You're browsing the web one day and come across some videos that expose girls private parts when they're on the exam table. How do you figure they got there.
The patients were denied the right to medical care unless they agreed to be exposed in public
We reserve the right to publish videos of you on the exam table for educational purposes†was hidden so deep into the fine print that some patients signed it in a hurry with tired eyes and thought they were seeing things
The patients were re-compensated for the loss of their medical privacy so they never had to work again
They put the patients on video without their knowledge and snuck it on YouTube and no one has reported it yet
HIPAA makes an allowance for practitioners who film their patients for public education
All the above
None of the above
How in the name of God did they get these people to agree to be filmed during their medical exams?
They show the girls' faces so you might recognize them and show close-up pictures of their private parts to display on YouTube?
All I had to do was sign into my account and tell them I'm eighteen or older to access these videos.
They show graphic pictures that I didn't really need to see. In one of them, the man doing the lady partsl exam actually addresses the patient by Ms……..†followed by her last name which really gave me the creeps.
Some but not all these videos had drawings of girls private parts which is all they really need to educate the anyone including nurses and medical students.
Any creepy eight-year-old can create a YouTube account and pretend they're eighteen or older. Any peeping tom can gain access to these pictures that show the private parts of girls in their practitioners offices and if you ever knew any sex predators, this whole idea would creep you out.
The girls exposed on the exam table never show the viewers that they know they're being filmed outside of one patient who smiles and holds a flower and who only has her face exposed to the camera.
When I was in training and we used patients for educational purposes it meant we were all inside of a shut curtain or closed up room protecting the patient's dignity.
In my general goings about I meet up with people who have no clue about a patient's right to privacy.
They seem to think it's ludicrous when you ask them to mind their own business.
They seem to think it's their own decision whether they invade someone's privacy depending on whether THEY are okay with it and sometimes depending on whether they sacrificed their own privacy and sometimes because of their own self-importance.
One person even told me, Well you have to talk about it,†when I refused to talk about my patients during a gathering. In this case, they expected me to think I was the poor little victim that has to talk about it.â€
The publics' ignorance and insensitivity are only being made worse by the availability of publicized pap smears. They make no mention of the fact that these patients are vulnerable.
They do not explain to their vast audience how the right to privacy and dignity are tied in with videos of patients' exams.
Maybe someone could clear up my confusion as far as how a medical office can reserve the right to go public with the care of their patients and include identifying information like the patients faces. I know there has to be some detailed process these people follow before they publish a video.
I would like to think the patients watch the videos first and then give their permission for them to be published.
I would like to think HIPAA requires the permission form for these pictures to be published to be separate from all other forms.
I do hope the entitlement of these practitioners to publish these videos is not because of some statement buried somewhere in a legal agreement that someone signs when they desperately need care.
I do hope You can't share pictures of me†is still an option when they expose someone's private parts on YouTube.
So what if the OP is male or not? Is the implication that all males are sexual predators??? I can reference numerous threads here on AN where the implication that this attitude is held of males in healthcare.
I find that implication just as derogatory as making implications based on ethnic heritage.
Don't believe me? How often does a male use a chaperone for an intimate exam of a female patient and how often do females use a chaperone for examining a male patient? Don't pretend like there is a disparity by telling me your facility ALWAYS uses chaperones, because that is not right either. (It should always be a shared decision between the provider and the patient, NOT a policy!)
...But know that a majority of the "you must be 18" videos are Media. A subculture. And that is ok, whatever floats your boat, however, I would not use these videos to set up for clinicals. Because who the heck really knows if you have not been exposed to an actual internal/pap exam if what they are showing you is correct procedure or not. So I would err on the side of caution and believe most of this is Media, and that most are Media actors, and not meant for clinical review.
I would be more apt to shadow an NP and see firsthand how it is done so that when it comes time for you to complete an exam you are comfortable with the process.
There are people who believe that the Media industry is victimizing to women. (and I really think that the intent here would be medical sex play, therefore, not a patient privacy/HIPAA issue) And I get that. However, we have really no way of distinguishing the intent of the actors or the producers other than monetary. And the saying the "full name" on the video? Methinks that to put a search engine look at said name would bring you to the actor's personal web page, that one could access for $5 a minute or some other such thing.
Even the medical training videos have an 18+ age requirement. The doctor in it is associated with a teaching institution and has a complete series on the physical exam. The patients have fully consented to aid in the teaching.
