Frightening rather than fascinating. How are you supposed to refuse to
examine someone who is injured? We all recognise the barn-door dangerous
patient and I have an experienced nurse to chaperone and make a lot of
fuss about telling everyone what I am doing, but you can't spot 'em all.
One of our team is serving a four year sentence so we are a bit careful.


-----Original Message-----
From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Fogarty
Sent: 06 December 2006 00:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Danger to doctors[Scanned]

Fascinating, but disturbing.

The first thing I would say is you and your colleagues must now refuse
to carry out any "forensic" type examinations, such as this type of
examination for domestic violence. They are not part of our core work
practice.

The second thing I note is the judge's comments: "you forfeited the
sympathy of the court by the nature of the defence, which was to call
the complainant a liar in no uncertain terms", which, as you suggest
Andy, makes things rather difficult for medics faced with vexatious
complainants, as, let's face it, they are by definition liars. In other
words, how can we protect ourselves from liars with vexatious complaints
if we come up against a judge like this? However, I suspect these
comments came following the verdict.

Finally, I don't understand this idea that: "samples, found on a latex
glove used by the doctor for the first examination, linked it to the
woman", as clearly the doctor did examine her so surely any samples
found were quite legitimate.

AF

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Volans" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 7:40 PM
Subject: Danger to doctors

> This is an evil and sordid tale and is headlined here:
>
>
http://www.scarboroughtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=800&Articl
eID=1913458
>
> An SHO was accused of two intimate exams during an examination for 
> domestic violence.
> The police had to  be called, I hoped , to clear him, but some rather 
> spurious DNA evidence was found.
> I will have to be a bit cautious as we are seeking judicial review for
him 
> and must not mess up the field.
>
> There was much evidence to prove that the prosecution case was poor
and 
> there was more than reasonable doubt by the end of the Barristers'
summing 
> up.
>
> The real damage was done by the Judges summing up. Again I must be 
> cautious for now, but reports from collegues with a lot of court 
> experience suggest that he refuted all the defence's evidence, but the

> killer point, and this i see as a danger to us all, he told the jury
to 
> disregard the evidence from his proffessional collegues, including
myself 
> and basically accused us of collusion with him. This includes the
nurses 
> who were with him, although they did not formally chaperone him as he
was 
> only examining a knee and lower thigh injury, however it was in
reasonable 
> view of nurses within a cubicle.
>
> This means that our testimony is to be put aside. How then can we
defend 
> ourselves against vexatious complainants.
> If he realy did say what they all heard, then a chaperone will not be 
> protection
>
> I am devastated for the poor lad, but I am also scared for myself and
my 
> collegues.
> Yesterday I examined a woman without a chaperone, I examined her knee,
I 
> was scared for myself, the first time in 25 years. I hope she didn't
know.