Let's file this under.....

[GraceinMD]

…Caplan, whose knowledge of the case was limited to a reporter's summary….

 

…a psychologist at Temple University who was read a summary of the lawsuit, speculated about why a surgeon who had performed an operation on the back would leave a red rose on his patient's belly…who studies risk-taking personalities and behavior.

I think I have more problems with the newspaper article than with the actual situation! The journalist is trying to get quotes from a variety of folks (commendable), but they're commenting without even knowing more about the case than the writer reads to them? (This, of course, is also what *we* are doing - and if I've learned one thing, it's that there are always at least 2 sides to a story.) Seems odd to me that these experts would comment, although maybe everyone wants their bit o' fame or something.

 

It would be a very odd thing for a surgeon to be alone with a patient after surgery. Very, very odd. I can't imagine a scenario where that would happen, actually.

Grace?

That was my first thought, too. The surgeon is usually the FIRST person out of the room, not even necessarily staying through the closing, etc. So if he did, in fact, place the tattoo, I think it's even MORE likely that it was an innocent (although misguided) gesture - a 'signature', as it were. (Although not a signature like this one:

In a highly publicized case in 1999, a doctor in New York City went further by carving his initials into a patient's abdomen after delivering her baby by Caesarean section.

THAT, I would think, was a big ol' ticket to a lawsuit. I would be hard pressed to come up with an explanation for how that could be anything OTHER THAN pathological!) A temporary tattoo, though? Nah.

 

Moving on.

Either someone is not telling the truth (the victim possibly, or a nurse defending the Dr?) or that Dr did something very, very wrong. And if he was alone with her long enough to apply a tattoo, who knows what else he could have done.

Why are these the only options? Why couldn't the doctor have just been honestly trying to make the pt feel better (and be impoverished enough to not have anyone in his life who could say to him, "Doc, don't do it. It's stupid, and women don't really LIKE that!")

 

And how long does it take ya'll to apply those tattoos to your children? The times I remember doing it: maybe 10 seconds TOPS.

 

He is ALONE with an UNCONSCIENCE woman who should be laying ON HER STOMACH. I'm sure most of you know how vunerable and nervous most women (and men too?) are in such situations? The patient is putting her trust that no one will take advantage of her in such a situation, that those in charge will do the best work possible and ONLY the work the pateint has come in to have done. The patient is NAKED and UNconscience!

 

So she wakes up and learns he took the time to be alone with her, roll her over, and give her a tatoo - it's unclear if it was before or after the surgery. At the very least this doctor is flat out unprofessional. At worst, a female patient is left thinking, OMG what ELSE did he do while alone with me while I was unconscience?! Keep in mind there have been numerous past cases of patients raped or molested when unconscience or medical procedures done that weren't requested.

 

It would seriously freak me out that some weirdo was in a room alone with my naked unconscience body painting little tattoos on it without my permission. That "no witnesses" thing is what bothers me the most.

 

Even during surgery and post-op there's at least a half dozen people in the room at any given time.

Well, I am not trying to be contentious, but I think some of this is pretty unfair:

-- "he's alone," "no witnesses," etc.: we don't know that! 1) It's very unlikely that he was alone (see Amy's and others' comments). 2) no witnesses could just mean that no one saw anything odd -- maybe no one was paying that much attention -- maybe this doc (who's known for being jovial) is so known for doing this (tattoos) on patients that no one thought anything of it - or "witnessed" it.

-- "on her stomach": it's not like she's going to forever be on her stomach, you know - at some point, someone has to roll her over - and it most likely took at least 2 people if not more - those guerneys are narrow.

-- bringing up "numerous past cases of s&xual assault while unconscious" is inflammatory - the plaintiff never alleged anything of the sort about this doctor, as far as I could tell.

-- "some weirdo" - He wasn't a stranger off the street to her. There had been at least one pre-op visit (and probably more), so if she thought he was "off," she probably would have known it by then.

 

This is *clearly* a breach of ethics.

Is it? I don't know - is it unethical to be stupid or to lack discernment? (True question - not snippy at all!)

 

But not a lawsuit--tort cases are for *injuries*, esp. ones that cause financial loss. You just don't get financial compensation in this country for having something bad done to you. They have to be compensable injuries--injuries that cost you something financially, that require medical care or cause you to miss work.

I'd have to agree!

 

I might have words with my doctor about it.

Yes, yes, yes! Absolutely - I would love to know if she ever said to him (before she left the hospital - calling him back to the bedside if she found it after he was there? at the post-op visit? by calling his office?), "Doc, what the heck was that rose there for? You're a jerk! I'm really upset!" Etc., etc.

 

Poor taste, yes. Lawsuit material? Oh, please.

:iagree:

 

I would not ever want to either minimize someone's pain / freaked-outedness / discomfort OR their right to sue (although this seems frivolous to me), but I really wonder whether there was any effort made to TALK to this doctor.

 

I also think it's nearly impossible to know the truth behind the news story, unless someone here knows the plaintiff or the defendant and can report firsthand, so I think this whole discussion is fairly speculative (interesting, but speculative).

[Tammy]

They were operating on her BACK....not her stomach. So they turned her over....and Mr. Doctor went 'down there' to plaster his pathetic ROSE!

 

I can't believe it.....I would be REAL leary to go to another doctor...and I would certainly wonder what would happen the next time I was operated on....

 

When you feel violated....those feeling don't just go away....

 

Tammy

[Alice]

I agree that this isn't a case for a lawsuit. As wrong as it was, I don't see how she was truly injured in a way that demands monetary compensation. There is so much wrong with the medical system today because of frivolous lawsuits. (Not to say all malpractice lawsuits are frivolous at all...or that this woman is trying to be petty or in it for the money...I just don't think this meets the standard of malpractice.)

 

But I do think the doctor acted incredibly inappropriately and weirdly. I think that he should be severely disciplined. Without knowing all the details of the case, I can't say how but there are avenues for that as Sarah mentioned above.

 

Part of what I remember always being ingrained in us when in the OR was to respect the patient. It's impossible not to see the patient naked for many surgeries. We were always taught to be as professional as possible. We were taught NEVER to comment on the patient's body as it might be our own mother or father or child. We were taught that it was a privelege to be allowed to see and help another human being and that above all else we must respect them and treat them well. We were yelled at if we leaned on a body part during surgery. I can remember being in cases that were 8 hours long and accidentally leaning on a leg or an arm and having the surgeon immediately yell at me for not respecting the person (and also because it could cause them to wake up with a sore leg/arm). The doctors and surgeons I know were almost to a fault highly respectful of their patients and this guy just makes me mad for being one more idiot giving the profession a bad name!

[Amy loves Bud]

There are lots of things that aren't illegal but that would be dealt with by professional organizations or by the hospital with which he was associated. He doesn't have to be dealt with by civil authorities to be dealt with. The hospital could revoke his privileges; he could be reprimanded by his state board; his license could be revoked. And there's always the free market angle--patients could start leaving his practice.

