Consider this scenario:

You’ve been dying to try out a hot restaurant that’s been generating a lot of buzz. So you make a reservation and, at the appointed time, you head to the eatery. You and your dining partner walk into the restaurant and approach the maitre d’. You give him your name, he finds you on the reservation list, and then hands you a document that looks oddly legalistic with a line at the bottom for your signature. Anxious to get to the appetizers and not interested in reading fine print, you inquire about the document. And the maitre d’ replies:

“Before we serve you, we’ll need your signature on this document agreeing that you won’t write any negative reviews of this restaurant for any online review sites.”

The idea is, of course, outrageous. And it’s all the more outrageous that Jeffrey Segal is hawking a template for just such a document to doctors.

Segal, a North Carolina-based neurosurgeon, is behind a concern called Medical Justice which is focused on shielding doctors from the deliterous effects of social media.

The template for the legal agreement is just part of Medical Justice’s offerings. Segal’s company also monitors review sites—including the growing number of sites dedicated to rating doctors—and using other techniques to prevent patients from posting negative comments to those sites. Some 2,000 doctors have become Medical Justice clients. In return for their fees, Segal’s company will find negative comments from any patients who signed the document and use the threat of legal action to force them to remove the comments.

What about patients who decline to sign on the dotted line? Segal advises the doctors decline to treat them.

John Swapceinski, who founded RateMDs.com, sees Medical Justice’s approach as forcing patients to choose between medical treatment and (in the U.S.) their First Amendment rights. He calls it “repulsive.” According to an AP article, Swapcienski was planning to post a “Wall of Shame,” listing the names of doctors who require patients to sign the waivers. (RateMD’s comments are anonymous anyway, rendering the documents impotent.)

Segal argues that doctors’ reputations are threatened by the uncontrollable reviews patients post to the web. Medical Justice’s web site suggests that “Published comments on Web pages, blogs and/or mass correspondence, however well intended, could severely damage physician’s practice.”

Yeah? So it’s okay that bad reviews of restaurants can destroy a restaurant’s reputation, but doctors should not be subjected to the same kind of critiques? The very notion that doctors should somehow be immunized against word of mouth is reprehensible. Doctors, after all, are paid service providers, just like plumbers (who are also subject to posted reviews on sites like Yelp, among others).

Segal practices the worst kind of spin by arguing that Medical Justice is not trying to restrict patients’ freedom of speech. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he huffs on the company website. His argument: Claims of malpractice can be made by bitter ex-employees and ex-spouses pretending to be patients. Of course, these are not the targets of the waivers that restrict negative posts by patients. Further, most negative doctor reviews I’ve seen have to do with bedside manner, attitude, and behavior. Those that address quality of care generally don’t assert malpractice—just that they didn’t like the results they got.

Even if Segal’s argument made sense, the bottom line seems to be, “Because the consequences to doctors are greater, muzzling your free speech rights is fine and dandy.”

Doctors—like restaurants and plumbers—have never been able to stop the word of mouth that occurs over backyard fences, at PTA meetings, family dinners, and church picnics. (In fact, positive word of mouth can drive business their way. Of course, the waivers don’t restrict patients from posting positive reviews.) Nor should they try, unless the word of mouth descends to the level of slander. The medical profession needs to understand that word of mouth has moved online and seeking to censor it is a very bad idea.

I once suggested to a healthcare client that, if they really wanted to embrace social media, they would offer discharged patients the ability to offer an online five-star rating of the doctors who provided their care. You could feel the foundations of the institution tremble at the mere thought. But it did occur to some communicators that, after the medical staff’s initial outrage faded, the doctors would probably wind up competing with one another for the best ratings. Doctors are, after all, a fairly competitive bunch.

Paul Levy, the poster CEO for transparency and author of the “Running a Hospital” blog, posts clinical outcomes to his blog. During an interview for my book, “Tactical Transparency,” Levy said the initial response from the staff was surprise and trepidation, but the staff ultimately saw the public disclosure of their performance as an impetus to continuously improve…which is eactly what they’ve been doing.

I’ve also noticed several negative doctor reviews that were balanced by opinions from others who thought the doctor was great. As most organizations engaged in social media know, unfair criticisms tend to be self-correcting as those with different experiences weigh in.

So what are the 2,000 doctors who have forked money over to Dr. Segal and his company—and the countless others who would do so if they knew about it—afraid of?

The truth, maybe?

As we who work in this space often insist, control of the message has been lost. Influencing what people think now involves honest engagement, not China-like barriers to the ability of your publics to view information you don’t like.

As for me, if any doctor ever waves a Medical Justice waiver in my face, I’ll find myself another doctor who isn’t afraid of honest opinions. I’m sure there are great doctors out there who will be happy to have my business.