Health panel advances bill requiring consent for sensitive medical exams on anesthetized patients

Medical students need practice performing sensitive exams, such as pelvic or prostate exams. That training might happen in a clinical setting.

Patients who are awake can provide consent for these procedures and to have students present in the exam room. State law should ensure unconscious patients have the same protection, says Rep. Kristin Robbins (R-Maple Grove), who sponsors HF2371 requiring informed consent for sensitive exams.

“If you’re awake you are asked; consent should also be required when you’re unconscious,” Robbins told the House Health Finance and Policy Committee, which approved the bill on a voice vote Monday.

On its way to the House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee, the bill would make it a crime to perform sensitive exams — defined as pelvic, breast, urogenital, or rectal examinations — on anesthetized patients without informed consent. The bill specifies that such exams must be necessary for preventative, diagnostic, or treatment purposes, related to the scope of care during surgery, or court-ordered for evidence collection.

Violating the proposed law would be classified as a gross misdemeanor, carrying a maximum penalty of 364 days in jail and a $3,000 fine.

Robbins has been advocating for this issue since her first term, after learning from a friend that it was a concern among members of a cancer survivors’ group. “I was generally told this doesn’t happen here – that it was how training was done in the past,” Robbins said. “But it is an ongoing concern and quite often a concern expressed by medical students.”

At the time Robbins first raised the issue, eight states had legislation addressing it. Now, 25 states have enacted similar laws. “Minnesota is a leader in health care and should also lead in making informed consent a standard for all sensitive exams,” she said.

Rep. Tina Liebling (DFL-Rochester) agrees that exams not for clinical purposes require consent, but is concerned about the specifics of the bill language, especially as it imposes criminal penalties.

“When you’re doing that, you have to be extraordinarily careful to make sure you are not infringing on appropriate medical care. We don’t want doctors to worry about someone criminally prosecuting them for doing what they think is best for the patient.”