HairlossTalk
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 6
2004 International Society of Hair Restoration Surgeons Conference
Article by Walter P. Unger, MD.
Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY
HairLossTalk.com NOTE: THIS COMMENTARY IS LARGELY IN REGARDS TO THE HAIR RESTORATION SURGEON REFERRAL SITES.
A Commentary on Web Sites on Hair Loss and Treatment
The web sites devoted to hair loss and treatment, particularly surgical treatment, that are owned and controlled by non-physicians, are "here to stay" whether physicians like it or not. This is not an entirely negative development, as some would suggest, nor is it an entirely positive one.
Non-physicians can print information that might be seen as self-servicing if the site was controlled by a physician or group of physicians. Educational organizations such as the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS) and the European Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ESHRS) cannot exclude physicians whose work is substandard, but these same surgeons are able to use membership in such societies as advertisements so as to mislead the public as to their competence. Thus far, laymen controlled web sites are free of the threat of legal action and are therefore freer to publish judgments on basic knowledge, patient safety, technique details, and aesthetics. They therefore can provide extra and important information to the public. The Internet also provides physicians with one of the few ways that an individual practitioner can compete for the public's attention with the large chains of HRS clinics that have large budgets for sophisticated media advertising.
"The Dark Side" to the advantages of hair loss websites includes the following:
1. Physician "advisors" to the sites frequently lead those who do control them to principles or positions that forcefully support their particular philosophy or practice. Thus, these advisors indirectly benefit handsomely from the sites but the sites but do not appear to do so. Most doctors practicing in this field continue to debate the advantages and disadvantages of various objective options and aspects of technique. The sites too often provide simple riles and too often ignore the less than obvious complexity of the issues. The important difference between scientific discussions in medical journals and at medical meetings, vs. the websites, is that the advantages and disadvantages of all techniques are given equal access to space. Web sites should do likewise if they want to be truly fair to their visitors.
2. The web sites we have been discussing are far more able to exclude from a list of "recommended physicians", those whose technical and aesthetic skills are not superior. no professional organization can currently do this without fear of legal retribution. They should, however, clearly make known to the visitors to their sites, what fee they charge to those who are to be included in their list. They should also explicitly state that some competent practitioners might not choose to be included for a variety of reasons. "Full disclosure" of the site's financial relationship to their "preferred physicians", and of the probability of competent individuals who are not listed, would not only add a component of honesty to the sites, but would also strengthen their perceived integrity.
3. It is not necessary or helpful to demonize the majority of doctors in order to aggrandize a select few. It is enough to say we have assessed these few and can attest to their competence or excellence without denigrating all others. Unassessed negative comments about individual practitioners are sometimes spread widely on these sites. Yet we all know that anyone can adopt a fictitious name and spread false, negative statements about a competitor, or the opposite, false positive statements about themselves. Web sites have a responsibility to their audience to scrutinize such statements before allowing them to be spread. If this is not practically possible, they should simply be excluded from the site.
Quality will win out
I believe that sites that take the advice I have offered here will develop a reputation for integrity that can only make them more and more popular. They will be popular with the public and also with a large number of physicians who can both help and learn from the sites. Eventually, such a site or sites will evolve and when that happens, the others will wither. When that time comes, the Web will finally have fulfilled its promise as a full partner of the medical profession and an invaluable tool for the public.
Walter P. Unger, MD
Article by Walter P. Unger, MD.
Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY
HairLossTalk.com NOTE: THIS COMMENTARY IS LARGELY IN REGARDS TO THE HAIR RESTORATION SURGEON REFERRAL SITES.
A Commentary on Web Sites on Hair Loss and Treatment
The web sites devoted to hair loss and treatment, particularly surgical treatment, that are owned and controlled by non-physicians, are "here to stay" whether physicians like it or not. This is not an entirely negative development, as some would suggest, nor is it an entirely positive one.
Non-physicians can print information that might be seen as self-servicing if the site was controlled by a physician or group of physicians. Educational organizations such as the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS) and the European Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ESHRS) cannot exclude physicians whose work is substandard, but these same surgeons are able to use membership in such societies as advertisements so as to mislead the public as to their competence. Thus far, laymen controlled web sites are free of the threat of legal action and are therefore freer to publish judgments on basic knowledge, patient safety, technique details, and aesthetics. They therefore can provide extra and important information to the public. The Internet also provides physicians with one of the few ways that an individual practitioner can compete for the public's attention with the large chains of HRS clinics that have large budgets for sophisticated media advertising.
"The Dark Side" to the advantages of hair loss websites includes the following:
1. Physician "advisors" to the sites frequently lead those who do control them to principles or positions that forcefully support their particular philosophy or practice. Thus, these advisors indirectly benefit handsomely from the sites but the sites but do not appear to do so. Most doctors practicing in this field continue to debate the advantages and disadvantages of various objective options and aspects of technique. The sites too often provide simple riles and too often ignore the less than obvious complexity of the issues. The important difference between scientific discussions in medical journals and at medical meetings, vs. the websites, is that the advantages and disadvantages of all techniques are given equal access to space. Web sites should do likewise if they want to be truly fair to their visitors.
2. The web sites we have been discussing are far more able to exclude from a list of "recommended physicians", those whose technical and aesthetic skills are not superior. no professional organization can currently do this without fear of legal retribution. They should, however, clearly make known to the visitors to their sites, what fee they charge to those who are to be included in their list. They should also explicitly state that some competent practitioners might not choose to be included for a variety of reasons. "Full disclosure" of the site's financial relationship to their "preferred physicians", and of the probability of competent individuals who are not listed, would not only add a component of honesty to the sites, but would also strengthen their perceived integrity.
3. It is not necessary or helpful to demonize the majority of doctors in order to aggrandize a select few. It is enough to say we have assessed these few and can attest to their competence or excellence without denigrating all others. Unassessed negative comments about individual practitioners are sometimes spread widely on these sites. Yet we all know that anyone can adopt a fictitious name and spread false, negative statements about a competitor, or the opposite, false positive statements about themselves. Web sites have a responsibility to their audience to scrutinize such statements before allowing them to be spread. If this is not practically possible, they should simply be excluded from the site.
Quality will win out
I believe that sites that take the advice I have offered here will develop a reputation for integrity that can only make them more and more popular. They will be popular with the public and also with a large number of physicians who can both help and learn from the sites. Eventually, such a site or sites will evolve and when that happens, the others will wither. When that time comes, the Web will finally have fulfilled its promise as a full partner of the medical profession and an invaluable tool for the public.
Walter P. Unger, MD