 

 

 

Unless it comes out that this guy actually did something sexual with this patient, he won't lose privileges or license. There are more significant evils overlooked every single day.

 

And the fact that this is his "trademark" leads me to believe that he'll stay in business.

 

My hope is that it wasn't a very well thought out little "surprise" he was leaving his patients, and now that he realizes how uncomfortable they feel, he'll quit. And as they say, hope springs eternal. :001_huh:

[Alice]

They were operating on her BACK....not her stomach. So they turned her over....and Mr. Doctor went 'down there' to plaster his pathetic ROSE!

 

I can't believe it.....I would be REAL leary to go to another doctor...and I would certainly wonder what would happen the next time I was operated on....

 

When you feel violated....those feeling don't just go away....

 

Tammy

 

I still think this is a weird case and the surgeon was wrong....

 

But here's what happens when you are having surgery. You go in in your gown and with sheets and blankets. You get anesthesia and go to sleep. They take those blankets and sheets off. They aren't sterile. They rolled her over (I'm presuming this is correct, I didn't acutally see the part about operating on her back.) They possibly removed her gown depending on where they needed to reach. They prepped (placed sterile drapes, etc.) They did the surgery. They removed sterile drapes. They rolled her back over...which requires at least 2 and usually 3 people...it's very difficult in a patient who is anesthetized. Then they got her "fixed up"...did the dressing, possibly cleaned/washed her if there was iodine or blood, replaced a gown, put on warm sheets and blankets, etc. So there's going to be a normal period of time where the surgery is over and everyone is kind of fussing around the patient fixing it so they are as comfy as possible when they wake up.

 

Again....placing a tatoo shouldn't have been done then but it's not quite like just flipping the patient over and wheeling them out of the room is the norm.

[Tammy]

Well I think placing a tattoo in that area....is really off the mark. If he wanted to 'surprise' her and make her happy....why not put it on her hand or something....easily removable! But the location of that tattoo...is what is bothering me.

[PariSarah]

Unless it comes out that this guy actually did something sexual with this patient, he won't lose privileges or license. There are more significant evils overlooked every single day.

 

I wasn't saying he SHOULD lose his license. I was just pointing out all the ways that very-very-bad-but-not-illegal things can be dealt with, and strongly.

 

I meant to imply that there were also lots of little things--like reprimands and "little words of advice" and being sent to Cuddy's office--but I forgot to get around to that. I do genuinely hope that something like this happens to him. I hope some small but real professional consequences come out of this, because he is violating professional codes of ethics in a small but real way.

 

But no, I wasn't saying he should or would lose his license.

[Amy loves Bud]

 

I would not ever want to either minimize someone's pain / freaked-outedness / discomfort OR their right to sue (although this seems frivolous to me), but I really wonder whether there was any effort made to TALK to this doctor.

 

Point taken. :001_smile:

 

I also think it's nearly impossible to know the truth behind the news story, unless someone here knows the plaintiff or the defendant and can report firsthand, so I think this whole discussion is fairly speculative (interesting, but speculative).

 

:iagree:

[Amy loves Bud]

I wasn't saying he SHOULD lose his license. I was just pointing out all the ways that very-very-bad-but-not-illegal things can be dealt with, and strongly.

 

I meant to imply that there were also lots of little things--like reprimands and "little words of advice" and being sent to Cuddy's office--but I forgot to get around to that. I do genuinely hope that something like this happens to him. I hope some small but real professional consequences come out of this, because he is violating professional codes of ethics in a small but real way.

 

But no, I wasn't saying he should or would lose his license.

 

Gotcha, and agreed on all counts!

[GraceinMD]

Point taken. :001_smile:

 

No! I forgot my :iagree: smilie - I was agreeing with you, not making a point at you!

[Scuff]

I dont' know that it would "damage my psyche". But it was inappropriate. If he just wanted to cheer her up, no need to put it below the panty line. Only one person in my life needs to be there, and if he needs to be too, it's only in a professional manner. It's violating and he should be sued to hold him accountable so he can figure out not to do it again.

[Maria from IN]

...without finding something like, "maybe it violated her specific religious or cultural beliefs." ;)

 

I can't believe with all the training hospitals get regarding respecting patients' rights and cultural and religious beliefs that he could get away with something like that.

 

She really shouldn't file a lawsuit--you'd think it would be laughed out of court. Complain to the hospital--yes! Punishment would probably be much more swift and painful.

[GraceinMD]

below the panty line.

 

Actually, I did have this question (sorta seriously): what kind of p&nties? Th&ng? Granny p&nts? We could be talking a good 9 inches difference! Maybe the tattoo was at her waist-line, not further south. Maybe the plaintiff's lawyer was using that description to inflame the situation? The doc is still clueless, but maybe he thought he put is "on her waist" or "by her belly button"!

 

Ah, more speculation.... Not a good thing.

[Amy loves Bud]

No! I forgot my :iagree: smilie - I was agreeing with you, not making a point at you!

 

Well, my response was rather flip! I saw that you agreed, but I definitely could have stated my opinion more ...sensitively. I've been on both sides of the scalpel, so it's easy for me to see how this could really be an innocent (albeit poorly thought out) thing, but I can also understand being freaked out about waking up with a temp tattoo, and no memory of getting it. :001_smile:

[cin]

But this woman misunderstands the nature of suffering if she believes this is a compensable "injury." She needs to be filing a complaint with hospital boards and state medical boards, not suing.

 

 

 

 

This is my thought exactly. There are people out there who are put through ordeals that REALLY cause pain and suffering. And it's not something that you can EVER wash off with soap and water. These people can NEVER wash away what happened to them, no matter how hard they try. A sticker? For goodness sake. I've had worse things than a sticker happen to me, and never even thought of suing...hmmmmm I wonder how much I could get from people who upset me, tick me off, offend me, or even, at times, cause me pain and suffering?

 

Bad Taste? Yes. Lawsuit? No Way.

[dragons in the flower bed]

give me a break.:

 

Holy smokes. No, I totally think that doing any sort of body modification without the consent of the person who owns that body should be illegal. Don't sure him for money -- send him to jail!

[abbeyej]

Holy smokes. No, I totally think that doing any sort of body modification without the consent of the person who owns that body should be illegal. Don't sure him for money -- send him to jail!

 

Maybe you missed that it was a *temporary* tattoo? I think my reaction was pretty strong anyway, but you'd better believe it would have been *much* stronger if we were talking about an *actual* tattoo.

[Unicorn.]

I agree, I think it is creepy and inappropriate to place a tattoo in a private area while a patient is unconscious and completely vulnerable. If the rose were on her hand I could see it more in the spirit it was intended.

 

:

 

I agree. I think most lawsuits are frivolous, however, I would have contacted a lawyer about this one. I would feel very, very, violated if this had happened to me. It was on a private area of her body, where he didn't need to be. I think what he did was disgusting!!!!!!!!

[fshinkevich]

Sorry, I am really new to all this, and I could not figure out how to highlight quotes so I just put little faces next to my response comments, haha.

