In marked contrast to my previous post, several United States medical practitioners have pursued defamation claims against former patients, who had criticised their doctors’ lack of skill and proficiency on public websites:

Dr Boothe, who practices in the Dallas area, filed lawsuits in a state court in Collin County, Texas, in January against the disgruntled former patient, Dan Morikawa, and another man, Brent Hanson, who runs a Web site called LasikFraud.com.

Dr Boothe performed Lasik surgery, a form of laser-assisted vision correction, on Mr Morikawa in September 2004, according to court papers. But Mr Morikawa was unhappy with the results, and demanded his money back, citing a guarantee in one of Dr Boothe’s advertisements. Soon thereafter, Mr Morikawa created various Web sites in which he criticized Dr Boothe. One Web page said, “All these lives ruined by Dr William Boothe, his magic laser machine, and wild irresponsible advertising claims.”

According to Dr Boothe’s suits, Mr. Hanson republished allegations by Mr Morikawa on LasikFraud.com. Mr Hanson, a 41-year-old software developer, says he was a victim of bad eye surgery by another doctor in the 1990s and uses LasikFraud.com to warn others about potential problems with the procedure.

It is, unfortunately, one of the axioms of cyberspace that even mildly disgruntled customers can voice their discontent, and that owing to the ease with which such complaints can me made, will almost inevitably do so. For practitioners the subject of criticism, it can be a frustrating and demeaning experience: a few loud critics can easily dismantle someone’s reputation, especially where critics speak anonymously and defenders are few and far between. Anger is a much better motivator than satisfaction, after all.

However, it is also true that one of the great virtues of the internet, and of websites such as ePinions.com and now the National Doctor Database, is the honest, independent appraisals that prospective customers can access. Perhaps a website like LasikFraud goes somewhat beyond an honest, independent appraisal (though this is unclear from the facts). However courts ought to bear in mind the importance of these avenues of public criticism — to the same extent as they would when dealing with a printed publication — when determining these defamation claims.