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
© 2025 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 AllRFK Jr. Will Keep Affiliations With Morgan & Morgan, Other Law Firms If Confirmed to DHHS
3 minute readAttorneys, Health Care Officials Face Nearly $80M RICO Suit Over Allegedly Fabricated Spreadsheet
Amid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Delaware Supreme Court, Reversing Chancery, Lowers Review Standard for TripAdvisor Move to Nevada
- 2Haynes and Boone Expands in New York With 7-Lawyer Seward & Kissel Fund Finance, Securitization Team
- 3Upstart Insurer That's Wowing Industry Hires AIG Legal Exec to Help Guide Global Expansion
- 4Connecticut Lawyers in Spotlight for Repping FBI Agents
- 5SEC Sued for Failing to Reveal Records Involving Simpson Thacher Attorney
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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