 

 

That was my first thought, too. The surgeon is usually the FIRST person out of the room, not even necessarily staying through the closing, etc. So if he did, in fact, place the tattoo, I think it's even MORE likely that it was an innocent (although misguided) gesture - a 'signature', as it were. (Although not a signature like this one:

 

THAT, I would think, was a big ol' ticket to a lawsuit. I would be hard pressed to come up with an explanation for how that could be anything OTHER THAN pathological!) A temporary tattoo, though? Nah.

 

:) Leaving his "signature" was exactly the first thing that popped into my head and I think any type of signature on another person, temporary or not, is crossing a line. It says a lot about his personality, even if he meant it in good fun.

 

Moving on.

 

Why are these the only options? Why couldn't the doctor have just been honestly trying to make the pt feel better (and be impoverished enough to not have anyone in his life who could say to him, "Doc, don't do it. It's stupid, and women don't really LIKE that!")

 

:) Well I'm going off the hospital report that states there were no witnesses, so I have to assume that's true. And I wonder why he even feels the need to "make the patient feel better". He made her feel better by surgery, if he cares more than that, a follow up visit/phone call should suffice.

 

And how long does it take ya'll to apply those tattoos to your children? The times I remember doing it: maybe 10 seconds TOPS.

 

:) From what I remember it takes a wet rag, a significant amount of pressure and 30 - 60 seconds. Not to mention he had to have the tattoos there. I can understand other people in the room being busy and cleaning up, but really no one saw the Dr. lifting her gown and applying a wet rag to her PANTY LINE?

 

 

Well, I am not trying to be contentious, but I think some of this is pretty unfair:

-- "he's alone," "no witnesses," etc.: we don't know that! 1) It's very unlikely that he was alone (see Amy's and others' comments). 2) no witnesses could just mean that no one saw anything odd -- maybe no one was paying that much attention -- maybe this doc (who's known for being jovial) is so known for doing this (tattoos) on patients that no one thought anything of it - or "witnessed" it.

-- "on her stomach": it's not like she's going to forever be on her stomach, you know - at some point, someone has to roll her over - and it most likely took at least 2 people if not more - those guerneys are narrow.

-- bringing up "numerous past cases of s&xual assault while unconscious" is inflammatory - the plaintiff never alleged anything of the sort about this doctor, as far as I could tell.

-- "some weirdo" - He wasn't a stranger off the street to her. There had been at least one pre-op visit (and probably more), so if she thought he was "off," she probably would have known it by then.

 

:) He probably did not roll her over, I realized that after I typed it the first time, but still she would have had some sort of gown or covering on that he had to lift, and WHY that area if she had surgery on her back? There is no reasonable explanation for that. And that alone is a type of sexual abuse, imo. Imagine if your dentist lifted up your skirt and applied a tattoo after you had been put asleep for a root canal?

 

If she went in to ER for pain he very well could have been a stranger, and even with one meeting I would say he was a relative stranger. Not that it would really matter one way or another.

 

 

Is it? I don't know - is it unethical to be stupid or to lack discernment? (True question - not snippy at all!)

 

 

I'd have to agree!

 

 

Yes, yes, yes! Absolutely - I would love to know if she ever said to him (before she left the hospital - calling him back to the bedside if she found it after he was there? at the post-op visit? by calling his office?), "Doc, what the heck was that rose there for? You're a jerk! I'm really upset!" Etc., etc.

 

 

:) It's possible she didn't want to talk to him after that (and I woudn't blame her), it's also possible she did do those things, or at least talked to a nurse or something and was dismissed. She obviously filed a report.

[fshinkevich]

Actually, I did have this question (sorta seriously): what kind of p&nties? Th&ng? Granny p&nts? We could be talking a good 9 inches difference! Maybe the tattoo was at her waist-line, not further south. Maybe the plaintiff's lawyer was using that description to inflame the situation? The doc is still clueless, but maybe he thought he put is "on her waist" or "by her belly button"!

 

Ah, more speculation.... Not a good thing.

 

Well I'm going to add more speculation :D and assume she was not wearing any panties, as she would likely have a catheter in. So when I hear panty line I assume below the waste.

 

Either way, it's my opinion that it was inappropriate, esp. when her surgery was on her back. If it was near her incision I would still think it was wrong, but could see how maybe the Dr thought it was funny, if he was a complete idiot. But panty line, granny's or not, is even more out of line. If he felt compelled to do it at all, her hand or something, like others stated. Anything that we wear clothing to protect should be off limits.

[sdWTMer]

I'd be aggravated, but I still think that it's frivolous!

[dragons in the flower bed]

Maybe you missed that it was a *temporary* tattoo? I think my reaction was pretty strong anyway, but you'd better believe it would have been *much* stronger if we were talking about an *actual* tattoo.

 

Ah, you're right, I jumped the gun. How embarrassing. I would still think that one shouldn't mess with someone else's body in any way, but a rub on temporary tattoo sticker is different from what I had imagined -- a different type of temporary body mod that involves small cuts. Nevermind, just ignore me, and pretend I didn't just reveal more about myself than I ever planned . . .

[PariSarah]

. . . because it obviously wasn't clear to him!!! :D

 

 

Is it? I don't know - is it unethical to be stupid or to lack discernment? (True question - not snippy at all!)

 

 

Genuine question right back at you--what is ethics training like these days? Is it getting more formalized yet? I can imagine that people in non-sensitive specialties (like, say, podiatry or allergies or something) might not get the sort of training a GYN gets in the ethics of dealing with privacy issues. It's entirely conceivable to me that what is absolutely vital in a GYN's training is just not mentioned in a spinal surgeon's.

 

But yes, I would call this a violation of the articulated ethics of the profession, meaning that the profession's own expectations of themselves are higher than stated legal obligations. The standard stuff I read--not the theological variety, just the "all doctors oughta" variety--emphasizes the need for respecting bodily integrity and autonomy, particularly were sensitive areas are concerned.

 

I've never read a "Thou shalt not put a temporary tattoo on a patient's hoo-ha," of course, but I've seen plenty where the profession itemizes the ways it's expected that a doctor will honor the trust and vulnerability of the patient. I've seen it particularly mentioned that medical professionals ought not touch, manipulate, or examine body parts that are not relevant to the problem at hand. (No breast exams when the patient has a sore knee.) And I've seen particular attention given to the way doctors are expected to minimize the sense of violation when privacy has to be breached--having a female nurse present during a pap smear or a breast exam, knocking before entering, all that sort of thing. This is stuff that the profession talks about when it talks about ethics. These aren't binding doctrines or anything--it's just what doctors tell each other is the behavior that they expect of each other.

 

It might be a valid question, though, whether most doctors are adequately trained in the profession's own best ethics.

[Murphy101]

But, the OR team would have turned the patient over after the surgery as they got her cleaned up and ready to go to recovery. There isn't an OR environment where a patient is alone, still under anesthesia, and anyone could just walk in there, flip her over and give her a tattoo. It's just not how things operate. There is more (or possibly much less) to the story.

