Ruling keeps sedated victims in the dark

[petunia.here]

This just sounds like covering up a sexual predator's tracks for him.
Kind of disgusting, really.
I don't know about the rest of you but if I was a potential victim I'd like to know one way or the other. Not be left hanging in the wind the rest of my life. That kind of stuff can eat at you forever. I'd rather know so that I could move on and deal with it.

Ruling keeps sedated victims in dark
Multnomah County - A judge says patients touched inappropriately while drugged don't need to know about it
Saturday, March 03, 2007
ANNE SAKER

If a doctor sedates a patient then touches her inappropriately without her knowing, does the patient have a right to learn about it later? A Multnomah County judge has apparently decided that she does not.

Legal experts say Circuit Judge Ronald Cinniger, in a ruling involving a grand jury witness, carved out a broad new way to keep information secret in a criminal case.

Rest of the article
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/117289411511290.xml&coll=7

[jwirr]

1. So much for "Our Bodies, Our Selves",

[whistle]

2. Time for THX 1138 medical procedures to be put into use

[babylonsister]

3. I need to read this tomorrow; sounds really wrong to me now. nt

[Breeze54]

4. OMG!

snip-->
from your article.

A similarly divided view came from Vanessa Timmons, the women of color program
coordinator at the Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.
She said she understands Cinniger's'desire to shield the unsuspecting,
but some victims may need to know what happened.

"My concern would simply be that there would be survivors out there dealing with the emotional
effects of trauma and not actually having the means of facing their perpetrator or understanding
the cause," Timmons said.

Legal experts such as Joseph Metcalfe at the University of Oregon's law school said Cinniger's
ruling could well be overturned. The Oregon Supreme Court is reviewing the decision.

"I'm shocked by this," said Metcalfe. "Victims are frequently involuntary and frightened
and refusing to testify in court, and routinely speaking, no one would bat an eye at it.
They would say, 'Sorry, get over it.' So this situation is most unusual."

-----------

This is absolutely disgusting!
I can't believe he wants to brush it under the rug! The judge should be disbarred!

"but some victims may need to know what happened."
It better be overturned! The victims have every right to know!!!
:grr: :grr:

Thanks for posting this, petunia.here!

[petunia.here]

5. I thought I had maybe read the headline incorrectly when

I first came across it. One would hope that it will be overturned immediately but it's disturbing that the ruling was made in the first place. One step forward, for every giant leap backward. *sigh*
Seems that way often these days.


...and you are most welcome.

[Breeze54]

6. I had to fix

my glasses to make sure I was reading it correctly! :wow: Yikes! Unbelievable!

BTW? Welcome to DU! :hi:

[redqueen]

12. "some victims may need to know what happened"

Some? May?

*sigh*

What do you even say about that? How do you even begin to try to find the words?

[Orrex]

7. So if I guy wants to cop a feel, all he needs to do is sedate her?

That way, since she won't know about it, he'll only have face charges for the drugging itself, since "she won't know" about the rest of it.

I can see all sorts of useful applications of this law. Can I sedate someone and "borrow" his car? Can I sedate someone and rummage through his hard drive? Can I sedate someone, take his lawn mower, use it, and return it before he wakes up?

He won't know about any of it, of course...

[SemperEadem]

8. whoa.. I was about to post something that took that to extremes---

it almost scared me.

[NMMNG]

9. That's scary and plain wrong

So rape is ok as long as you sedate the victim first? :crazy:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. That's not a fair interpretation.

What he said was "the victim doesn't need to be told", not "the offender doesn't need to be prosecuted". I think that both are completely wrong, but the former is not comparable to the latter, I think.

[noamnety]

11. That's basically it

As Donald points out, the rapist still needs to be prosecuted, but as far as the judge is concerned, no damage was done to the victim if they don't know about it - thus (by the judge's logic) it's a victimless crime.

It's amazing to me that the judge can't see that his ruling itself would make women as a class less willing to go under the knife for medical care.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. "Less", not "No", I think.

I suppose in some ways the ideal solution would be for everyone to sign a form stating whether or not they wished to be informed if it was discovered that they had been molested while sedated, but obviously that's impractical.

I would be interested to know what fraction of people would give which answer in that context - I'd say no, but I'm not sure if I'm in a majority or a minority.

But after the event, obviously there's no way of knowing whether or not someone would wish to be informed - no-one has the right to take the decision not to inform them without consulting them, and you can't consult them retroactively without informing them.