Med school students routinely perform vaginal exams on unconscious, unconsenting patients.

[KidCharlemagne]

Even in the age of Trump this is one of the most outrageous things I’ve seen in years.

Med students routinely perform vaginal exams on unconcious, non-consenting women in completely unrelated procedures. One Duke student said the exams are routine and she estimates she did 10 last year. This is legal in 42 states and, even worse, many schools and students see any ethical problems with it. In one case, a rape survivor woke up during a procedure for extreme nausea and started screaming when she saw a doctor examing her genitals.

What in the fuck is wrong with these people? My blood is boiling right now.

Medical Students Allowed to Do Pelvic Exams on Unconscious, Non-Consenting...

[iiandyiiii]

Outrageous, but unfortunately not shocking. Hopefully starting to change.

[Pazu]

Not terribly surprising–that one student’s statement about being in medicine feeling somewhat like joining a secret society is rather on point–but disturbing nonetheless.

I will say that I don’t remember ever doing this or hearing about it when I was in med school in the early '90s. We actually had people who came to our physical exam classes and allowed us to practice pelvic (and male genital) examinations on them, and gave us feedback on our technique. (I assume they must have been paid well.)

[Ruken]

Someone bumped a thread from 20 years ago? Nope . . . 1999 wants its news story back. This shit is still happening?!

[naita]

It’s fascinating how malleable human ethics are when accepting something is unethical would inconvenience a powerful group.

[Little_Nemo]

I’m not condoning this; medical schools should find consenting patients or hire people for medical students to practice examinations on. But we should not equate a medical professional giving a vaginal exam with a sex crime.

[Roderick_Femm]

@Little_Nemo

I’m not condoning this; medical schools should find consenting patients or hire people for medical students to practice examinations on. But we should not equate a medical professional giving a vaginal exam with a sex crime.

The key is “without consent.” Sex crimes are not about sex, they are about power. This is an expression of power of doctors over patients, and as such it is exactly on a par with sex crimes.

[Procrustus]

@Little_Nemo

I’m not condoning this; medical schools should find consenting patients or hire people for medical students to practice examinations on. But we should not equate a medical professional giving a vaginal exam with a sex crime.

Personally, it sounds like a sex crime to me. However, probably not technically. This is the distinction:

(2) “Sexual contact” means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party or a third party.

Revised Code of Washington 9A.44.010

[Slash1972]

So sexual contact for the purpose of humor is okay?

[scudsucker]

@Slash1972

So sexual contact for the purpose of humor is okay?

You may have missed the point. I recognize that your post history has a large number of satirical posts.

OTOH, I’m all ears about your stories of sexual contact for the purpose of humor?

[Slash1972]

@scudsucker

You may have missed the point. OTOH, I’m all ears about your stories of sexual contact for the purpose of humor?

I have none that I know of. Just strange to me that ONLY “for sexual gratification” causes sexual touching to be against the law.

I would think inserting fingers into someone without their consent would be illegal regardless of the reason.

[Procrustus]

@Slash1972

I have none that I know of. Just strange to me that ONLY “for sexual gratification” causes sexual touching to be against the law.

I would think inserting fingers into someone without their consent would be illegal regardless of the reason.

It’s certainly a tort, medical battery:

An action for total lack of consent sounds in battery, while a claim for lack of informed consent is a medical malpractice action sounding in negligence.“The performance of an operation without first obtaining any consent thereto may fall within the concepts of assault and battery as an intentional tort, but the failure to tell the patient about the perils he faces is the breach of a duty and is appropriately considered under negligence concepts.” Miller v. Kennedy , 11 Wn. App. 272 , 281-82, 522 P.2d 852 (1974).

…

Battery is an intentional tort; the tortfeasor must intend an offensive touching, and the plaintiff must show there was no consent to the touching. Garratt v. Dailey , 46 Wn.2d 197 , 200-01, 279 P.2d 1091 (1955); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 13, cmt. d (1965); see also DOBBS , supra , at 57 (“in the case of battery, the plaintiff’s burden is to show that the defendant intended to and did cause either harm or ‘offense,’ a burden that ordinarily requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s touching was not apparently consented to.”).

[Yllaria]

@Pazu

. . . We actually had people who came to our physical exam classes and allowed us to practice pelvic (and male genital) examinations on them, and gave us feedback on our technique. (I assume they must have been paid well.)

I knew someone who was doing that in the late nineties. He got $20 per exam, as one of a group of “models” (you want the class to experience variance), plus the group got pizza. It was always a one-day gig.

He seemed pleased with the fact that he had some part that was hard to find. He had to talk most of the students through finding it. I guess this kept him on the list of people who were always called.

[Shodan]

@Ruken

Someone bumped a thread from 20 years ago? Nope . . . 1999 wants its news story back. This shit is still happening?!

Well, maybe ten years.

And sometimes, informed consent grabs headlines, as happened recently with allegations that medical students are performing pelvic exams on anesthetized women without consent.

That claim, Orlowski notes, relied on studies from more than 10 years ago, before such changes as more detailed consent forms. Typically, she says, students practice pelvic exams with special mannequins and standardized patients who are specifically trained for this purpose. When students and residents do perform pelvic exams on surgical patients, Orlowski adds, specific consent must be obtained first. “Performing pelvic examinations under anesthesia without patients’ consent is unethical and unacceptable,” she says.

In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that “pelvic examinations on an anesthetized woman … performed solely for teaching purposes should be performed only with her specific informed consent obtained before her surgery.”

Cite.

And

In the early 2000s, Wilson investigated the practice for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Opponents of the bills say the general consent forms patients sign when they enter teaching hospitals should be enough, but advocates want specific consent for pelvic exams done for educational purposes. Professional groups agree that it’s ethically wrong to use unconsenting patients to practice procedures that don’t benefit them.

So it’s partly whether the consent form in a teaching hospital that says generally “residents may be involved in caring for you” is enough, and legally it probably is (in most states) but professional organizations don’t agree.

Regards,
Shodan

[Little_Nemo]

@Slash1972

I have none that I know of. Just strange to me that ONLY “for sexual gratification” causes sexual touching to be against the law.

I would think inserting fingers into someone without their consent would be illegal regardless of the reason.

I see this as an unauthorized medical procedure (and wrong for that reason) but doctors are inserting fingers into people every day. And it’s not a sexual thing even when it involves contact with a sexual organ.

This is wrong. But it’s wrong for the same reasons that it would wrong to give somebody a flu shot or remove their appendix without proper consent.

[Machine_Elf]

@Shodan

And So it’s partly whether the consent form in a teaching hospital that says generally “residents may be involved in caring for you” is enough, and legally it probably is (in most states) but professional organizations don’t agree.

If it said “residents may be involved in fingering you for their own edification,” I’d approve.

[Projammer]

It looks like Brock Turner missed a whole possible line of defense during his trial/appeal.

I agree that I wouldn’t consider this as a sexual assault, but it’s certainly indefensible as any other unauthorized and unapproved medical procedure. Therefore participants should be sanctioned accordingly.

[Slash1972]

@Little_Nemo

I see this as an unauthorized medical procedure (and wrong for that reason) but doctors are inserting fingers into people every day. And it’s not a sexual thing even when it involves contact with a sexual organ.

Doctors are inserting fingers into people every day without the person’s consent?

[Lubricious_Integument]

This American Life had an episode about this a while back. The link goes to a transcript, not the audio.

[Helmut_Doork]

What is the protocol if you find something medically wrong with the person during an illegal unauthorized exam?