or Greensboro, North Carolina . . . where no such "driven imperative" exists for our local newspapers.

I sent Dr. Ostrovsky the following e-mail (thanking him for forwarding the deleted comment). He need not have "banned" me. I will not be darkening medGadget's door again. It is crystal clear that they only want sweetness and light in a medical world that is anything but.

Thank you.

I fail to understand how this comment was "inappropriate".

But it's your blog.

In terms of pulling back any veils, the medical blogosphere seems to be going in the opposite direction.

Mary Johnson, M.D., FAAP

I would welcome commentary here by Gene and Paul and even Kevin. But I am not holding my breath.

And I'm fairly certain I won't be featured on Kevin's "Medblog Power 8" this week;)

On the other hand, I guess now that I've been "banned" by somebody, I'm really subversive.

Feels good.