Investigations – Office of Sexual Misconduct – Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Power

In previous posts, I mentioned elements of the policy under which the investigation was governed, which was a sexual harassment policy. Basically, the investigator was looking for evidence of actions by the three respondents that proved to be unnecessary and egregious. I discussed these concepts in previous articles. Another part of the policy states that “sexual harassment unfairly exploits the power inherent in [a]…position.” It is noted that sexual gratification is not a component of non-consensual contact per this policy, as well as it should not be because other factors contribute to sexual misconduct besides sexual gratification, such as power and control.  Power imbalances within medical settings place patients in precarious situations when it comes to safeguarding intimate areas of their bodies.  Consent is imperative.  The power that medical providers exert comes from the patient.  And I gave the doctor and her staff the power only to perform the procedure as was explained it to me, with incisions and preparation around the knee.

During the interviews with the investigator, the lawyer present asked the resident who removed the disposable underwear hospital staff gave me and clipped my pubic hair whether she was aware of any intimidation. Of course, this was the reply:

By the way, you can read about my arguments concerning the lawyer’s questioning as a violation of policy in a previous post here.

As for sexual harassment, the above exchange between the lawyer and resident during her interview with the investigator is absolutely absurd. In order for someone to intimidate or harass someone else, the victim would have to feel intimidated or harassed.  Since I was under anesthesia and incapacitated when the resident removed my underwear and clipped my groin, and had no knowledge beforehand this was about to happen, it was impossible for me to have felt intimidated or harassed.  Had I been awake when I was being stripped naked, I absolutely would have felt confused, unnerved, intimidated, threatened, and harassed, causing me to protest and demand that the resident cease and desist. I actually had a similar experience when I underwent a heart catheterization at the same hospital two years prior. The doctor always told me he was going in through my wrist, which he did. So I was extremely alarmed when a nurse attempted to fling up my gown as things were being prepared for the procedure.  I vocally protested, “Hey! What are you doing? Stop that!” She responded that she needed to prep my groin. The doctor then told her that he was going in my wrist because I have “good veins” and there was no need to prep my groin. (Too bad my leg veins aren’t as good as the ones in my arms, or I wouldn’t be in this situation.) The nurse then released my gown.  Seriously, I strongly suggest that all medical personnel undergo training regarding respecting a patient’s right to bodily privacy and autonomy.  I was completely alarmed at the nurse’s behavior in not even saying a word to me before attempting to move my gown prior to my heart procedure. She just grabbed it and started to push it up. Thankfully, the doctor stopped her before she got very far. I am also thankful that I was wearing underwear. Furthermore, I remained awake and aware throughout the whole process. So I had an opportunity in this instance to speak up and protect my personal dignity. This right was denied to me during my venous ablation because groin prep was done while I was incapacitated.

Medical personnel like the nurse who tried to push up my gown during my heart procedure and the doctor, resident, and staff involved in my venous ablation take advantage of the power imbalances that exist in medical settings. Let’s see what professionals say about the harm this causes. One such professional, Johanna Shapiro with the Department of Family Medicine, UC Irvine School of Medicine, asserts that medical harm results from “not only … a physical perpetration but as an act of power of one person over another” and that “Patients [and] family members [are] burdened…by the thoughtless and insensitive exercise of power.” See her article here: https://peh-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13010-018-0059-y

In my case, the doctor, resident, and the staff exerted power in their roles to engage in intimate contact while they were in control of my body while was sedated. As stated earlier, the policy under which the investigation was being governed states that “sexual harassment unfairly exploits the power inherent in [a]….position.”  The doctor, resident, and staff exerted their power in their roles to engage in unwelcomed sexual contact by determining:

1. how much information to provide me and what they thought would be important to me.

2. that I needed to be sedated for the preparatory process, thereby ensuring I did not witness it.

3. to remove the underwear hospital staff gave me without my knowledge or consent.

4. that consent for preparatory steps for intimate areas of the body not directly involved in the procedure is implied.

5. to expose, clip, and cleanse my groin without my consent and while in control of my body during my incapacitated state for a complication that would typically not occur and was not divulged to me.

6. that my concern for genital exposure and contact is “no big deal” as stated to me by the doctor when I met with her for my follow up.

7. to rely on a vague consent form. (I’ll talk more about this in a future post.)

Recall that the university’s policy states that “The University will not tolerate sexual harassment, nor will it tolerate unwelcomed behavior of a sexual nature….”  The fact that the doctor and her staff are health care workers is irrelevant.  They had ample opportunities to justify their need to remove my underwear and clip and cleanse my groin, and yet they failed to do so.  This is an abuse of power.   By exerting power, the actions of the doctor, resident, and staff create a hostile, intimidating, and unwelcoming environment. This environment is especially intimidating and unwelcoming to modest individuals and vulnerable members of society such as sexual assault victims who are hyper protective of their bodily privacy and sanctity.

This is what the investigator said:

In other words, I’m just one guy who was impacted by the doctor and her staff. But because it occurred in a medical context, it is unreasonable to say that their actions create an unwelcoming environment. The investigator failed to acknowledge that the aforementioned vulnerable members of society who are hypervigilant of protecting their bodily autonomy and sanctity, would indeed find the environment in this hospital – and countless others -unwelcoming, intimidating, and hostile if medical personnel are allowed to abuse their privileges of power to decide that expressed consent is unnecessary to visually and physically access intimate areas of a patient’s body that are not directly involved in outpatient procedures.  The investigator claims that violations are based on objective standard instead of opinions. But most of everything he cited in his report, including his stance on abuse of power, is indeed his mere viewpoint and interpretation. And he is wrong. Vulnerable people need to be protected by the systems in place tasked for that purpose, and that includes protection from medical personnel. But that is not the case because investigators and others in similar positions tasked with holding medical personnel accountable, yet refuse to do so, allow them to continue abusing their positions of power.

Hospitals should be safe places where individuals seek healing without fear of assaults on their personal dignity and humanity.