 

 

Okay. I want to be clear here too. I'm not saying we have all the facts. I'm sure we don't. But even with what little facts we have - I think she has a valid suit. As you point out Amy, "how things operate" is not how things were done for THIS woman.

 

some people are so money hungry, even if they get $1 out of it, she will be happy.

 

I don't know that's fair to say of the client. It could be that she is honestly so outraged that even if she doesn't get any money out of it - she feels it worth the suit.

 

If anything, knowing how little money a client actually gets once the sharks get their cut, it's usually not worth it for someone to bother suing. In some cases, if it wasn't for sharky lawyers, a client wouldn't be able to afford to seek justice at all, even when there is serious permanent bodily harm.

 

I don't think all suits should be about money. Does justice and ethics have no value in and of themselves? Not being snarky - honest question!

 

He doesn't have to be dealt with by civil authorities to be dealt with. The hospital could revoke his privileges; he could be reprimanded by his state board; his license could be revoked.

 

It's similar, in my mind, to a pastor making pass at a parishioner.

 

I don't think this is comparable. I usually have more say in what church/pastor I see than what dr I have to see on an HMO. And usually I don't have to worry about having to trust my pastor with my naked unconscious self either. Maybe others have a different religion with very different pastoral requirements?:tongue_smilie:

 

With a court case, it's public record (most of the time). And honestly, most hospitals and insurance companies react stronger and more decisively to public out cry than any quiet complaint filed. Self policing doesn't affect their pocket books. I don't think it's fair to claim the patient is always looking for a money ticket without noticing many drs/hospitals/insurance companies are just as money hungry.

 

That was my first thought, too. The surgeon is usually the FIRST person out of the room, not even necessarily staying through the closing, etc. So if he did, in fact, place the tattoo, I think it's even MORE likely that it was an innocent (although misguided) gesture

 

See now, I know that too. But to me, it seems LESS likely that he went out of his way to stick around for entirely innocent reasons.

 

Well, I am not trying to be contentious, but I think some of this is pretty unfair:

-- "he's alone," "no witnesses," etc.: we don't know that! 1) It's very unlikely that he was alone (see Amy's and others' comments). 2) no witnesses could just mean that no one saw anything odd -- maybe no one was paying that much attention -- maybe this doc (who's known for being jovial) is so known for doing this (tattoos) on patients that no one thought anything of it - or "witnessed" it.

 

okay. I'll admit that might have happened. in which case we are back to my opinion the hospital is dadblumed lucky they aren't being sued too. Because that's either shoddy care to not notice something like a dr not asking for permission before temp tatting people or to let him continue it without saying anything!?

 

It highly possible I'm giving more common sense and professional credits to hospital staff than I should expect them to have.:001_huh:

 

-- "on her stomach": it's not like she's going to forever be on her stomach, you know - at some point, someone has to roll her over - and it most likely took at least 2 people if not more - those guerneys are narrow.

 

BUT as another pointed out - it would be very unusual for the surgeon to stick around through all that. There's that oddness agian...

 

-- bringing up "numerous past cases of s&xual assault while unconscious" is inflammatory - the plaintiff never alleged anything of the sort about this doctor, as far as I could tell.

 

:iagree: but not what I meant or intended by pointing it out. I think the first thing many women would have thought upon such a discovery under such circumstances would have been, "OMG what ELSE did he do unasked to to my naked sedated self!?"

 

-- "some weirdo" - He wasn't a stranger off the street to her. There had been at least one pre-op visit (and probably more), so if she thought he was "off," she probably would have known it by then.

 

I don't think weirdo are restricted to strangers off the street. Some of the weirdest people I've ever met were fairly normal on the surface and in a brief contact. Also, with insurance and time constraints it's highly possible she had never had more than 15 minutes total with this guy. I had never seen the man who did my c-section 10 years ago. This dr came in and said I needed a c/s ASAP and 15 minutes later I was given loopy head syrup and being prepped. I never saw him after the surgery. I don't think I saw him more than 5 minutes TOTAL.

 

Is it? I don't know - is it unethical to be stupid or to lack discernment? (True question - not snippy at all!)

 

It's unethical, imho, to let such a person have a license to cut on unsuspecting people.

 

Yes, yes, yes! Absolutely - I would love to know if she ever said to him (before she left the hospital

 

I don't know if that's fair to ask of her? Not all patients can be that way. I've seen tough hard as nails grown men who felt VERY uncomfortable and intimidated by drs and the hospital setting in general. If she honestly felt taken advantage of while in surgery - it's highly possible that she was VERY uncomfortable with the notion of dealing with that man face to face? I could understand that. Honestly? I have no doubt that he's done this before without complaints from patients. Many patients simply do not feel comfortable voicing their concerns or are made to feel silly when their concerns are brushed aside or laughed off. Personally? If I had that done to me, I would be freaked. I would have said something to my husband and the nurse. I would have felt utterly stupid and humiliated if the nurse had laughed it off as just "something silly dr X likes to do - isn't that funny cute?" I would be very nervous at the idea of comfronting him in my gown in a hospital room. I would be thinking, "What if he comes by when dh is picking the kids up fromt he sitter? Will the nurses get mad if I buzz them because I don't want to be alone with him.:001_unsure:

 

I know us homeschoolers are a pretty tough bunch of folks most of the time, but I tell you MANY people are simply NOT so tough and much more timid in a hospital setting.

 

I don't consider myself a prude my any stretch. You simply cannot have 8 children and stay prude. But I would have been sincerely freaked and very unsure of myself and how to deal with that man.

 

I also think it's nearly impossible to know the truth behind the news story, unless someone here knows the plaintiff or the defendant and can report firsthand, so I think this whole discussion is fairly speculative (interesting, but speculative).

 

:iagree:

 

This woman DID complain to the hospital and the hospital DID investigate. It may very well be that she decided to sue because she felt the hospital did not discipline him at all or strongly enough? Let's remember hospitals have restrictions on what they can do to drs too.

 

I also don't think that because she lived through the surgery with no bodily harm than the suit shouldn't be permitted.

 

I don't like lawsuits. I agree they are a problem. A big part of that problem is that self policing is simply no where near as effective at creating change and getting the word out on a bad dr/situation/hospital. I don't like that either. If for no other reason than I am currently dealing with the effects of such suits causing a change that is NOT in the patients' best interests. (a.k.a VBAC purgatory!) Reaction to a legal ramification is not always good for patient care.

[PariSarah]

I don't think this is comparable. I usually have more say in what church/pastor I see than what dr I have to see on an HMO. And usually I don't have to worry about having to trust my pastor with my naked unconscious self either. Maybe others have a different religion with very different pastoral requirements?

 

It's only comparable in terms of professional oversight. Your pastor isn't just responsible to you. If s/he is a member of an organized denomination, s/he may have a bishop, a clergy session, or some other denominational body s/he is accountable to. Doing something legal but unethical could get him/her in trouble with her denomination.

