what was this anesthesiologist doing alone with his patients while they were sedated? i've been under for surgery four times, and every time, there was at least one other person in the room- usually there were several nurses and at least one other doctor. that part alone really freaks me the fuck out.

The license suspension was by the state medical board; the hospital also suspended his privileges before that. Those are just questions of the legal right to practice medicine. The grand jury hearing is a criminal procedure - he's being charged with a crime for what he did. If he's convicted, he'll face criminal penalties, and likely the license suspension will be made permanent.

I am surprised, however, that the hospital has not made an effort to contact these patients. Presumably the witness who refused to provide names was from the hospital - that strikes me as very strange. I can almost forgive the judge - it seems like a humanitarian imppulse that wasn't thought through very carefully - but it is axiomatic for medical professionals that patients who have been harmed have a right to know.

Wow. This absolutely reeks.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall of that discussion.

"We shouldn't tell these women, because, you know, they might feel violated and not want to go back."
Well, duh!

But not telling them, and leaving them in the dark wondering "Was I one of the women this guy molested" is going to make them feel safer.

It seems to me that the way to make sure that these women feel safe and aren't scared to get future medical treatment would be to show them that you take this kind of thing seriously by:
1. Alerting the victims to the abuse.
2. Compensating them.
3. Making sure that you do more than slap the offender on the wrist.

Calling "Cinniger's decision a noble but misguided effort to protect possible crime victims" is pretty freakin' generous, too. I'd call his decision an offensive miscarriage of justice protecting a sexual predator from having to deal with the consequences of his actions.
But that's just me.

I am surprised, however, that the hospital has not made an effort to contact these patients.

I'm not. They might want to sue, and the hospital doesn't want that.

Might want to sue? I'm pretty sure even the ones who ordinarily wouldn't sue now would simply to teach the hospital a lesson.

It's about responsibility. That was a completely irresponsible move, and to dress it up and pretend it was for the individual patient's benefit is heinous.

WTF?!?! I just absolutely cannot wrap my head around that.

WHAT???

So now every patient who has had surgery in that hospital can wonder if she's a victim, too? Of course the hospital doesn't want the lawsuit, but avoiding disclosure of their names is a lot like refusing to disclose the names of people whose retirement funds may have been embezzled becauase it would scare them and they don't want to encourage lawsuits.

I see no legal reason why the class of women who have had surgery in that hospital cannot sue to open up the records.

I'm shocked. If this were a doctor in a home for mentally retarded people, this would never fly.

Yuck. While I love all of the Feministing ladies and their work, can't y'all include a group hug with stuff like this? :(

oenophile -- call me a cynic but I DO think this could just as easily happen to mentally challenged patients.

However, I can't imagine we'd see this ruling if the victims were all male. Paternalism towards women strikes again! The judge believes the women need to be protected -- not from molesters-- but from their own delicate psyche. And the hospital is protecting itself.

Technically, it might be possible to argue that the very fact of not knowing if you were one of the molested patients or not constituted mental pain and suffering, and therefore was grounds for compensation from the hospital. They may have doubled or even tripled their potential number of law suits.

JustAnotherJane:

Yeah, I can imagine mentally challenged (that's the word I was looking for earlier!) patients being so assaulted, but I have a tough time imagining the ruling if substantial numbers of incapacitated men were involved.

Kimmy - reasonable fear of having been assaulted? It's at least a colourable argument that will get you in the courthouse door.

Kimmy, I agree. Right now, I'm feeling a little disturbed that a doctor could have molested me when I went in for surgery, and I've never even been to Oregon. If I'd actually been treated at the hospital in question, I'd probably be having nightmares.

Not to mention that this might make a conviction of the guy harder to get, as a lawyer could claim on appeal that he was denied his constitutional right to face his accuser.

One can only hope that the women who've been treated at that hospital consider putting together a case. Do they have legal grounds here? It seems like they should, but that hardly means that they do.

bittergradstudent: Accuser and victim aren't necessarily the same thing. In fact, since they're not telling the women who he assaulted that he assulated them, they can't possibly be the accusers.

JustAnotherJane, you hit the nail on the head when you used the word paternalism. That should be called out loud and clear whenever someone is denied the right to make their own decision or denied all the facts necessary to do so, "for their own good." I could see this happening to a lot of different non-dominant groups, but no, not to men.

Maybe I'm not reading the article correctly, but are they actually saying they won't give the names out to women who want to know, i.e., it's TOTALLY private -- or isn't it just confidential for the grand jury proceeding?