While these are (were) good educational tools, the major problem is that these are older (1980's or 1990's perhaps), and they fail to take into account current guidelines, most importantly "Trauma Informed Healthcare." Here are links that recognize that healthcare can retraumatize or be traumatic, and "trauma informed healthcare" can reduce the chance this:
One of the take aways from "Trauma Informed Healthcare" is knowing when NOT to perform a procedure, even when indicated. This is something that non-"Trauma Informed Healthcare" guidelines fail to recognize, they just assume that if indicated, the patient is going to get the procedure. The modern thinking in healthcare takes in to account fully, the patient's dignity and choice.
You are most probably correct regarding the age category, but not for one of the reasons you think. And it's mostly because of your assumption that the OP is male that I'm responding.
FWIW, I know a good many women, who have LONG since past girlhood, who refer to themselves, cohorts, colleagues, friends as "girls". As in "the girls in the office" (when not one of them is under 50 years of age). "The girls went out last night"/"Girls Night Out" referencing a group of women who socialized.
And not a baby tooth among them!
In your example, the term "girls" is used in a completely different context than here.
"Girl" is a female child. As a mature woman, I find it a little creepy when women are referred to as "girls".
Since the advent of video tape, and now digital imaging, "Filming" is largely a thing of the past. "Recording" is a more accurate and proper term for capturing visual images.
The fact that the OP uses these terms tells me that he is most likely a male who is at least 45 years old, likely older.
Thank you. Carry on.
I've been stuck on the repeated phrase by a nurse, "girl's private parts". My young adult daughter doesn't use "private parts" or "privates".
Makes me think male as well, and maybe a non nurse.
Specializes in Complex pedi to LTC/SA & now a manager.
I've been stuck on the repeated phrase by a nurse, "girl's private parts". My young adult daughter doesn't use "private parts" or "privates".
Makes me think male as well, and maybe a non nurse.
I believe OP stated in another thread that they are not a nurse but a HHA/CNA/caregiver. Plus I believe not originally from the US, based on posting history a lot of modesty. So a modest caregiver not a licensed nurse is likely to use modest euphemisms and not be aware of legitimate, consensual medical training videos. Hence concerned about patient privacy and consent. If a caregiver the op may not have been exposed to various methods, including paid patient/actors for medical students to practice patient interviews and exams. Two of my sisters attended a university affiliated with a well known medical school/university medical center with high level research and a well respected nursing school. The undergrad student newspaper often had ads from the medical school and research units offering well paid "jobs" as patient actors. My sisters did a patient interview job and were given a script and outline for their scenario. Paid for spring break with a few of these jobs. They never did exams more than initial intake (basic interview, history, and vital signs) as they were not comfortable with the other options. Back then these were not videotaped and cell phones were not as prevalent.
I think many of us did not first think of a branch of the adult entertainment industry as a source of these videos.
I believe OP stated in another thread that they are not a nurse but a HHA/CNA/caregiver. Plus I believe not originally from the US, based on posting history a lot of modesty. So a modest caregiver not a licensed nurse is likely to use modest euphemisms and not be aware of legitimate, consensual medical training videos. Hence concerned about patient privacy and consent. If a caregiver the op may not have been exposed to various methods, including paid patient/actors for medical students to practice patient interviews and exams. Two of my sisters attended a university affiliated with a well known medical school/university medical center with high level research and a well respected nursing school. The undergrad student newspaper often had ads from the medical school and research units offering well paid "jobs" as patient actors. My sisters did a patient interview job and were given a script and outline for their scenario. Paid for spring break with a few of these jobs. They never did exams more than initial intake (basic interview, history, and vital signs) as they were not comfortable with the other options. Back then these were not videotaped and cell phones were not as prevalent.
I think many of us did not first think of a branch of the adult entertainment industry as a source of these videos.
Ah, I was going by the "20 yrs of experience, From the USA".
In your example, the term "girls" is used in a completely different context than here.
I recognize that. I was just responding to the idea that only men would refer to women as 'girls'; it's been my experience that women frequently call themselves and other women 'girls' or 'gals'. Heck, I've referred to 'gals' too (albeit not when anyone was in the stirrups!!!).
Agree w/JustBeachyNurse - OP has a lengthy posting history, and many posts contribute to a picture of an unlicensed caregiver, with English as a second language, and a plethora of interpersonal difficulties exacerbated by a limited ability to interpret US cultural and professional norms.
So what if the OP is male or not? Is the implication that all males are sexual predators??? I can reference numerous threads here on AN where the implication that this attitude is held of males in healthcare.
(For what it's worth I think that the OP is female).
I don't think that the speculation about OP's gender was an implication that all men are sexual predators.
I think that both male and female sexual predators exist.
I think that most women and most men aren't sexual predators/offenders.
klone, MSN, RN
14,857 Posts
I got a "male" vibe from all of the OP's posts.