Anonymous wrote:It seems like the definition of a pelvic exam involves some evaluation for diagnostic or treatment purposes. If it's not done for those reasons, isn't that the same thing as some creep in any other non-medical setting doing the same thing to a woman, which would be rape?
That man may also have an MD. And he might commit the crime in his medical practice office. And he might have her consent to preform another procedure or to drug her. What's to stop him from saying that he deemed it "necessary"? It seems to me to be the same thing. (In fact, didn't something similar happen recently with some sort of sports team, maybe gymnastics??)
Can anyone with a legal background explain the difference between a "pelvic exam" that is not performed for the reason of actually diagnosing or treating the patient and "rape"? Why are things not legally crimes if they're committed during business hours in a reputable medical institution? And that's even if the woman has previously consented to being examined at all by med students, which I'm sure the vast majority do/would not if they'd been explicitly asked and/or aware of what they were signing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think a bit of level setting might be in order. These practices are at teaching hospitals when a patient is already going to have a pelvic procedure like a cancer treatment. Same with the prostate example. I am clearly ANTI both of these practices but, for example, if you go in for an upper GI, no, your vagina will not be investigated. Still, doesn't make it right but some context. Personally, I think it is criminal both the person doing it, all of the witnesses, and the medical center that lets it go on.
Correct. If the attending were going to need to a pelvic exam pre-procedure, the residents may also do one, as they are learning how. It's not as assault like as this thread is making it sound, although the patient herself may not understand what she has actually consented to, pre-operatively. Nurses often handle the consenting process, however it is the MD responsiblity, ultimately.
Anonymous wrote:As an RN I don't look at it like this at all. OB is generally a "happy medicine"-- women are giving birth and women generally take good care of themselves. I work in cardiac critical care and my patients are generally old and have many comorbidities. It gets pretty depressing to see people not take care of themselves and see their conditions worsen. Sometimes I think about switching to OB purely for the fact that people in the hospital for OB reasons are generally there for happy life events, not death and disease. I think that physicians choose their specialties in a similar manner.Anonymous wrote:Something creepy about males wanting to be OB/gynecologists these days.
We now have PLENTY of women physicians.
Thanks, guys. Your party is done.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It amazes me that anyone goes to a male ob gyn. Women are so naive.
Agree.
Anyone helping me birth my baby,
needs to have actually birthed a baby!
Sorry.
My male OB is by far the best doctor I've ever had. I also totally disagree with this logic- does an oncologist have to have cancer to be a good dr? Of course not- that is ridiculous. I say this as an RN.
As an RN I don't look at it like this at all. OB is generally a "happy medicine"-- women are giving birth and women generally take good care of themselves. I work in cardiac critical care and my patients are generally old and have many comorbidities. It gets pretty depressing to see people not take care of themselves and see their conditions worsen. Sometimes I think about switching to OB purely for the fact that people in the hospital for OB reasons are generally there for happy life events, not death and disease. I think that physicians choose their specialties in a similar manner.Anonymous wrote:Something creepy about males wanting to be OB/gynecologists these days.
We now have PLENTY of women physicians.
Thanks, guys. Your party is done.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It amazes me that anyone goes to a male ob gyn. Women are so naive.
Agree.
Anyone helping me birth my baby,
needs to have actually birthed a baby!
Sorry.
My male OB is by far the best doctor I've ever had. I also totally disagree with this logic- does an oncologist have to have cancer to be a good dr? Of course not- that is ridiculous. I say this as an RN.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It amazes me that anyone goes to a male ob gyn. Women are so naive.
Agree.
Anyone helping me birth my baby,
needs to have actually birthed a baby!
Sorry.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have to have a LEEP done under anesthesia (hospital outpatient) in a few weeks and I am now terrified.
Just ask ahead of time, as per earlier in this thread. Review the recommendations, and make sure you trust your providers. Are you going to a teaching hospital, or a private hospital?
Go over the surgical/treatment consents carefully. Ask who (and why!!) will be present in the room and touching you. Be specific and advocate for yourself. Tell your nurses your concerns. This is a relatively simple procedure, and your doctor probably already knows your anatomy.
Anonymous wrote:I have to have a LEEP done under anesthesia (hospital outpatient) in a few weeks and I am now terrified.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think a bit of level setting might be in order. These practices are at teaching hospitals when a patient is already going to have a pelvic procedure like a cancer treatment. Same with the prostate example. I am clearly ANTI both of these practices but, for example, if you go in for an upper GI, no, your vagina will not be investigated. Still, doesn't make it right but some context. Personally, I think it is criminal both the person doing it, all of the witnesses, and the medical center that lets it go on.
Correct. If the attending were going to need to a pelvic exam pre-procedure, the residents may also do one, as they are learning how. It's not as assault like as this thread is making it sound, although the patient herself may not understand what she has actually consented to, pre-operatively. Nurses often handle the consenting process, however it is the MD responsiblity, ultimately.
Anonymous wrote:I think a bit of level setting might be in order. These practices are at teaching hospitals when a patient is already going to have a pelvic procedure like a cancer treatment. Same with the prostate example. I am clearly ANTI both of these practices but, for example, if you go in for an upper GI, no, your vagina will not be investigated. Still, doesn't make it right but some context. Personally, I think it is criminal both the person doing it, all of the witnesses, and the medical center that lets it go on.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It amazes me that anyone goes to a male ob gyn. Women are so naive.
My male OB with 30 years of experience is incredible in terms of bedside manner, knowledge, respect from his peers, and skill. I understand wanting a female as I only initially chose him because he was close and took my insurance. In hindsight, he is the best doctor I have ever seen.
I chose my now long retired OB/GYN to deliver my kids because he was a solo practitioner with a very, very low C-section rate. Huge amount of experience including combat, where they often prefer OB/GYNs because they know how to deal with profuse bleeding.
These things matter more to me than the sex of the doctor.
That's great you have a nice, competent doctor. As expected. This post is about unconcious women being subjected to pelvic exams.