It seems to me this ruling isn't so bad. There's no reason to give the grand jury the names of all of these women, and I'd DEFINITELY be opposed to releasing them in public. I also don't think it would be a good idea to contact the victims and tell them, "hey, you've been sexually assaulted." I mean... I think it's cruel to just send someone a letter and drop a bombshell like that. I'm all for publicizing this creep's name and then, if possible victims want to come forward and learn if there's evidence that he molested them, they should be told whether or not they're believed to be a victim. But something like this -- I have to say, I'd be against complete, full disclosure. We all know what kind of stigma is attached to being a victim of sexual assault (it's fucked up, but there's still a stigma). And we've all seen people go through the hell of the aftermath of assault (and some of us have gone through it ourselves). And so on some level I honestly think, if some of these women would rather not know, I don't think we should go around telling them out of the blue without being asked.

I know that's not what this ruling addressed, specifically, but that's kind of my thought process here. I need more info about the specifics of the order before I'm ready to condemn it.

And so on some level I honestly think, if some of these women would rather not know, I don't think we should go around telling them out of the blue without being asked.

Except that no one asks to be sexually assaulted, either. Not telling them isn't going to undo what happened, and I really dislike the idea of relying on public media to disseminate possible information about sexual assault - that you may have been assaulted, but are you going to ask?

Uh, huh. Class action lawsuit on behalf of every woman who has had surgery at that hospital. Might make them change their tune.

As it stands, every woman who has been treated there has to assume she may be a victim -- how is this any better than knowing for sure one way or the other?

How freaking LOW is the collective IQ in that court????

Hey Law Fairy -- the first half of the article talks about not forcing the witness to reveal possible victim names on the stand, which is good. The second half of the article is what led me to believe women were being denied the opportunity to find out if they were potential victims and denied the opportunity to file charges. However, these comments came from victims advocates and people not involved in the case. Not much of the case is public, but the article definitely gave me this impression.

oenophile, it needs to be their choice. Period. Simply knowing you've been sexually assaulted can cause a lot of damage. I'm not willing to just INFLICT that on women without their consent. I don't believe in forcing people to relive unpleasant experiences and if they would rather not know if something happened to them, I can't sit here and tell these women they're making the "wrong" choice. It's their body, their mind, their choice. Period. Like, let's say right now I got a letter from someone telling me that when I had my wisdom teeth removed nine years ago (when I was sixteen), the anesthesiologist molested me. Did I ask to be told this? Did I NEED to be told this? Why didn't anyone ask me if *I* wanted to know? Maybe I was doing just fine not knowing, and now I have all this SHIT I have to deal with, that I didn't have before. This kind of knowledge is a BURDEN and I cannot favor giving women burdens they haven't asked for, where it's not absolutely necessary. If they want to know because they'd like the option to sue, then absolutely they should be told. But do I favor total strangers ripping open mental wounds in these abuse victims? Oh HELL no.

But, TLF, I think this a little different, because it's been all over the news. It's more like, "Dr. Ginkelheimer has been molesting sedated women at Finkelstein Memorial Hospital? OH MY GOD, that's where I had my elective hip replacement! Did he do it to ME?!"

It's not as out of the blue, is what I mean.

TLF: Oh, that's a really good point. I hadn't considered that aspect. That makes this a lot more complicated.

What do you think the best way of handling this situation would be?
I assume that a woman from PL's scenerio ("Dr. Ginkelheimer has been molesting sedated women at Finkelstein Memorial Hospital? OH MY GOD, that's where I had my elective hip replacement! Did he do it to ME?!") ought to be able to put in an inquiry to find out if her name is one of them that are suspected to have been mollested?

What about women who don't hear about the case, though?

It seems like this puts us in a kind of no-win situation. How do you alert women who may have been assaulted by this guy that they may have been victims without making it obvious that they were? That is, how do you give women the option to find out without making it clear to those who wouldn't want to know that they were, in fact, victims? You can't just send out a letter to all of his patients saying "Hey, just so you know, this creep was convicted of molesting his patients, and you may or my not have been one of them." But it seems like there's some kind of obligation to at least make it known that he did these things, so that those women who would want to know, know to ask.

prairie, right, and I think that the women are entitled to this information, IF they want it. I think there should be a structure in place to give them this information and all supporting evidence efficiently and sensitively. But I don't think the hospital should be sending out letter saying, "surprise! You've been sexually assaulted!" any more than I think these names should be released to the public. These women, and these women only, should have the right to control this information, including controlling whether they even have it.

Unfortunately, the other option is NOT telling them that they've been assaulted. You could send letters to every single woman who has had surgery at that place and alert her that she could have been assaulted and please call this number if you would like to confirm that you are an assault victim, or you could just hope that women will hear about this, remember which hospital they had surgery at, and be worried enough to come forward on their own.