 

In my denomination, for example, having an affair with a congregation member gets you minimum two years suspension, and the clergy session has to approve your return. No legal trouble at all, but a whole heaping load of professional trouble.

 

In the same way, doctors have people in authority over them who are not legal or civil authorities, but professional ones. A doctor could lose his license or his privileges at a hospital or invoke other professional consequences without violating the law.

[Alice]

 

Genuine question right back at you--what is ethics training like these days?

 

It might be a valid question, though, whether most doctors are adequately trained in the profession's own best ethics.

 

I think the short answer is NO. Doctors are not adequately trained in the profession's ethics. I don't know what training is these days. It very well could have changed significantly since I was in school. (I graduated in 1993.) We had one formal class in second year. One. And then sometimes we would have cases in other classes where someone would bring up an "ethical" question but it was definitely not emphasized. I went to Georgetown and I do think the Catholic/Jesuit background caused us to think/talk more about those issues than other places. Some of the professors were also priests, etc.

 

My guess would be that the doctor in this story had very little ethics training if I'm remembering correctly that he's in his 50's. I might be wrong about that.

 

I considered getting a degree in bioethics/medical ethics after residency so I feel like I've read more and thought more about ethics than most docs I trained with. I still subscribe to a medical ethics list-serv. But in general, I think this is an area that is sorely lacking in medical training.

[5kidsforME]

The location of it would be the bugging point for me. On the hand, lovely and sweet. Under my private undergarment areas, no thank you. Suing is way out of control and not appropriate for a great number of the cases out there IMO.

 

:iagree:

[GraceinMD]

Does justice and ethics have no value in and of themselves? Not being snarky - honest question!

Oh, I believe that ethical questions and justice are very valuable, even just theoretically. I just hate that our courts are sludged up with suits like this.

 

Maybe others have a different religion with very different pastoral requirements?:tongue_smilie:

LOL! I'm sure there's a religion somewhere....

IMany patients simply do not feel comfortable voicing their concerns or are made to feel silly when their concerns are brushed aside or laughed off. I would have felt utterly stupid and humiliated if the nurse had laughed it off as just "something silly dr X likes to do - isn't that funny cute?" I would be very nervous at the idea of comfronting him in my gown in a hospital room.

The power differential doesn't really seem very big from this 'side of the room,' but you are absolutely right - it's there, and I appreciate the reminder. I guess to me, a lawsuit seems like a huge and unpleasant deal (for both sides), and I don't think I would deem it worth the effort unless there had been actual bodily harm. (Ack. That sounds like I think if she's ok physically then he can do anything he wants - that's NOT what I mean - but no time to clarify more. Suffice it to say, as someone (Doran?) said, it seems that there are bigger fish to fry - but my pov isn't anyone else's and I acknowledge that.)

 

There are studies showing that simply getting an apology from a doctor can go a long way toward helping situations like this out. So (I won't say it anymore after this, at least in this thread!), I just wish that there was some evidence that she had TALKED to the guy and given him the opportunity to say, "Oh my gosh, I am so sorry! Here's what I thought you would think... and I am so sorry! Please forgive me!" But, I do think that the level of trust in docs in this country (heck, just listen to this Board sometimes) has deteriorated badly, and even a sincere apology wdn't be believed.

[Amy loves Bud]

I think the short answer is NO. Doctors are not adequately trained in the profession's ethics.

 

I agree with that.

 

We had a 1 hour class at the end of 4th year med school (out of there!) and I have a vague recollection of the professor listening to himself talk about Icarus, and then a mock trial involving assisted suicide.

 

It was a waste of time.

 

In residency (at Georgetown, Alice) I remember that the Pediatrics Dept. had an excellent ethics symposium every so often. They discussed real cases and had folks from all fields there. I learned a great deal from that.

 

For the most part, though, ethics is something I was mentored in. I had some excellent teachers along the way who taught these things in an informal way. I agreed with some, disagreed with some, but always learned. I also had some teachers who couldn't be bothered with such details. I'm sad to say that the surgeons in my 3rd year med school rotation, though really interesting and likable people, were among them.

 

So at worst it's completely forgotten, at best it's a daily part of mentoring by experienced physicians. For most it probably ended up being an afterthought.

[DB in NJ]

Hey, that's in my neck of the woods. I say frivolous, but I think the doctor should stop it. I would have found it a little freaky myself.

 

Yep! I wonder which hospital she was in!

[5kidsforME]

Definitely a frivolous lawsuit. I have never seen a medical malpractice suit that was frivolous before...but this one definitely is.

 

I sued for malpractice before, some of you know the details. It definitely was not frivolous. People like the woman in that article make me sick because they make it harder on those of us who have real issues (like the mistake taking the life of our child). So what if she had a temporary tattoo!! Give me a big huge friggin break!!! She is alive and well and the doctor did a good job.

 

First let me say I do not know the details about your situation, from the little you said, I am sorry for this horrible tragic loss.

 

I don't always think comparing situations is always a good arguement. Your horrible situation in no way diminishes this womens distress. What I mean by that is if this women were to hear your story (or any other) she would, I am sure feel compassion and even possbily think " well that is far worse then what happened to me" BUT hearing your story will not make it better for her. It doesn't mean all of her anxiety and other issues will just go away.

 

On the other hand I hate to see needless lawsuits but really, I am sure there are a lot details we just don't know about this case.

 

I hope this makes some sort of sense.

[Amy loves Bud]

Okay. I want to be clear here too. I'm not saying we have all the facts. I'm sure we don't. But even with what little facts we have - I think she has a valid suit. As you point out Amy, "how things operate" is not how things were done for THIS woman.

 

 

 

 

Wait, that's not what I meant. "How things operate", in my opinion, are probably exactly how things were done.

 

I'm totally guessing here, but I have a feeling there was an OR Tech, an OR nurse, an anesthesiologist, probably someone getting the room ready for the next case, and the surgeon all milling about in there. The surgeon could have easily placed the tattoo and no one would have noticed or thought anything funny. He could have been removing an electrocautery (bovie) grounding pad, scrubbing off some iodine that ran around her side when they prepped, or any number of very normal things after surgery, and in the process of cleaning the patient up he put the tattoo on.

 

Again, this is purely speculation, but the normal OR protocol could have easily been followed to a t, and this still happened.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong to hold your opinion about whether this is lawsuit worthy or not, though I don't believe it is. I just want it to be known that every single person there could have been doing his job properly and not noticed this happen. Just because no one saw it, doesn't mean the man snuck in and molested the patient. Maybe he did. But I seriously doubt it.

 

I hope I clarified my point here. This is a very interesting topic to me!

[fshinkevich]

Wait, that's not what I meant. "How things operate", in my opinion, are probably exactly how things were done.

