You say seduction, I say courtin'

tomato, tahmahtoh

Just because your know-it-all AMA boys and fancy pants 'licensed' medical types don't yet recognize sex with Doctors as the cure all it is, doesn't mean it can't work miracles (particularly with the ample busomed).

Science doesn't care what what's 'politcally correct.' It cares about results. And if were gonna start a witch hunt on medical pioneers like this good man, men of science who actually GIVE A DAMN about young toned women with bak pain, then we might as well close up shop - throw in the towel on medical advancement.

Sure go ahead, shut down the visionaries, the pharmaceutical companies, everything trying to make a GOD DAMNED DIFFERENCE! Luddites!

I'm sure it's all very medical. My husband has a "cure" for sore throats.

Though I'm not sure I'd trust a "doctor" who was incapable of successfully spelling "bosomed."

Do you really wanna start the 'loose shit' war Ace? Really?

So Symes, you're saying that when you get a prostate exam, you don't mind your physician using the 'advanced' technique of putting both his hands on your hips?

Is this woman really that stupid or did she set the good doctor and his practice up for a law suit?

Reminds me of a cartoon in Playboy years ago. A beautiful naked woman was sitting on a chair with a hand over one eye saying to a doctor standing next to her, "I've never had to take my clothes off for an eye exam before".

Oh, Ace, "bosom" is not a medical term. The proper clinical terminology would be "titties."

chesticles is considered more formal.

Speaking of alternative therapies..has anyone seen Nancy Gribble around? We have a "New Age Healing" sessions booked in Rusty Shackleford's bedroom.

The treatment might not have helped the ladies bad back but it probably did wonders for the doctors groinal swelling. Ah, the wonders of medicine!

Reminds me of an actual California rape case that I read a while back - pretty f'ed up if the girl actually didn't know what was going on:

People v. Minkowski, 204 Cal.App.2d 832, 837-838:

http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp2d/204/832.html

The defendant was a physician with offices in Palo Alto, California. On January 7, 1961, Miss X, who was 16 years old, accompanied by her mother went to the defendant's office for the treatment of menstrual cramps. She and her family had known the defendant for about three and one-half years. The two families lived on the same street about three houses apart. The defendant had previously treated Miss X and her parents. The two families also had some social contacts.

Miss X removed her clothing and put on a hospital gown. She then lay on her back on a table with her feet in stirrups while the defendant examined her. No one else was present. The defendant told her that a series of tests were needed to find out what was wrong and clear up the problem.

She returned about a week later for the tests. She had apparently been told it would be a vaginal-smear test. She went into the examination room, removed her clothing and put on a hospital gown. She and the defendant were the only persons in the room. He told her to lean over a table with her feet spread apart, giving as a reason that it was an easier position for the test. As she did so, the gown would slip off her shoulders. While she was in this position, the defendant used an instrument for a few seconds, and then something else. The first object was cold and "the second time it wasn't at all." The second object "didn't pinch like the first one did. It wasn't as uncomfortable." The second object "kept coming in and out" of her vagina; "[i]t didn't go in and stay like the first one did." During the examination the defendant exercised her breasts, telling her it was necessary to help stimulate the glands. He used both hands doing this, while the second object was being inserted during the second part of the test. Right before the second part of the test and at the end, she thought she heard a zipper. She also felt clothing against the back of her legs during the second part of the test. She estimated that the whole test would last about three minutes.

Miss X returned to the defendant's office for similar examinations on six or eight other occasions. The last one took place on February 20, 1961. During all examinations, except the one on January 7th, defendant pulled back on her hips several times. Several times during these examinations he wiped Miss X off and then wiped up the floor. After the tests he would tell her to go home and be sure to wash off because the test might cause an infection or she might be allergic to it in some way. Several times during the second part of the test, she thought she felt "a throbbing, or something" in the vaginal area.

