Seriously, I’m not too worried about being sued. The only scenario I can imagine where it would hold up at all is if a respondent (best, intentionally) gave “medical advice” sufficiently damaging to cause longterm illness and/or death; persisted/escalated in delivering it; initiated off-board contact about it; and to strengthen the case, had as “victim” a person who was mentally deficient or in some other way easily persuaded. E.g., OP is a minor, an affected senior, maybe other.
I’m not too worried even that posters will give suggestions with such potentially What I do worry about is enabling a sick person to any degree and for any reason to delay or avoid seeing a doctor (incl a practitioner of psychological services). I’m all for complete non-interfence most of the time, but I can’t take the chance of helping someone avoid getting the treatment they need.
Not seeking medical advice is standard procedure where I was raised. All our menfolk “die from lyin’ on the couch.” They have a mild heart attack working the farm, or they know they are suffering from black lung due to working the mines. What do they do? Certainly not go to a doctor or hospital. They lie on the couch to see if they’ll “feel better,” and instead they die there.
Granted, I may be a bit “intense” from that cultural background: the population on SD is far different than in Appalachia.
IANAL :D, but it seems to me that even frivolous lawsuits can be a royal pain in the ass, and potentially involve significant incovenience and possibly expense. So, yes, it would probably take a lot for you to be successfully sued, but that doesn’t mean that you can just ignore the morons that try to sue you.
While the rule was somewhat recently relaxed, it certainly was the case at one time that medical advice threads were not allowed at all and one of the reasons given was fear of lawsuits.
In a thread about medical advice on the Dope from several years ago:
In all sincerity, I am pleased that the rule has been softened. It is the right way to go, but not all of the old timers might be aware of it and remember how we used to do things.
When I see this I can’t help but be reminded of the silly little urban legend that if you are upfront and ask an undercover if they indeed are police officers, then they are somehow obligated to relinquish their true identities and give up the character they are playing. I’m not sure why. I just am. I know they aren’t even similar; just similiar… Ya know?
The cost of litigation – even to defend against frivolous suits with absolutely zero merit – the cost can be staggering.
At the time I wrote these postings it was explained to us by the Reader attorney that the cost of defending against said frivolous suits would run into the thousands of dollars.
It was not an expense the Reader was willing to incur on our behalf and so we were instructed to cool it. In fact we were told by management at that time that ANY suit, whatever the merit, any legal action at all would mean the Reader would close down the site, period, end of story.
That was three owners ago.
Not saying that current management is more willing to wrangle but I do note the most recent previous owners (Atalaya Management) backed once-sister publication Washington City Paper when it ws sued by Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder. When Snyder threatened to bring suit, Atalaya said “bring it on.”
You said that WhyNot was “wildly inaccurate” when all she did was make the minor mistake of identifying the source as two owners ago rather than three owners ago. Other than that she was spot on.
The important and quite accurate part of what she was trying to say was that under previous ownership it was true and it no longer is under the current owners.