 

I'm totally guessing here, but I have a feeling there was an OR Tech, an OR nurse, an anesthesiologist, probably someone getting the room ready for the next case, and the surgeon all milling about in there. The surgeon could have easily placed the tattoo and no one would have noticed or thought anything funny. He could have been removing an electrocautery (bovie) grounding pad, scrubbing off some iodine that ran around her side when they prepped, or any number of very normal things after surgery, and in the process of cleaning the patient up he put the tattoo on.

 

Again, this is purely speculation, but the normal OR protocol could have easily been followed to a t, and this still happened.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong to hold your opinion about whether this is lawsuit worthy or not, though I don't believe it is. I just want it to be known that every single person there could have been doing his job properly and not noticed this happen. Just because no one saw it, doesn't mean the man snuck in and molested the patient. Maybe he did. But I seriously doubt it.

 

I hope I clarified my point here. This is a very interesting topic to me!

 

I don't think a Dr. would have been the one to scrub anything off of her,they would need to scrub themselves down, and as someone stated before he would likely be the first one to leave the room.

 

And from my experience with surgery, nothing was wiped off me. I had sticky gunk and iodine on me, I was allowed to shower once I was capable of walking.

 

 

I cannot think of a single instance where it would be ok for anyone to put a tattoo on my body, without my permission, esp. in such a private location.

 

I cannot think of a single instance where it would be ok for the Dr to even be anywhere near her panty line, for any reason, when the surgery was on her back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GraceinMD]

Genuine question right back at you--what is ethics training like these days? Is it getting more formalized yet? I can imagine that people in non-sensitive specialties (like, say, podiatry or allergies or something) might not get the sort of training a GYN gets in the ethics of dealing with privacy issues. It's entirely conceivable to me that what is absolutely vital in a GYN's training is just not mentioned in a spinal surgeon's.

Well, I don't recall any "ethics" training per se. (It has been 18 yrs, so I might have forgotten!) It reminds me of when my 4 yr old nephew put his elbows on the table, despite having been told re-peat-ed-ly not to by my sil. She leaned over and poked him in the elbow with her fork (to make her "point" forcefully haha), at which point he turned shocked eyes to her and said, "You don't DO that!" (That is, duh, you don't poke people in the elbow with a fork! I'm 4 and I know that!) That is to say, most practical ethics that I recall is of the "You don't DO that!" variety, and this doc apparently missed the lesson!

 

...the profession's own expectations of themselves are higher than stated legal obligations. The standard stuff I read--not the theological variety, just the "all doctors oughta" variety--emphasizes the need for respecting bodily integrity and autonomy

I agree, but I guess at the very root here (and I am NOT defending this guy - PLEASE don't misunderstand that!) I don't really see that her bodily integrity was dissed. Should he have known better? Well, one would certainly hope so - but does this reach a prosecutable offense? I just don't see it. As far as complaining to the Board of Medicine or whatever NJ has, fine - it's better than a lawsuit, but, imo, worse than just talking to the doc - and then filing a complaint if the patient can't get him to understand.

These aren't binding doctrines or anything--it's just what doctors tell each other is the behavior that they expect of each other. It might be a valid question, though, whether most doctors are adequately trained in the profession's own best ethics.

But this is why I don’t think that this docs intentions were bad – (misguided has been stipulated) --- he has had just those expectations ingrained in him, even if he’s never had a formal ethics course. He’s just one of the clueless.

 

 

I went to Georgetown and I do think the Catholic/Jesuit background caused us to think/talk more about those issues than other places.

 

In residency (at Georgetown, Alice) I remember that the Pediatrics Dept. had an excellent ethics symposium every so often. I also had some teachers who couldn't be bothered with such details. I'm sad to say that the surgeons in my 3rd year med school rotation, though really interesting and likable people, were among them.

 

So at worst it's completely forgotten, at best it's a daily part of mentoring by experienced physicians. For most it probably ended up being an afterthought.

 

I agree with you both (and I *taught* at Georgetown – how odd is that?! I wonder if kalanamak has any GTU ties? They had some great Ethics conferences, and some world-renowned ethicists working there.) Surgeons do tend to be the ones who “can’t be bothered,†but there are clueless folks in every walk of life. Clueless isn’t a crime, and there are some folks that you just can’t teach principles of ethics to. IMO.

[Murphy101]

Wait, that's not what I meant. "How things operate", in my opinion, are probably exactly how things were done.

 

Again, this is purely speculation, but the normal OR protocol could have easily been followed to a t, and this still happened.

 

I just want it to be known that every single person there could have been doing his job properly and not noticed this happen.

 

:DNo,. no, no... it's ME that wasn't clear on what I meant!

 

My point was that even if everyone was doing S.O.P. and doing their job, maybe this illustrates that the S.O.P. and how they do their job needs to change? From MY perspective as a patient, that sounds very much like a slab of meat in the room - every one busy doing their business and not really even thinking about the actual person, kwim? Now, PLEASE do NOT think that I think that's how they or every other medical worker feels or intends to act. I certainly do not. But ask any patient and MANY say that's precisely how they feel, intended or not.

 

It seems to my mind that the problem here could have been 100% avoided entirely by even just ONE person in that room thinking and saying, "um, hey doc? how about we be professional this time?" or even one nurse commenting afterwards that he's danged lucky a patient wasn't disturbed/offended and should reconsider. (Someone mentioned being surprised about religion not being brought up yet? I'm far more surprised no one cried sexism! How dare he use a rose? Is he saying all women are delicate or something? What if that woman was one of those people claiming to be a man in a woman's body? Heck, I think NONE of that is true or okay, but there you have it.:lurk5:)

 

At the very least hospitals/drs need to stop either presuming things of patients or not giving a flip - and yes, some staff flat out don't care about patient sensibilities.

 

Regardless of whether it affects the medical condition it most certainly has an effect on patient comfort with medical staff. And patients who aren't comfortable do not seek care and or are not open about their problems - which can lead to medical problems. For example, this patient may refuse major dental work because she's scared and distrusting of being put under sedation. Or might avoid getting a mammogram because she feels uncomfortable with the exposure now, when before she might not have. This woman might honestly never feel comfortable with male medical staff again.

 

I know that sounds stupid and silly over just a temp tat. But it's not the tat itself. It's the location partly too. But even more than either of those things? It's the feeling that you are completely at the mercy of people you do not know and a feeling of being uncertain about what they COULD have done. If he could give a temp tat. Maybe next time a dr could think her life sucks and give her a quick little injection. I mean if he REALLY wants to just cheer her up there's plenty of things a weirdo dr might decide to use .... It's not about what happened - it's that the creepy factor of what could have happened. And apparently no one would even notice or think to comment against the dr?

Yeah. I'd have freaked out too!

 

I don't know that she deserves million of bucks or anything like that, just saying I can see how this deserves an unbiased non-medical judgement.:)

[Amy loves Bud]

I don't think a Dr. would have been the one to scrub anything off of her,they would need to scrub themselves down, and as someone stated before he would likely be the first one to leave the room.

 

And from my experience with surgery, nothing was wiped off me. I had sticky gunk and iodine on me, I was allowed to shower once I was capable of walking.

