Hopkins to pay $190M after doc taped pelvic exams

Grummer said:
now men should try sue for similar amount on rectal examination (for prostate cancer) and saying its invasive.....

it'd be chucked out as hilariously or deliriously stupid...so like wtf...but how law sees it, as 'appeasement' or such wise....
Click to expand...

If this happen to your mother would it be "hilariously or deliriously stupid" too??
 
Reba said:
One thing that puzzles me--how did this doctor get away with doing pelvic exams without a nurse present? None of the patients questioned that? None of the nurses questioned that?
Click to expand...

Did it say that all of the examinations were conducted without a nurse present? I didn't read the article carefully.
 
Reba said:
I've always had a nurse present with the doctor during my pelvic exams, even when it's a woman doctor. That's their policy.

Lawyers get ⅓ of that judgment, and then the rest is divided amongst 8,000+ women, so that's less than $16,000 each.
Click to expand...

Page 2: Hopkins Pays $190M in Pelvis Exam Pix Settlement - ABC News

According to this web site each woman will get money according to how much she suffer from this. How the hell can you put a price of something like this??
 
shel90 said:
Did it say that all of the examinations were conducted without a nurse present? I didn't read the article carefully.
Click to expand...
It didn't say one way or the other. Just the one named victim said that there was no nurse present at her exams.

There should have been no exams without a nurse present, or someone should have said something.

The whole thing is strange and creepy.
 
Reba said:
It didn't say one way or the other. Just the one named victim said that there was no nurse present at her exams.

There should have been no exams without a nurse present, or someone should have said something.

The whole thing is strange and creepy.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks...even if there was a nurse present, how would the nurseries that his pen was a camera? If they weren't aware of the pen, then no difference if they were present or not. These women would get violated anyway.
 
shel90 said:
Ok thanks...even if there was a nurse present, how would the nurseries that his pen was a camera? If they weren't aware of the pen, then no difference if they were present or not. These women would get violated anyway.
Click to expand...

I have not see a doctor use a pen in a long time , they do everything on a laptop and order drugs this way too . That could been something to think about.
 
Through college and continuing now I chose female doctors and my current female primary care physician is also my OB-GYN. With all those/these doctors I've never had or requested a nurse for PAP and pelvic exams.
The few times I've had a male doctor do it, I did request a female nurse.

I think that's so terrible about what tha Johns Hopkins-affiliated doc did to all those patients!
 
I've never had to request a nurse be present. It part of my hospital's standard protocol, whether it's a male doctor or female doctor. They do it automatically.

I'm surprised that it's not standard with all doctors.
 
Reba said:
I've never had to request a nurse be present. It part of my hospital's standard protocol, whether it's a male doctor or female doctor. They do it automatically.

I'm surprised that it's not standard with all doctors.
Click to expand...

Same here, I prefer nurse to be present with doctor too.

In my experience, dermatologists usually have nurse to be present with doctor.
 
alright alright, I didn't read the entire thing....and i now agree its very bad....of course suing is the best thing, and i agree , its very strange not to have this 'nurse /a third person must be present during invasive examinations' ( I saw the poster at the hospital just the other day (for my broken shoulder, which is now healing well btw), it got me thinking and i was recalling this thread here in AD, about this $19M settlement...indeed i agree!, OK my apology for not reading it through...but one thing I still stand on though, it why 1/3 !! that's overly lucrative for lawyers i little ridiculous. i'd say 15% of that amount is easily enough...the lawyers didn't suffer, they merely were doing lawyer-job...so what's 'So special about it'? they're not God...and not everyone has had a chance to be well educated , and take advantages of lesser-advantaged people, money, status, and law-knowledge-wise

I'm not a commie or anything but wow...it really annoys me...same thing with those lawyers, if it's really about justice..that 1/3 should be more like 10-15% of the $190M - gesus criyck!!

that's all
 
Back
Top