Pelvic Exam Laws in the United States: A Systematic Review.

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW American Journal of Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1017/amj.2023.4
Mihael Plantak, Scott M Alter, Lisa M Clayton, Patrick G Hughes, Richard D Shih, Monica Mendiola, Joshua J Solano
{"title":"Pelvic Exam Laws in the United States: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Mihael Plantak,&nbsp;Scott M Alter,&nbsp;Lisa M Clayton,&nbsp;Patrick G Hughes,&nbsp;Richard D Shih,&nbsp;Monica Mendiola,&nbsp;Joshua J Solano","doi":"10.1017/amj.2023.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Laws regulating patient care are an essential component of protecting patients and doctors alike. No studies have previously examined what laws exist regarding pelvic examinations in the United States (US). This study systematically reviews and compares regulation and legislation of pelvic examinations in the U.S. and provides a comprehensive resource to educate clinicians, patients, and lawmakers. Each of the fifty States in the U.S. was included. The primary outcome was existence of any pelvic or rectal exam laws. Data was obtained for the type of examination defined within the law, exceptions to the law, to whom the law applied to, the type of consent required, and to whom the consent applied to. Laws were identified from each of the individual state legislative websites. All sections of each law pertaining to pelvic examination were reviewed and organized by state. Descriptive statistics were performed for each of the variables, including frequencies of each amongst the fifty states. State regulation for pelvic examinations varied from no law or regulation to laws pertaining to pelvic, rectal, prostate, and breast examination performed in any context. As of November 22, 2022, there are twenty states (40%) with pelvic examination laws applying to anesthetized or unconscious patients. Thirteen additional states (26%) have proposed pelvic exam laws. Seventeen states (34%) do not have any laws regarding pelvic examinations. Regulation of pelvic examinations has become an increasingly important issue over the past few years in response to growing concerns of patient autonomy and the ethical issues raised by such sensitive examinations. While pelvic examination laws that balance protection for patient autonomy and the needs of caregivers and educators exist in much of the U.S., more work needs to continue in consultation with physicians and health care providers to ensure that all states have reasonable laws protecting the autonomy of patients while also maintaining quality of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"48 4","pages":"412-419"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2023.4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Laws regulating patient care are an essential component of protecting patients and doctors alike. No studies have previously examined what laws exist regarding pelvic examinations in the United States (US). This study systematically reviews and compares regulation and legislation of pelvic examinations in the U.S. and provides a comprehensive resource to educate clinicians, patients, and lawmakers. Each of the fifty States in the U.S. was included. The primary outcome was existence of any pelvic or rectal exam laws. Data was obtained for the type of examination defined within the law, exceptions to the law, to whom the law applied to, the type of consent required, and to whom the consent applied to. Laws were identified from each of the individual state legislative websites. All sections of each law pertaining to pelvic examination were reviewed and organized by state. Descriptive statistics were performed for each of the variables, including frequencies of each amongst the fifty states. State regulation for pelvic examinations varied from no law or regulation to laws pertaining to pelvic, rectal, prostate, and breast examination performed in any context. As of November 22, 2022, there are twenty states (40%) with pelvic examination laws applying to anesthetized or unconscious patients. Thirteen additional states (26%) have proposed pelvic exam laws. Seventeen states (34%) do not have any laws regarding pelvic examinations. Regulation of pelvic examinations has become an increasingly important issue over the past few years in response to growing concerns of patient autonomy and the ethical issues raised by such sensitive examinations. While pelvic examination laws that balance protection for patient autonomy and the needs of caregivers and educators exist in much of the U.S., more work needs to continue in consultation with physicians and health care providers to ensure that all states have reasonable laws protecting the autonomy of patients while also maintaining quality of care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国骨盆检查法律:系统回顾。
规范病人护理的法律是保护病人和医生的重要组成部分。以前没有研究调查过美国关于骨盆检查的法律。本研究系统地回顾和比较了美国骨盆检查的法规和立法,为临床医生、患者和立法者提供了一个全面的资源。美国50个州都包括在内。主要结局是盆腔或直肠检查是否有规律。所获得的数据是用于法律规定的检查类型、法律的例外情况、法律适用的对象、所需同意的类型以及同意适用的对象。法律是从每个州的立法网站上确定的。各州审查和组织了有关骨盆检查的每项法律的所有部分。对每个变量进行描述性统计,包括在50个州中每个变量的频率。各州对盆腔检查的规定各不相同,从没有法律或法规到在任何情况下进行盆腔、直肠、前列腺和乳房检查的法律。截至2022年11月22日,有20个州(40%)的骨盆检查法律适用于麻醉或无意识的患者。另外13个州(26%)提出了骨盆检查法律。17个州(34%)没有任何关于骨盆检查的法律。在过去的几年里,骨盆检查的监管已经成为一个越来越重要的问题,以回应对患者自主权的日益关注和这种敏感检查引起的伦理问题。虽然美国大部分地区都有骨盆检查法律,在保护患者自主权与护理人员和教育者的需求之间取得平衡,但需要继续与医生和卫生保健提供者协商,以确保所有州都有合理的法律保护患者的自主权,同时保持护理质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: desde Enero 2004 Último Numero: Octubre 2008 AJLM will solicit blind comments from expert peer reviewers, including faculty members of our editorial board, as well as from other preeminent health law and public policy academics and professionals from across the country and around the world.
期刊最新文献
A Protected Class, An Unprotected Condition, and A Biomarker - A Method/Formula for Increased Diversity in Clinical Trials for the African American Subject with Benign Ethnic Neutropenia (BEN) - CORRIGENDUM. "The Timeless Explosion of Fantasy's Dream": How State Courts Have Ignored the Supreme Court's Decision in Panetti v. Quarterman - ERRATUM. Mental Health Matters: A Look At Abortion Law Post-Dobbs - ERRATUM. Abortion Access for Women in Custody in the Wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. How The "Great Resignation" and COVID Unemployment Have Eroded the Employer Sponsored Insurance Model and Access to Healthcare.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1