Rogers Justine E, Odell Morris S, Schreiber Jason R
Senior Lecturer in Legal Ethics, UNSW Law, UNSW Sydney.
Associate Professor in Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University; Head, Clinical Forensic Medicine, Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM).
J Law Med. 2018 Oct;26(1):265-273.
When treating unconscious patients believed to have been victims of sexual assault, forensic physicians must decide whether to conduct physical examinations in order to collect evidence while patients are unconscious and cannot consent. The choice is urgent: potential evidence may be lost before the patient regains the ability to consent. The physician's choice affects not only the patient's bodily integrity, but also their ability to pursue criminal and potentially civil justice remedies if they were assaulted. This article bases its discussion on one such real-life situation. It first examines ethical models relevant to deciding whether to take evidence and finds that no one approach produces morally satisfactory outcomes in every case. It then examines the legal framework guiding these decisions, finding that while collecting evidence without consent may well be permissible under New South Wales (NSW) legislation, relevant guidelines disallow it, placing physicians in a legal grey-area. The article concludes with practical recommendations to address these ethical, professional and legal challenges.
在治疗被认为是性侵犯受害者的昏迷患者时,法医必须决定是否在患者昏迷且无法表示同意的情况下进行身体检查以收集证据。这个选择十分紧迫:在患者恢复同意能力之前,潜在证据可能会丢失。医生的选择不仅会影响患者的身体完整性,还会影响他们在遭受侵犯后寻求刑事和可能的民事司法补救的能力。本文基于这样一个现实生活中的情况展开讨论。它首先审视了与决定是否获取证据相关的伦理模式,发现没有一种方法能在每种情况下都产生道德上令人满意的结果。接着,它审视了指导这些决定的法律框架,发现虽然根据新南威尔士州(NSW)的立法,未经同意收集证据很可能是允许的,但相关指南不允许这样做,这使医生处于法律灰色地带。文章最后提出了应对这些伦理、专业和法律挑战的实际建议。