I don't think it's great to inform women that they've been molested, but I think it's worse to NOT inform those who would want to know.

OMG!

Subjective law at it's best! Protecting the people in the name of "public interest."

This ruling is a load of garbage! This doctor did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, nor his doctor-, lawyer-client privileges. At best he should be further convicted for obstruction of justice. Any sane, objective judge would not have given such an absurd ruling.

"Public interest"....Leave clauses like these in law and this is the nonsense you get.

What if there was another person in the room? Just because there was, this does not mean the conduct would not take place if, say the other person is a nurse and not a peer. Is there a mandatory reporting requirement on the part of the medical staff? Sexual assault covers a wide variety of conduct. How do we know this "Doc." stopped at touching? Is the rationale for partial disclosure/withholding different if the conduct goes beyond gropping to pentration? How so? Isn't what happened a crime? If it, is should we empower victims, as a group, to block prosecution of the perpetrator. I would agree there is a tension between invading a sensitve and private aspect of person's life and effective law enforcement. However I would argue, from the prosecution POV, that convicting the perpetrator is the best way to prevent any future victims from dealing with the fall out from this jerk M.D. In any event there ought to be some way to sensitively inquire, along the lines of HIV notification perhaps. Law Fairy we could differ on the order perhaps but the questions above remain. If there is real and reliable evidence of the conduct this guy deserves much more than a two year suspension.

I think that the harm caused by notifying them outweighs the harm caused by not notifying them unless they seek out the information.

It is a hard question but I don't think the issue is paternalism but medical ethics, where both options have serious potential negative consequences.

Well, I guess maybe here is sort of some of my thinking behind saying we shouldn't notify unless they ask.

Imagine me taking a deep breath here, because I'm going to say something that may be controversial.

What I envision happening here is something along the lines of groping. Some creepy perv getting his jollies by touching his female patients. Fucked up as hell -- but it's not causing them physical damage. Now, TO BE CLEAR, I am not not not not NOT saying that this means it's any less damaging. BUT I think that the harm from this molestation -- and this is a very real and very serious harm that should be absolutely punished to the fullest extent of the law -- is social and psychological. Bob Oso brings up a good point with HIV notification -- if this freak had done something that might subject these women to a greater risk of HIV, I would change my tune in a nanosecond. I am approaching this from the mindset that the harm that is done to these women is social and psychological. It is the metaphysical humiliation of being psychologically USED by another human being.

That's what's driving my reluctance to just come out and TELL them. In some sense -- that IS the harm. Please please please let me be clear: I am a million billion percent NOT saying that we shouldn't tell them because telling them would harm them. I am saying they should get the choice. THEY get the choice of being (additionally) wronged and seeking retribution. WE don't get that choice. THEY do. I think that the simple act of learning you have been dehumanized is itself harmful. It's not the full harm, but it is a harm. If there was an independently verifiable physical harm *in addition* to this socio-psychological harm, this in my mind would tip the scale closer to notifying them. But here, there's been a harm done to them -- and notifying them of the harm, without their consent, is itself a new and additional harm -- and in some sense perhaps just as bad as the initial harm.

And I just can't be on board with that.

You know, TLF, when I first saw this post, I was gut-certain that the only moral, feminist position was to make sure that all the women affected were fully informed. But your arguments, as eloquent and reasonable as ever, have really made me question that, and now I'm really undecided.

One of the concerns I have about your argument, though, is this: if the main harm is in the social-psychological aspects, does that mean that it's somehow less immoral to molest an unconscious woman than a conscious one? That's a dynamic that just wouldn't sit well with me, and it's one that I don't think you would espouse either, from the conversations we've had, and I'd really like to know what you think.

Do we know or do we suspect the conduct? How is the person to know to ask? Do we say, you may have been ____ do you want to know more? If there is any possiblilty that more than social or psych injury was caused, don't we need to know more, to allow the victim to protect herself? What if the victim thinks something happened but convinces herself she imagined it, yet never is at peace with herself-should not we give her the means to seek mental health treatment? How do we make sure that this guy NEVER gets to do this again? I do not think it is as simple as saying, "Up to you. You decide." I am not saying that we must force them to deal with a trauma of which they have no awareness. Perhaps that could be the best starting place to begin the conversation, to see if anything untoward is recalled, to see if the person is bothered by something, maybe something no clearly understood. I am also saying that there are significant questions which cannot be resolved by leaving it up to the victim. As I said before, what was apparently done was criminal. Society has a right to punish the offender and to prevent further victimization of others. Without a real inquiry how are the victims to know the truth? Also without one, how are we to learn the full extent of the harm caused so that the punishment will fit the crime. Okay I will stop now.

EG: Morality (I personally prefer the term ethics) is often independent of actual harm suffered. For example, the harm suffered by a woman who is deeply devoted to her significant-other will be more harmed (emotionally) if he cheats on her than a woman who is planning on leaving him already. That doesn't make the straying any less wrong. Similarly, it seems to me that killing a person with an IQ of 50 does less harm than killing someone with an IQ of 150, but they are equally wrong.

I think that the harm caused by notifying them outweighs the harm caused by not notifying them unless they seek out the information. It is a hard question but I don't think the issue is paternalism but medical ethics, where both options have serious potential negative consequences.

I agree with dreampod and TLF.

TLF has compelling arguments as usual, as does Bob Oso, but there is an aspect to this scenario that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet. The body "remembers" trauma even if consciousness is altered...I'm not a medical doctor nor do I know the specifics of the sedation used in these cases, but it's plausible that these women could have physiological sequelae even though their minds were "somewhere else" during the acts themselves (or if they weren't entirely "under" when something took place). Not saying that this in and of itself is reason enough to inform them, but I also don't think it's entirely accurate to say with certainty they will have no aftereffects because they were sedated at the time and thus will have "no awareness" of the event. They could have heightened anxious arousal or a startle response in certain situations without knowing why, for example, and this not knowing could also be a source of distress. An excellent resource for trauma-related physiological changes is anything by Bessel van der Kolk, including the chapter "The Body Keeps the Score" in Traumatic Stress.

Okay, everyone has made really good points. And, because people's individual reactions to things like this can be so different, it's difficult to say what would be the best thing to do regarding a group of women without knowing each one closely.

I can only say that, if it were me, I would want to know. I would be furious if I found out that someone knew I'd been molested (or worse) and didn't tell me about it.

I was drugged and sexually assaulted. The worst part of it for me is that I can't remember exactly what happened because I kept blanking out. I'd give anything to know exactly what was done to me.

I know that's not the same situation, because I already know that something happened and these women probably don't. But still...

All of these arguments have really given me pause, and yet again, I don't think it's ethical to withhold this information. I understand that there will be great harm by notifying each patient, but at the same time, I just can't be on board with saying, "well, it will be traumatic so we won't tell them."

First of all, I think that in the real world and not our own idealistic conversation (not to be insulting, but a hospital is a business), that not telling the individuals would give hospitals and doctors the green light to pass over behavior like this in the future without consequence.

Plus, what if this guy went beyond groping? Do we really know? If we are basing this solely on what he is telling us, I don't think that's the most reliable source. I think that above all, the patient should come first. Offer counseling, compensation, testing, whatever, but don't simply ignore the fact that it happened.

Bearcat, I prefer the term morality because I don't particularaly want to cede it to the right, and I have to say that I don't entirely agree with your examples. In the IQ killing example, what does it mean to cause less harm? Killing someone with an IQ of 50 causes as much harm to them as it does if their IQ were higher, in my opinion: they're still dead. Nor do I think it is so cut and dried in the cheating example: there's a difference between planning on breaking up with someone and having one's trust in them and one's own judgment shattered, and in either case the woman has been put at risk for STDs.

I do tend to understand morality in terms of human suffering.

The reason I prefer ethics is that morality is a loaded word; it has become associated with such things as premarital sex and homosexuality. While you sound bigoted if you say that homosexuality is immoral, it is not without meaning. It is ridiculous to say that it's unethical. Plus, I hate the fact that morality has become the exclusive domain of monotheists, especially when I'm not one of them.

As for causing more harm by killing someone with an IQ of 150, when you murder someone, you do not only harm them, you also harm those that depended on them. More people are likely to depend on someone of above average intelligence than someone that is mentally challenged.

I must admit (brag?) that I've never been on either side of the cheating scenario, so I can't personally attest to the harm, but it seems to me that it would hurt me more if my girlfriend were to cheat on me if I had intended to continue the relationship than if I had intended to break it off. As well, I meant cheating in an emotional, not just physical sense, so STDs aren't necessarily an issue.

Although I cannot say for sure, I think I would want to know. I agree with Charity with her body memory analysis. It reflects something I tried to way in my previous post. jrav makes good points as well. Once the Hospital has the information, absent a release from the individual waiving her right to know, does it not have a duty to inform? The manner in which the notification takes place could be arranged to lessen the trauma. Witholding absent, such a waiver further violates the victim, by deciding for her, what she gets to know and what she does not, by removing any chance she can confront her abuser. Also I do think the withholding is for the benefit of the business and by implication the miscreant as well. I think we need to be clear about motives here.

Forgot to say in my other post that while I wholeheartedly think WE as a group, in considering these issues, are doing so from a standpoint of ethics and empowerment, I (like Bob) cannot bring myself to be so generous in evaluating the motives of the hospital and the judge. While I don't think any of the arguments brought forth HERE in favor of not informing the victims, or giving them the choice to know, are paternalistic, I still think the judge's stance was. He decided that the outcome HE imagined befalling the victims (I think it was that they would not seek medical treatment in the future, or something like that) was aversive enough to justify not informing them. This was a decision based on his own values and worldview, and does connote a certain women-as-fragile or women in need of protection sort of vibe.

"While I don't think any of the arguments brought forth HERE in favor of not informing the victims, or giving them the choice to know, are paternalistic, I still think the judge's stance was."-Charity

What are you basing your conclusion on? What evidence was there in the story of this case which leads you to believe he was acting in paternal fashion?

His argument for the public good has been used in numerous other decision which had 'paternalisic' themes. Take the Sherman Act as an example (i.e., protecting smaller competitors).

Ivy, don't take this the wrong way, but you've crossed over from mildly irritating to...just boring.

Charity, just because I value thoughtful discussion instead of rabble rousing does not make me boring. Please, let's cease this pointless name calling.

I was wondering the same thing, Ivy: why presume to be a mind-reader and assert that this is certainly paternalistic? Of course, you could philosophically assume that there is inherent paternalism in refusing the information, regardless of reason; much like the post about working moms, why not assume that more information is better?

As a religious issue, some of these women may need spiritual guidance if they were assaulted, as well as psychological help. If you look at this from a psych standpoint, it's a bit easier to say that not knowing can be a good thing; however, if you are religious, it doesn't go away because you don't know about it.

Hello, Oenophile. It seems like you and I are the most distrusted people here.

I will disagree with you though. This doctor did not invoke any of his Constitutionally protected rights to withhold such information. By not revealing their names, and by not invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, he's obstructing justice and should be additionally charged.

As for informing these women, I think it should be their choice. Collect their names, run a two minute bit on the news, put an article in the newspaper, and tell those who call in whether they'd been molested or not. The issue is not whether or not to tell them; it's whether or not to give them the option of finding out. If you believe in individual rights, then you'd agree that it's their choice.

That's exactly why I do use the term "morality," bearcat. It's absurd that the religious right feels like it can co-opt the term to just mean sex sex sex all the time. It is immoral to behave in the way our government behaves and I'm not going to let them own the term.

I don't like your argument about people who depend on the murder victim. That would seem to imply that a middle-class person's life is more valuable than a homeless person's, that a working person's life is more valuable than a retired person's, or just that somebody who's more likeable is more valuable than a loner. I don't think that's how human life should be judged.

Hey, Doug Beloof was my torts professor!

I don't know if people are still following this thread, but I just wanted to point out a couple of misunderstandings that a few people seem to have in these comments.

1. It's not the doctor who is refusing to disclose the names of women who may have been assaulted, it's an unidentified witness in the grand jury proceeding. (The doctor has a 5th Amendment privilege not to testify at all.) Since it's someone with knowledge of others who may have been assaulted, it's got to be someone who worked in the same hospital(s) as the doctor.

2. Grand jury proceedings are secret, so if this witness had been compelled to disclose the names, they wouldn't have been made public. Nobody's privacy would have been violated, nobody would have been publicly embarrassed.

That being the case, I don't understand what "the immediate adverse consequences" of revealing the names would be. All I can figure is that if the grand jury does return an indictment and the case proceeds, then the women's names might become public during that proceeding. But it doesn't seem like that would necessarily have to be the case. Also, wouldn't the prosecutor need the names of other potential victims if the doctor is being tried for assaulting patients? I don't fully understand.

I can appreciate the arguments people are making about why the women should not be told, but my opinion is that the hospital has a duty to notify all women who may have been assaulted. Then, it's up to those women to decide what to do. Maybe some of them won't do anything, but others might want to sue or at least try to find out more about what may have happened to them. Besides, any woman who has had surgery at the two hospitals where this doctor worked and who has heard about this in the news already knows that it's possible she was assaulted. I also think it's a good point that while it may seem like there's no harm if they don't remember it happening, nobody really knows that for sure. The doctor has admitted that he "looked under the hospital gowns of sedated women patients, exposed or fondled their breasts and placed heart-monitor leads on them in inappropriate ways." But obviously he may well have done much more than what he has admitted to.