Grex Health Conference

View Responses

Grex Health Item 40: Unregistered Web browsing of the Health conference
Entered by scott on Thu Jan 16 02:05:10 UTC 1997:

A hot topic in Coop lately has been whether or not to allow "unregistered"
users to read Grex conferences over the Web.  Right now, people can create
accounts and access conferences over the Web in addition to the usual (telnet
or dialup) method.  The proposal is to allow Web browsing of conferences
without first creating a Grex account.

The current loose consensus, so to be a vote, is to allow each conference to
decide whether or not to allow unregistered access.   

So should the Health conference be open to Web access?

14 responses total.

#1 of 14 by scott on Thu Jan 16 02:06:00 1997:

I'm a little uncertain about whether we should open health or not.  There's
some useful info, but also people discussing personal issues.

#2 of 14 by mary on Thu Jan 16 16:21:07 1997:

There should never be any illusion that what is entered here
is confidential or private.  Grex is not about confidential
or private cliques, at least not as it relates to conferencing.

I'd support have the conference readable to anyone who cares
to check it out.

#3 of 14 by remmers on Thu Jan 16 16:22:32 1997:

The conference is already a public forum readable by anybody
with a Grex login id, so I see any arguments based on "privacy"
to be essentially silly.

#4 of 14 by remmers on Thu Jan 16 16:23:04 1997:

(Mary's response, with which I agree, slipped in.)

#5 of 14 by e4808mc on Thu Jan 16 19:03:15 1997:

#6 of 14 by e4808mc on Thu Jan 16 19:09:01 1997:

 I wupport unregistered reading.
 People should be reminded from time to time that their responses are readable
 anonymously anyway, and may be here for years.

#7 of 14 by tempest on Wed Jan 22 02:08:04 1997:

health conference has alot of usefula nd important information on it and 
would be beneficial to anyone reading it thre fore vote me to allow access

#8 of 14 by rickyb on Sun Jan 26 17:13:21 1997:

I don't mind unregistered access, but is there either a way to know who _does_
access this conf via the web...or, at least throw up _*LOTS*_ of disclaimers
that info posted here is personal commentary and _*NOT*_ professional advice?

I am uncomfortable, as a physician, describing details pertaining to a
specific problem which might be read & mis-interpreted by some unknown reader
and which could result in their suffering some harm (because they didn't
partake in discussion, but only took what they read at face value).  I don't
think there is any serious concern of liability in this, though there could
be some, I just want readers of health.cf to be able to get the best possible
information.

"first, do no harm".

#9 of 14 by scott on Sun Jan 26 20:34:32 1997:

Maybe we coiuld put a disclaimer into the conf login so *all* users see it?

I could handle that, if I had some wording...

#10 of 14 by remmers on Mon Jan 27 18:22:21 1997:

Dunno if other folks feel this way, but I regard people keeping
tabs on what I read as an invasion of my privacy. Should we be
required to register our names when we buy a book, "in case
there's a problem late"? I'm disturbed at how many people are
willing to embrace Big Brother when it comes to electronic
communication.

Since Grex currently allows anonymous reading of conferences,
and always has, why all this new concern about anonymous access
via the web. It seems irrational to me, and nothing I've read in
all the arguments about it has changed that perception.

#11 of 14 by remmers on Mon Jan 27 18:22:59 1997:

("late" should be "later" in the 4th line above.)

#12 of 14 by rickyb on Sun Feb 16 16:23:35 1997:

My concern is not a new one.  If I wrote a book I would certainly be liable
for information in it which was used and caused harm to some reader. 
differfence is, I sell the book and purchase liability insurance to cover such
an unlikely, but potential, situation.

I neither get paid for 'advice' given here, nor am I covered by any available
rider on my malpractice insurance policy.  I've tried to keep that in mind
whenever I respond, but sometimes I get carried away by the informal nature
of what seems like a 'private' discussion with a few people (OK,
semi-private).

I don't know of any situations yet where a physician has been held liable for
ideas expressed in this environment, but certainly this has occurred in other
public situations and the result of some of these liability problems has been
"Good Samaritan" legislation.  Most medical professionals are still unsure
to what extent they might be protected by such laws, and many may be reticent
to help even a dying stranger for fear of legal reprisal.

This is, perhaps, an issue of ethics and law which needs to be addressed in
the light of current and future use of this technology.  How do you think Good
Samaritin laws should overlap into the cyber-community, if at all?

(I'll ask a malpractice lawyer for some ideas on disclaimer language, and some
insight into this issue as well...might be a good topic for a presentation
at one of my upcoming meetings).

#13 of 14 by mary on Sun Feb 16 19:57:41 1997:

I'd suggest you go back and scribble any responses which you
may have entered while erroneously thinking only a few known
people were reading this conference.

Nothing about Grex conferencing is private.

#14 of 14 by e4808mc on Mon Feb 17 01:09:30 1997:

In fact, if I were reading this as an "observer" you wouldn't know, because
even running "participant" would not list my login id.  I could copy and save
anything you wrote, as well.  
For all the noise in coop, registering doesn't give you *any* information
about the person, it just give you whatever pseudo facts they choose to use.
It is a false belief that only a few people see/use bbs on grex.  Ask Valerie!

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.