On Sunday evening, February 19, which was the day before the last examination, the defendant came to Miss X's home and talked to her and her mother about commencing a second series of tests. He first asked if she could come that evening and later made an appointment for her to come in the following evening, February 20. Within a week after the last test, he again went to her house, attempting to have her take another test that night. She told him she had a babysitting job until 9:30 or 10 p. m. and did not go, although he indicated to her it would not be too late at that hour. He also talked to her mother about it. This conversation took place after Miss X had complained to her mother about the defendant's conduct on February 21, the day following the last examination. It was after the last examination that Miss X was sure that the defendant was using himself during the second part of the test.

Ace, you're actually wrong (or at least incomplete) on the point of law here. I can't speak to the criminal code, but I'm fairly certain this is going to be filed as a tort of battery, and I'm pretty sure (unless there is some funny-ass precedent in the Oregon caselaw I don't know about) that the lady's got a strong case assuming the facts are correct.

It revolves around her consent. If fraudulently obtained, someone else's consent is invalid and you're in trouble. But the thing is, the fraud has to be ESSENTIAL TO THE ACT CONSENTED TO, not incident. With seduction ("I'll marry you if you let me sleep with you!") it's found that the fraud is merely incident, since the girl being seduced knew exactly what she was agreeing to: sex. She was only fooled as to the inducement. In other words: tough shit, you silly bint. You wanted the sex, you got it. Stop complaining that you didn't get something else afterwards.

Here, though, there's a clear precedent in Rains v. Superior Court, where essentially the same sort of thing happened: patients consented to being beaten and abused because they were told it was part of "sluggo therapy"; in reality it was a method of patient control and domination. Seems the same here, in that the fraud is ESSENTIAL to the act consented to: she wanted and thought she was getting medical therapy, not sex. She's also dumb as a post.

So this doctor is fucked for lying in order to get fucked, basically.

(This pedantic legal digression brought to you by the University of Chicago Law School, which actually just taught me this very tort case last week...first week of school.)

The woman was found to be guilty of aggravated stupidity compounded with criminal gullibility and conspiracy to be a retard.

The physician in question could not be convicted because the therapeutic benefits of the "treatment" -- i.e., reduction of swelling and ache -- were in fact realized. It's just that the physician never specified whose swelling and ache would be alleviated.

Judge Shackleford dismissed all charges and instructed the plaintiff to meet him later in chambers.

Here is another back specialist:

Bohm, who specializes in back pain management, allegedly assaulted one victim on Feb. 4, 2003, as she was partially sedated and a second victim on Sept. 21, 2004, who was in his office seeking treatment for back pain. Both incidents allegedly occurred at his Venice clinic called “Pain Net.”

She estimated that the whole test would last about three minutes.

She obviously is lying....3 minutes....yeah right...and I'm Superman.

*looking around room*

What?

Other charges filed against Dr. Smith include possession of a rape tool.

This crap happens *all* the time. There was a famous case in the 1970's involving an anesthesiologist who was having oral sex with patients in the O.R. during surgery. I know about three other more recent unpublished cases involving doctors and patients. And of course, there are numerous published cases.

I wouldn't mind a "theraputic hummer" during an operation if the anesthesiologist was female and decent looking.

That's some expensive vagina.

Did the insurance forms get filed correctly?

The funny part is that her new lawyer had her re-enact the encounter to be sure of the sequence of events.

I wouldn't mind a "theraputic hummer" during an operation if the anesthesiologist was female and decent looking.

Really? But, that would contaminate the sterile field and you would most likely develop a fatal infection. Of course, whether you live long enough to develop a horrible and excruciatingly painful infection and die, is dependent on someone noticing the O2 tank has run out because your anesthetist is otherwise occupied giving you a “hummer” that you will neither feel, nor remember, because you are anesthetized.

giving you a “hummer” that you will neither feel, nor remember, because you are anesthetized.

Average Saturday night. Your point?

VRWC Agent:

You crack me up. Please keep commenting here.

Gives new meaning to the concept of a temperature probe, don't it?