In reply to Reid B. Kimball's post on Wed 8 Jun 2011 :
the release is to protect you – by having one drawn up by a lawyer that deals w/product liability (which includes med mal) you are assuring all parties involved that you are sincerely making an effort to keep everything correct and are not trying to set someone up. I know if I was a producer on such a doc, it would be the very first thing I would put on the list of priorities with regards to interviews. a model release in this situation simply isn't adequate.
additionally, if you don't have an established track as a filmmaker, what's to prove this film will actually be finished, released and worthy of having this particular dr (whoever it is) in it? that is, you could have some alterior motive unknown to the dr.
just look at Breitbart who set up the Acorn sting as well as a couple others and then railroaded A. Weiner into a corner (ok, some say he did it to himself but personally, I could care less about this guy's sex life; he's damn good at progressive politics and that's more important to me)
Reid, one of the most important considerations to learn when making docs is whatever passion you have for the subject is of course, a good thing, but whenever people are involved, you are asking something of them. You are asking their time, input, energy, opinions, whatever and how you ask and what you ask for can have significant impact on your final production. It's critical to look at their side of it, and understand the fear, suspicion, worry, etc., that participants experience whether they are willing or unwilling.
We as filmmakers are only storytellers. without the generousity of those who share with us their true stories, well, I suppose we'd be making narrative films :)