 

 

I cannot think of a single instance where it would be ok for anyone to put a tattoo on my body, without my permission, esp. in such a private location.

 

I cannot think of a single instance where it would be ok for the Dr to even be anywhere near her panty line, for any reason, when the surgery was on her back.

 

 

One of the common traits of surgeons is perfectionism, and I encountered a number who stayed and walked with the patient to recovery. Many of them insist that all iodine, bovie pads, and the like be gone before the patient wakes up. Not all, but it's not an insignificant minority that's for sure. I think it's a good thing, as iodine makes you itchy and you really have to scrub to get it off.

 

When I had my appendix out, the only evidence that surgery had been performed was the three bandaids on my belly and a small shaved patch - below the panty line, ironically :001_smile:. They cleaned me up nicely.

[Murphy101]

I don't think a Dr. would have been the one to scrub anything off of her,they would need to scrub themselves down, and as someone stated before he would likely be the first one to leave the room.

 

And from my experience with surgery, nothing was wiped off me. I had sticky gunk and iodine on me, I was allowed to shower once I was capable of walking.

 

This has been very much my expereince and the experience of everyone I know as well. That's why it instantly felt WAY "off" for me too.

 

 

I cannot think of a single instance where it would be ok for anyone to put a tattoo on my body, without my permission, esp. in such a private location.

 

I cannot think of a single instance where it would be ok for the Dr to even be anywhere near her panty line, for any reason, when the surgery was on her back.

 

Me neither. THAT's why I was thinking, "whoa! he was alone with her or no one thought that was really odd and said something?"

 

I really don't care if this was a regular practice of his or not. Any medical professional I've known would not have considered that normal behavior for the typical surgeon. If anything most surgeons have a rep for comming in and getting out and not really giving much thought to patient comfort other than doing a good surgery. Anything beyond that - most surgeons don't consider their problem. They usually aren't intending to be callous or anything, most are actually very kind - they just tend to be VERY focused, kwim?

[Melinda]

Hey, that's in my neck of the woods. I say frivolous, but I think the doctor should stop it. I would have found it a little freaky myself.

 

:iagree:

[Murphy101]

One of the common traits of surgeons is perfectionism, and I encountered a number who stayed and walked with the patient to recovery. Many of them insist that all iodine, bovie pads, and the like be gone before the patient wakes up. Not all, but it's not an insignificant minority that's for sure. I think it's a good thing, as iodine makes you itchy and you really have to scrub to get it off.

 

When I had my appendix out, the only evidence that surgery had been performed was the three bandaids on my belly and a small shaved patch - below the panty line, ironically :001_smile:. They cleaned me up nicely.

 

I agree about the perfectionism trait, but I would say the rest is nicer than most get. Maybe that's just my area of the world though. Seriously never had someone get that treatment here. 4 different hospitals and LOTS of bedsides. Not as many as an actual nurse of course, but still more than a dozen all without that expereince.:001_unsure:

[Amy loves Bud]

Martha,

 

I put my words in Blue, it's easier than the multiquote thing. We definitely agree on more than we disagree.

 

:DNo,. no, no... it's ME that wasn't clear on what I meant!

 

 

My point was that even if everyone was doing S.O.P. and doing their job, maybe this illustrates that the S.O.P. and how they do their job needs to change? From MY perspective as a patient, that sounds very much like a slab of meat in the room - every one busy doing their business and not really even thinking about the actual person, kwim? Now, PLEASE do NOT think that I think that's how they or every other medical worker feels or intends to act. I certainly do not. But ask any patient and MANY say that's precisely how they feel, intended or not.

 

I won't lie, you have the undivided attention of the anesthesiologist at that point, but otherwise you are a sleeping patient that doesn't really need a lot of other attention at that point. Slab of meat was your phrase, not mine :D. But I'm not sure what you would want to have happen? You are fine, a trained anesthesiologist is taking care of you, should everyone just stop and watch?

 

It seems to my mind that the problem here could have been 100% avoided entirely by even just ONE person in that room thinking and saying, "um, hey doc? how about we be professional this time?" or even one nurse commenting afterwards that he's danged lucky a patient wasn't disturbed/offended and should reconsider. (Someone mentioned being surprised about religion not being brought up yet? I'm far more surprised no one cried sexism! How dare he use a rose? Is he saying all women are delicate or something? What if that woman was one of those people claiming to be a man in a woman's body? Heck, I think NONE of that is true or okay, but there you have it.:lurk5:)

 

Totally agree here. If anyone knew he was doing this, they should have spoken up.

 

At the very least hospitals/drs need to stop either presuming things of patients or not giving a flip - and yes, some staff flat out don't care about patient sensibilities.

 

Of course.

 

Regardless of whether it affects the medical condition it most certainly has an effect on patient comfort with medical staff. And patients who aren't comfortable do not seek care and or are not open about their problems - which can lead to medical problems. For example, this patient may refuse major dental work because she's scared and distrusting of being put under sedation. Or might avoid getting a mammogram because she feels uncomfortable with the exposure now, when before she might not have. This woman might honestly never feel comfortable with male medical staff again.

 

I know that sounds stupid and silly over just a temp tat. But it's not the tat itself. It's the location partly too. But even more than either of those things? It's the feeling that you are completely at the mercy of people you do not know and a feeling of being uncertain about what they COULD have done. If he could give a temp tat. Maybe next time a dr could think her life sucks and give her a quick little injection. I mean if he REALLY wants to just cheer her up there's plenty of things a weirdo dr might decide to use .... It's not about what happened - it's that the creepy factor of what could have happened. And apparently no one would even notice or think to comment against the dr?

Yeah. I'd have freaked out too!

 

This is where we part ways. All those things can happen at anytime. "That creepy factor of what could have happened" is ever present with anesthesia. It's one of the major reasons people don't like to have surgery. But this guy didn't do any of those things. He should be held responsible for reminding her that it could have happened? His putting the tattoo didn't make it more or less likely to happen. Further, if he hadn't placed the tattoo, it didn't make it any more or less likely to happen. If he's going to be held responsible here, it should be for his own actions, not what someone else may or may not do in the future, or what someone imagines he could have done but didn't.

 

I don't know that she deserves million of bucks or anything like that, just saying I can see how this deserves an unbiased non-medical judgement.:)

 

I still don't see the legal action being warranted in this case. Repurcussions, yes, but a lawsuit is over the top in my opinion.

[Karenciavo]

Yep! I wonder which hospital she was in!

 

Actually, more your neck. I think it was Virtua Mt. Holly.

[fshinkevich]

"I won't lie, you have the undivided attention of the anesthesiologist at that point"

 

You make an excellent point, that I had not thought of previously. According to hospital report there were no witnesses, but the anesthesiologist should have been there, did they really not notice the Dr. putting a tattoo on?

 

And he claims to have done it before, but maybe it was not in the same location, or they were to shy to say anything. It will be interesting to see if anyone else comes forward.

