Medical students are performing intrusive exams on unconscious patients

[Feuer Frei!]

AUSTRALIAN medical students are carrying out intrusive procedures on unconscious and anaesthetised patients without gaining the patient's consent. The unauthorised examinations include genital, rectal and breast exams, and raise serious questions about the ethics of up-and-coming doctors.
The research, soon to be published in international medical journal, Medical Education, describes - among others - a student with "no qualms" about performing an anal examination on a female patient because she didn't think the woman's consent was relevant.

Another case outlined in the research describes a man who was subjected to rectal examinations from a "queue" of medical students after he was anaesthetised for surgery.
“I was in theatre, the patient was under a spinal (anaesthetic) as well and there was a screen up and they just had a queue of medical students doing a rectal examination,” a student confessed.

“[H]e wasn’t consented but because ... you’re in that situation, you don’t have the confidence to say 'no' you just do it.”

The author of the study, Professor Charlotte Rees, voiced concerns about senior medical staff ordering students to perform unauthorised procedures, leaving the students torn between the strong ethics of consent in society and the weak ethics of medical staff.

Of students who were put in this position during the research, 82 per cent obeyed orders.
The study consists of 200 students across three unnamed medical schools in Britain and Australia. Not all participants agreed to carry out the intimate examinations without permission from the patient.

One student refused to take part in an examination of a woman who was “part spread-eagled on the bed and the nurse is (sic) pulling down her jeans at the same time and it was all very complicated and you could see her, she was about seventeen”.

Carol Bennett, the CEO of the Consumer Health Forum, said the report was a "poor reflection on these medical schools that they are setting these examples".

"Most people would not be pleased about having medical procedures performed on them without it even being mentioned to them," she told news.com.au.

"Patients should never be examined without consent, particularly by a third party."


Scary stuff!

[Dowly]

The first thing that popped into my mind when I read the title was FK's "Pegleg goes where?!" sig.

[Platapus]

I wonder if somewhere buried in the fine print is the consent?

If you are admitted into a "teaching" hospital, you have to read the fine print very carefully as there maybe (maybe always?) something about Students practicing on you.

It would not surprise me if the hospital snuck something into the fine print like that.

[Jimbuna]

If no prior consent has been given then surely these acts would constitute a serious sexual assault

I can see a few law suits emerging if and when the details are published.

[papa_smurf]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

If no prior consent has been given then surely these acts would constitute a serious sexual assault

I can see a few law suits emerging if and when the details are published.

Doesn't sound very professional at all.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by papa_smurf

Doesn't sound very professional at all.

I consider that an understatement. In my opinion everyone involved should be permanently barred from the medical profession.

Sidenote: I'm reading the humorous comments in this thread, and I'm confused. Part of me wants to object that they don't belong in a thread like this, and part of me wants to join in.

So

[Feuer Frei!]

All this ties in with this:
http://www.theunnecesarean.com/blog/...?currentPage=3

and another example of this:
http://www.scsun-news.com/ci_1388770...scsun-news.com

In the second link, how Dr. Twana Sparks did not lose her medical license is beyond me.

Obviously the aforementioned links plus the original article i posted are just some of many such instances i dare say and that is truly frightening.

[Gerald]

How secure is this information?, then your first post did not contain any source, much of the material can be fabricated.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Vendor

How secure is this information?, then your first post did not contain any source, much of the material can be fabricated.

SOURCE (secure)

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Dowly

The first thing that popped into my mind when I read the title was FK's "Pegleg goes where?!" sig.

Had the Angry Wombat been a little more diligent in his reading, he would have had no cause for surprise as the "Pegleg Clause" was clearly outlined in Section A, Subsection 3 of the contract when he signed up to be a Pirate.

In other words, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[vienna]

Peter Cook/Dudley Moore -- One Legged Tarzan Sketch:

Cook: Mr Spiggott - you are, I believe, auditioning for the part of Tarzan.

Moore: Right.

Cook: Now Mr Spiggott, I couldn't help noticing - almost at once - that you are a one-legged person.

Moore: You noticed that?

Cook: I noticed that, Mr Spiggott. When you have been in the business as long as I have, you come to notice these little things almost instinctively.


The agent goes on to point out that Tarzan is "a role which traditionally involves the use of a two-legged actor" and that it would be unusual for the part to be taken by a "unidexter", but Spiggott's enthusiasm is undimmed. Cook keeps a straight face as he explains exactly why Spiggott is unsuitable for the role.

Cook: Need I say with over much emphasis that it is in the leg division that you are deficient.

Moore: The leg division?

Cook: Yes, the leg division, Mr Spiggott. You are deficient in it to the tune of one. Your right leg, I like. I like your right leg. A lovely leg for the role. That's what I said when I saw you come in. I said, "A lovely leg for the role". I've got nothing against your right leg. The trouble is - neither have you.