New Pelvic Exam Law Causes Uncertainty for Doctors, Nurses
Sen. Lauren Book, who championed the informed-consent requirement, stands behind the law's policy. "I think it leads to patient-doctor conversations. I don't want anybody doing anything without consent," she says.
July 20, 2020 at 06:26 AM
6 minute read
A new state law aimed at protecting patients from unwanted pelvic exams, sparked by reports of women being subjected to exams while they were under anesthesia, has created uncertainty for physicians and nurses.
Two state health-care licensing boards have been asked to weigh in on whether the new law applies to male patients and examinations where body parts are viewed but not touched.
Petitions for declaratory statements were filed last week with the Board of Medicine and the Board of Nursing seeking interpretations of the measure (SB 698), which was signed into law June 19 by Gov. Ron DeSantis and went into effect July 1.
The petitions were filed by some of the state's largest medical groups, which say the law has left health-care providers confused.
The bill prohibits practitioners and medical students from performing pelvic examinations on patients without written consent from the patients or the patients' guardians. The law includes exceptions in cases where examinations are necessary to avoid substantial and irreversible permanent impairment of major bodily functions or if examinations are court ordered.
Florida Medical Association General Counsel Jeff Scott said by the medical community's standards, pelvic exams are performed on female patients as part of regular checkups or if patients are experiencing unusual vaginal discharges or pelvic pain. During pelvic exams, Scott said, the vulva, vagina, cervix, ovaries, uterus, rectum and pelvis are examined for any abnormalities.
But the law has a broader definition because it's not limited to females. It includes in pelvic examinations external pelvic tissue or organs.
"If you ask just about any physician what they think of as a pelvic examination, it would not constitute a rectal examination on a male. It would not constitute a hernia test for a male, and it would not include surgery on a male in the pelvic region," Scott said.
Before filing the petition with the Board of Medicine, Scott said the Florida Medical Association requested a meeting with state Surgeon General Scott Rivkees to discuss the issue and seek guidance but never heard back.
"Apparently they are not interested in providing us any assistance so we moved on to somewhere else," Scott said.
Scott's organization, which is the largest physicians' association in the state, asked in its petition that the Board of Medicine consider issuing a declaratory statement making clear that the law doesn't apply to men and that it doesn't apply during surgical procedures on the vagina, cervix, uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, rectum or external pelvic tissue or when those parts are touched in situations such as insertion of catheters or cleansing the pelvic area after diaper changes.
It also is asking that the board consider making clear that the law does not apply during visual pelvic examinations that may occur to detect a "rash, wound, or another anomaly involving exterior tissue or organs as might occur in any number of situations including visual examination of a newborn baby or even a virtual visit being concluded by telehealth."
Additionally, the FMA is requesting that if a patient consents once to a pelvic examination, that written consent should be sufficient to cover additional pelvic exams as may be necessary during the course of treatment.
Joining the FMA in filing the petition were groups including the Florida Academy of Family Physicians, the Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Florida Chapter of the American College of Physicians and the Florida Society of Dermatologists and Dermatological Surgeons.
While the law has been in effect for less than three weeks, Jacksonville health-care attorney Chris Nuland said lawyers have been drafting forms for their clients to use to obtain informed consent.
"They all have their little idiosyncrasies," he said.
And the physicians aren't alone in seeking guidance. The Florida Nurses Association, a group that often is at odds with physician associations, also filed a similar petition for a declaratory statement with the Florida Board of Nursing.
"They are in the same boat as us," Scott said of the nurses. "The boat of uncertainty."
Sen. Lauren Book, a Plantation Democrat who championed the informed-consent requirement, stood behind the policy.
"I believe in what this bill is about. I think consent is important," said Book, a prominent victims' rights advocate who was sexually abused by a nanny when she was a child. "I think it leads to patient-doctor conversations. I don't want anybody doing anything without consent."
She also supports the consent requirement applying to male patients.
But Book said she understands that the new law went into effect during the COVID-19 pandemic in which "health care workers are taxed to the max" and said she doesn't want to create additional stress or concerns.
She told The News Service of Florida that she is "open to clarification," regarding what forms should look like and whether the requirement should apply to conditions such as rashes.
Similar to the FMA, Book said she sent a letter to Rivkees on July 6 to discuss the new law and its implementation and also spoke with Rivkees about it.
"My conversation with him was in an emergency situation that the governor can, at the very least, push pause if need be. And if there is a really serious problem, we are OK with that, too, So that's kind of where we are," Book said.
Book heard back from the Florida Department of Health which, on behalf of Rivkees, said there was nothing the department could do to provide clarification.
The Board of Medicine is expected to consider the issue at an Aug. 7 meeting.
Christine Sexton reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFla.'s Statute of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Med Mal Cases: It's Not Over Until It's Over
6 minute readGC of Florida State Agency Steps Down After Threatening TV Stations That Aired Abortion-Rights Ad
Trending Stories
- 1AI: An Enhancement, Not a Replacement for Attorneys
- 2Fowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
- 3Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
- 4'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
- 5Call for Nominations: TLI's Pennsylvania Legal Awards 2025
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250