 

This is where we part ways. All those things can happen at anytime. "That creepy factor of what could have happened" is ever present with anesthesia. It's one of the major reasons people don't like to have surgery. But this guy didn't do any of those things. He should be held responsible for reminding her that it could have happened? His putting the tattoo didn't make it more or less likely to happen. Further, if he hadn't placed the tattoo, it didn't make it any more or less likely to happen. If he's going to be held responsible here, it should be for his own actions, not what someone else may or may not do in the future, or what someone imagines he could have done but didn't.

 

IMO, those creepy things we all worry about DID happen. As I stated before imagine this situation in any other scenario, like being put to sleep for some dental work. Would you not feel sexually assaulted if your dentist lifted your skirt and applied a tattoo to your panty line to "lift your spirits"?

 

He should not be excused from that behavior, just because he had easy access (so to speak) to her panty line. I think she has every right to feel violated and think she has a strong case.

 

 

 

 

[summer]

...without finding something like, "maybe it violated her specific religious or cultural beliefs." ;)

 

I can't believe with all the training hospitals get regarding respecting patients' rights and cultural and religious beliefs that he could get away with something like that.

 

She really shouldn't file a lawsuit--you'd think it would be laughed out of court. Complain to the hospital--yes! Punishment would probably be much more swift and painful.

In a fantasy world. Hospitals disassociate themselves from the doctors who practice there and would never discipline one.

[summer]

First let me say I do not know the details about your situation, from the little you said, I am sorry for this horrible tragic loss.

 

I don't always think comparing situations is always a good arguement. Your horrible situation in no way diminishes this womens distress. What I mean by that is if this women were to hear your story (or any other) she would, I am sure feel compassion and even possbily think " well that is far worse then what happened to me" BUT hearing your story will not make it better for her. It doesn't mean all of her anxiety and other issues will just go away.

 

On the other hand I hate to see needless lawsuits but really, I am sure there are a lot details we just don't know about this case.

 

I hope this makes some sort of sense.

 

You know..now that I have thought about it..it is very very hard to sue and the liberal press generally supports the doctors, not the people. So it is very likely vital details were left out. Now that I have read more, it really is very very creepy that he stuck this below her pantyline!! Now I am concerned about whatever else he may have done to her while under. Below the panty line I would define as a sexual area which could potentially put this in the catagory of sexual assault. I misunderstood when I first read and thought it was right next to the incision with the idea that she would feel better when she saw the incision. I am sorry.

[summer]

If he was able to put the tattoo on with supposed no witness, (I am guessing it is possible that there were witnesses and they are covering for each other), then he would have been able to do anything to her. Based on the location, I hope she was examined right away to make sure no one did anything to her while she was under.

[fshinkevich]

I would also be interested to know if he felt the need to "lift the spirits" of his male patients. Did they receive his gift of a rose tattoo below their panty line as well?

[Alice]

You make an excellent point, that I had not thought of previously. According to hospital report there were no witnesses, but the anesthesiologist should have been there, did they really not notice the Dr. putting a tattoo on?

 

 

 

The anesthesiologist is there but not necessarily watching what the surgeone is doing. During the case there is a drape between the head where the anesthesiologist sits and the rest of the body...this is the famous "blood-brain" barrier. :) Ok, that's anesthesia humor....After the case the drape may have still been up or if it's down the anesthesiologist is usually busy watching the monitor of all the patient's vital signs/monitoring the drips of mediation and documenting what happened during the surgery (from the anesthesia perspective). They are going to be incredibly focused on the patient but wouldn't be watching to see what the nurses and surgeons are doing. The assumption would be that everyone is doing their job. (Obviously, the surgeon didn't just do his job here, but there would be no reason for anyone else in the OR to be watching him.)

[Alice]

I agree with you both (and I *taught* at Georgetown – how odd is that?! I wonder if kalanamak has any GTU ties? They had some great Ethics conferences, and some world-renowned ethicists working there.) Surgeons do tend to be the ones who “can’t be bothered,” but there are clueless folks in every walk of life. Clueless isn’t a crime, and there are some folks that you just can’t teach principles of ethics to. IMO.

 

 

Wow! The Georgetown connection is amazing! Maybe we should do some kind of study...are female physicians who were connected at one time with Georgetwon more likely to homeschool?

[dirty ethel rackham]

I'm with you on this, Martha. When I read this I got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I think something happened to me 4 years ago when I was put out for surgery on my pelvic floor. I won't go into details, but it is greatly distressing to me and has put some strain on my marriage.

 

The biggies for me ...

1. He was alone with her while she was unconscious. Major red flag! What else could he have done?

2. He turned her over to give her the tattoo. Not just an "I'm in the area, so I'll just add this."

3. He put it in a sexually suggestive place. When we go under the knife, we are put in a vulnerable position and we have to trust our physicians to see us a professional detatchment. This just creeps me out.

[Murphy101]

"I won't lie, you have the undivided attention of the anesthesiologist at that point"

 

No, I'm not saying everyone should stop and stare. I guess I'm not being clear. Usually when we are in "autopilot" work mode, encountering something not the norm grabs out attention to at least some minor degree. No, they may not all have been just watching, but I would think something like that should have gotten someone's notice - no? If it was normal surgery stuff like a nkife being put to the left rather than the right or a drape dropping to the floor - yeah I could see not having a mental glitch on such things. But he pulled out something non medical, dampened the area, stuck it on, pressed for a time (we count to 30 to be sure it takes;)) and then threw it away. No, not a lot of time or anything like carving initials in her, but still that should have been far enough non normal that someone should have taken notice, imho.

 

"That creepy factor of what could have happened" is ever present with anesthesia. It's one of the major reasons people don't like to have surgery. But this guy didn't do any of those things. He should be held responsible for reminding her that it could have happened?

 

Yes, because the bottom line is that because of his actions, we and she may never know if he did do worse. Because of his actions, it reflects on other medical providers. If I were a medical provider, I would want his license because bad drs like him are what make the work of good honest drs harder.

 

Really I hadn't thought of that though. My main point was that SHE has an honest claim that this man may have scarred her emotionally. Yeah, being put out is creepy for most people, but most people don't really believe anything like that will happen to them. They laugh at their silly little fear most of the time. That woman will probably NOT ever laugh about it again. And HE is the reason she will feel that way. That was my point. Should her emotions be tossed aside as irrelevant? I don't think so. By all means he shouldn't be prosecuted as a rapist if he isn't, but I do think it's very reasonable for her to feel like he is a predator.

 

O, those creepy things we all worry about DID happen. As I stated before imagine this situation in any other scenario, like being put to sleep for some dental work. Would you not feel sexually assaulted if your dentist lifted your skirt and applied a tattoo to your panty line to "lift your spirits"?

 

He should not be excused from that behavior, just because he had easy access (so to speak) to her panty line. I think she has every right to feel violated and think she has a strong case.

 

I completely agree! I have no idea why this is being shrugged off as not worth a suit just because he had easy access.:confused: