Pervy. Oh damn.

---

_____________________________________
DISH is how we do it.

And it's a convenient unverifiable damage claim. . . .this whole thing is about money for the attorneys . . . the more I think about it it's probably even less money for the women, I forgot expenses in my original calculation.

Are you kidding me, it's not even close to being similar. These ladies were not unlawfully detained and molested against their will. They knowingly went to a doctor of their choosing, were ok with him inspecting their private parts visually and physically, in most cases left the clinic content with the days proceedings and got on with their daily life blissfully unaware until this came to light. Now all of a sudden a lawyer has advised them that they are 'traumatised' and need to be compensated at the same time as the legal firms line their pockets.

I'll go as far and say that 'traumatised' is a stretch. Creeped out and angry? Fine. Wanting the doctor struck off? Yeah sure. But unable to function because there is an unidentifiable bit of footage of their bits that a person was viewing (for the second time, and this time not even touching)? Not buying it.

Look around your place of work. There's bound to be several people who have been traumatised from something much worse than this and who have not received any form of compensation, probably because it's not worth some lawyers time.

For all the benefits that they claim to provide, the legal fraternity sure costs the overall community a lot of money in increased insurances.

What kind of pleasure would a obgyn get from watching exams he filmed?
My guess is that for every decent looking beaver that gets on the table, there are 100 that you'd rather not see. Or they are there to see the doctor to fix some vaginal illness.
Maybe my numbers are wrong and every one of his patients had a golden box that looked and smelled amazing.
What ever happened to the "spank bank?"
Why does everyone need video taped these days.

I posted something pertinent to this a few weeks ago about male massage therapists and a naive friend who thought that they would never sneak a peak or get turned on during a massage or have sexual thoughts about her. Maybe there are men out there that can totally disassociate their jobs where they see and touch naked women from their sexual desires, but I find it hard to believe. Most men are turned on by seeing naked women whereas the reverse isn't nearly as true*, so I think it's somewhat foreign to most women's psyche. Although I would think any woman that had been on the planet for a couple of decades would know this.

*I was just reading something the other day about what kind of porn women are in to, turns out at least for the women who watch porn, they like pretty much the same stuff as guys, the one exception being simply seeing naked guys didn't do anything for them.

I've had both male and female gynos (prefer the lady ones for lots of reasons, but sometimes you need a specialist and best one might be a man) --

I wouldn't consider this to be anywhere near rape, but I can understand why the lawyers are going in that direction. The 'right' women sitting on a jury would see this slimeball's violations (trust, wrong mental state during exam, targeting of victim, filming etc) as sitting on the shallow end of the rape spectrum. The victims are pinned (ob/gyn stirrups leave you totally exposed/vulnerable), they're being penetrated (speculums, also horrible), and the dude is not doing it for their medical benefit but for his own pleasure.

What they really ought to be suing for is theft. Everyone has a right to privacy in a medical exam. This guy stole that by putting them on film, and possibly trafficking it over the internet to other like minded sickos. I don't know how much someone's personal privacy is worth, but tens of thousands doesn't sound off base. It doesn't matter if they were anonymous in the film - *they* know their images have been stolen.

I understand there's no legal grounds here, and probably laughable to proper lawyers, but maybe there ought to be . . .

If I had to guess, sexual pleasure. Possibly he was sharing these videos with friends or on internet forums.

Have you been on the internet? People get off on all kinds of messed up shit.


This is how I'm choosing to picture it (except pink instead of golden).


Because we can.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I prefer my doctors to be female. My dermatologist, spine doctor, and GP are all chicks.

I'm not going to get into the rape comparison discussion here.


Yeah? Yeah? Go on…


Uh huh, uh huh. Yes, yes. Tell me more! :)


I'd say both. A lady interviewed in the story said she had been going to him for 20 years. She must have received some medical benefit from it.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I imagine rape victims would need some time before sex feels [emotionally] okay, and this is trauma in a similar vein.

This is the part I don't get. A rape victim experiences and lives thru a traumatizing event, The effect is actually lived thru along with living thru the aftermath. A case like this is clearly no more traumatizing during the actual act then a regular examine is. All of these victims never realized that anything inappropriate was taking place. This is CLEARLY not true of a rape victim. I would not even put this on the same level as a "Date rape" where the victim is uncomfortable during the act and later decides they were raped.

Saying these two are similar in anyway is like saying being in a car accident and nearly dieing is similar to realizing you were almost in a car accident and nearly died several days after the event.

There is no question this is creepy and even traumatizing for the victims, I just don't get the "I'm having a hard time dealing with it, it's effecting my entire life" anymore then I would someone saying "I can't drive, I can't function" because they "Almost got into a car accident". Now I get that some people actually react this way, but to some degree I think this is a failing of the person not a result of the trauma. Yes I know that is "Blaming the victim", but in some cases people make themselves victims and certainly in some cases they make themselves victims to a larger degree then they actually are.

If I went to the doctor for an examine and later found out he filmed it, assuming it was not spread all over the world and identified directly to me, I would definately be a bit creeped out, I'd even be a little hesitant the next time I had a similar exam, but it wouldn't have any effect on my sex life or any other part of my life. 16K seems like an awful lot, for feeling a bit hesitant about doing something I was already not fond of in the first place.

These types of rewards and suits are generally why people think we have a problem in our legal system. Rather then dealing with what should be the reality of the case it's about seeing how much everyone can get out of the deal. You get more the more "Traumatized", "Brutalized" and "Victimized" you are, even if those things don't exist.

~Matt

I posted a similar thread to your new dr search. I was looking for a woman and preferably one with small or thin fingers. It's time to get the prostate checked out on a sort-of regular basis and figured that was the way to go rather than some guy with sausage-nubs. I guess she was on to me and despite my nearing 40 and familial history of prostate cancer, declined the digital exam. I found a new dr. One that has the equipment I was worried about. He surprised me with the exam and results were good. I gave up on the female dr idea.

He papped the pap smears for 20 years?

"Myra James, 67, had been going to him for annual exams for 20 years. Since his misconduct became public, she hasn't been to a gynecologist once."

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

and the dude is not doing it for their medical benefit but for his own pleasure.

There would be a case here if the individual had not done a proper examination, which we do not know. If a proper examination was done, which we should know since apparently he filmed 1200 of his exams, then indeed they recieved all the medical benefit they paid for. If the case was that they he did not do a proper exam then he put all these womens health at risk, which to me would be more worrisome then being filmed.

This guy stole that by putting them on film, and possibly trafficking it over the internet to other like minded sickos. I don't know how much someone's personal privacy is worth, but tens of thousands doesn't sound off base. It doesn't matter if they were anonymous in the film - *they* know their images have been stolen.

Again I think this is my point. How much is ones own thoughts worth? If the person remained entirely anonymous and no one knows that this individual is the person on the film what damages have been done? The only damage that exists, exists in the mind of the person. We can argue whether or not that damage was caused by an external force or whether it was/is being caused by an internal one. If the damage is being caused by an internal one then the damage, thus liability, of anyone else is worth zero. If that damage is caused by an external source then we have to discuss value.

I'm not disregarding the idea that some people "Feel damage" by simply knowing that there is a picture out there that is unidentifiable of them. I'm just wondering how much of this is completely internal versus completely external.

If a person is completely horrified by the color purple and this "Ruins their lives", is this an internal problem or an external one?

Again while this is a creepy and socially unacceptable act, the only damages here are almost entirely decided upon by the victim. I'm not convinved it's a good idea for the victim to decide what the actual damages are for obvious reasons under conditions in which there is no tangible proof of those damages that are not created by the victim.

~Matt

An external agent created the impression that damage had been done. How much damage would be down to the individual.

I would traumatize his balls with a size 11.

---

_________________________________
I'll be what I am
A solitary man

An external agent created the impression that damage had been done.

"Impression" being the key word here.

How much damage would be down to the individual.

Isn't that the same question I'm asking? If an individual whips themselves into a frenzy over something that is otherwise a non issue they can appear to "Suffer damages" but are those damages of the external force or internal forces?

Clearly there was some level of external influence here, the question is how much?

~Matt

I'd say that any doctor is in a special class of professionals who have an ethical and legal (?) responsibility to maintain confidentiality. Gyn/Obs doubly so, due to the heightened privacy of reproductive/sexual conditions. So these patients contracted with him expecting not just privacy, but vestiges of the above and beyond discretion that used to see old school doctors delivery babies blind, from behind a sheet.

So these women then lie on their back in a position of extreme vulnerability. They're totally ceding defences and dignity, and the guy is taking pictures. Some women measure their self-worth by how 'respectable' they are sexually, and thanks to this guy they are now in the same class as girls they used to judge who text naked photos to their boyfriends. It doesn't matter how they got there, the pictures exist and they're shaming.

The physical damage is nil, but the betrayal of trust is complete. Likewise the sense that one is a good judge of character. Likewise the sense that they're the custodians of their own sexuality. I'd say this is a pretty heavy demolition of self respect and the doctor is responsible for that, times, what, 80 people? How well somebody snaps back would have a lot to do with how they feel about their body, how much they trust authority, and how worthy they feel in general.

So damage has been done to greater and lesser degrees. But how do you monetise self-worth? And should we? Or chalk it up to bad luck and move on?

I misstated what I meant.
I meant to say that "I would imagine rape victims often need some time before sex feels emotionally okay, and I can imagine the effects of being one of this doctor's patients, and this news coming to light, having the same effect."

I felt that someone poster's comment calling women not able to have sex for awhile "bs" was denying these women's lived experiences, and I was trying to provide a counterargument of why it might not be BS at all.

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

I fail to see how that's any worse than any other doctor-patient relationship. How is one's sexual condition more sacred than, say, your kidney function in terms of privacy? What about a urologist's patient relationship with dudes, if we're going down that road? This is as offensive as a general surgeon who keeps unauthorized, anonymous recordings of every appendectomy he/she has done for personal/professional consumption (whether or not he/she gets his/her jollies off of said recordings).

I'd suggest your statement cheapens the doctor-patient relationship, rather than redoubles the Ob/Gyn's responsibility. It's not about what's embarrassing for the patient, it's about dignity and privacy of the patient to any and all conditions.

Although, I should more state that it's a healthcare system's relationship with the patient, as so many have a need-to-know about his/her charts. All are held to said privacy.

---

The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important.

-Albert J. Nock

I'd say that any doctor is in a special class of professionals who have an ethical and legal (?) responsibility to maintain confidentiality. Gyn/Obs doubly so, due to the heightened privacy of reproductive/sexual conditions. So these patients contracted with him expecting not just privacy, but vestiges of the above and beyond discretion that used to see old school doctors delivery babies blind, from behind a sheet.

Assuming that he did not share any of these films with anyone else what privacy was lost? Not to get to graphic but what is the difference between him going home and doing whatever he did with the images in his mind or with the images that he filmed?

It doesn't matter how they got there, the pictures exist and they're shaming.

I guess I don't understand this either. Assuming, and I don't know this is the case just believe it is from the statements made, that A) you can not connect the pictures with the person and B) the pictures are not being released to the world and I would even say that if the former was true the latter doesn't even matter, how is there shame involved? It seems to me that by saying this if someone is shown a picture of someone in a position that they find "Shameful" and you simply tell them it is them that you're claiming that these people are "Shamed".

To me this seems to be exactly what I'm talking about in the sense of the individual causing harm to themselves. By the same token this person would "Feel shame" by simply knowing that the doctor had images in their head of their exam. Worse yet the doctor can actually attach these images to the people were as this can't be done from the picture.

The physical damage is nil, but the betrayal of trust is complete.

Now this I understand and completely understand if someone was a bit gun shy about running off to the next doc. I suppose one might call this "Damage", but again I have a hard time quantifying it.

Likewise the sense that one is a good judge of character.

This would only be true if they had never mis judged anyone else in their lives. I suspect it is the rare case that this would be the first time in ones life that they mis judged someone so this really can't be pinned on this one case.

Likewise the sense that they're the custodians of their own sexuality.

This I don't understand at all. I'm quite confused as to how a person being examined has lost any level of their sexuality if a picture is take of the exam. This seems to me like the Indian belief that a picture steals your soul. Trust for a doctor sure, but how that would effect your feelings for sexuality in any other part of your life is befuddling to me. The exam was not sexual in anyway for the patient and thus for the patient, unlike a rape, should be entirely devoid of sexual content.

I'd say this is a pretty heavy demolition of self respect and the doctor is responsible for that, times, what, 80 people? How well somebody snaps back would have a lot to do with how they feel about their body, how much they trust authority, and how worthy they feel in general.

8000 people apparently.

I can only speak for myself. IF I'm at the dock getting a hernia and prostate/colon cancer test and I find out some time later that the doc filmed it and used it for his own sexual gratification later the only thing I'm worried about is whether my fat ass is now posted all over the internet with the "Wow you must be a dairy farmer as that finger seems huge" look on my face. After that, well I'm a little leery about going to another doc and I would make sure the guy never practices medicine or is ever in a similar position again.

The connection between that and sexuality simply doesn't exist, at least for me and as long as you can't identify me in the video/picture so what. Take the picture video out of the scenario and the guy still has the experience in his head and can look at that over and over and over and short of me never going to the doctor I would never know and there's not a damn thing I can do about it. I fail to see how knowing what someone is think is more damaging then not knowing.

But how do you monetise self-worth?

Again I fail to see how this in anyway effects ones "Self worth". Honestly it's quite befuddling to me. Apparently you have 1200 different pictures with 8000 different patients. Assuming you can not identify the face to the person how in the world do you even know if the pictures are of you? Even if you looked thru all the pics that is no guarantee that somewhere there isn't a pic of you. In fact you have no idea that your current OBGYN is or is not taking pictures every time you go. To connect ones self worth to the possibility that picture may or may not exist of you in a compromised position seems a bit over the top to me.

And should we?

In my opinion damages should be paid for that which can directly be related to the source. I think in this case it's pretty hard to make the connections you are making other then the trust issue.

Or chalk it up to bad luck and move on?

No, I think once found out the violater should be removed and prevented from being put back in a similar situation. Other then that I can't see any real damages outside of the trust issue. I have a hard time getting to the point where having ones trust broken by another person is worth 16K without any other damages.


~Matt

I meant to say that "I would imagine rape victims often need some time before sex feels emotionally okay, and I can imagine the effects of being one of this doctor's patients, and this news coming to light, having the same effect."

I can see a women being unsettled by the occurance and not wanting to have sex, but to me this is no different then having a bad day at work or any other stressor. I'm having a hard time with the idea of having ones genitalia examined by a doctor being "Sexually traumatizing" especially under the conditions that the exam was entirely normal.

I felt that someone poster's comment calling women not able to have sex for awhile "bs" was denying these women's lived experiences, and I was trying to provide a counterargument of why it might not be BS at all.

Can't vouche for the poster but I read it as the two are unrelated in this case as they are not in a rape case. Rape is an expression of power thru the express use of sex. It's a sexual violation and thus makes complete sense that it would alter ones perception or willingness to have sex. The act of sex would be linked to the rape. A medical exam is not linked to sex in anyway, assuming an appropriate exam. A person who is raped is likely to be reminded of the rape during regular intercourse. I would find it extremely odd if someone who was recently examined would think of the examination during intercourse and the fact that picture was taken of the exam should not change the effects of the exam at all.

While I would not go so far as to say it's BS as anything is possible I find it odd. Again that the examine would be sexually traumatizing, not that hearing the news that someone took a picture of the exam made you not want to have sex for a while.

~Matt

190 million doesn't buy what it used to. Hell, a dead smoker is worth 23 billion.

lots here, but:

I'm quite confused as to how a person being examined has lost any level of their sexuality if a picture is take of the exam.


A picture wasn't taken of the exam, the photos weren't medical. The exam was a cover for taking the pictures. The women were duped into posing for this guy's sex album. Say you've got a woman who's taken pride in in being faithful to her husband for 20 years. Yet here she finds herself to be in Dr. Perv's collection. Her sexuality is no longer hers, or her husband's - the doctor now has a piece of it. Which makes her damaged goods (in her mind).

I think it's bonkers but I know women who would react like this.