Replies to Consent requirements for pelvic examinations performed for training purposes

Replies to Consent requirements for pelvic examinations performed for training purposes

Analysis:

• Elaine Gibson and
• Jocelyn Downie

Consent requirements for pelvic examinations performed for training purposes CMAJ July 10, 2012 184:1159-1161; published ahead of print March 26, 2012, doi:10.1503/cmaj.110725

• Full Text
• Full Text (PDF)

1. Response to APOG Letter of May 14, 2012

   • Elaine Gibson, Associate Director
   • Jocelyn Downie

   Health Law Institute, Dalhousie University
   We are writing in response to the letter to the editor by Margaret Morris on behalf of the Board of the Association of Professors of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Canada (APOG) dated May 14, 2012, which was in turn a response to our CMAJ article of March 26, 2012. Ms Morris has missed the point of our article. We agree with Ms Morris that More...
   Submit response
   Published June 1, 2012

2. Response to Consent Requirements for pelvic examinations performed for training purposes as they revisit the issue of consent prior to pelvic examination.

   • Margaret L. Morris, President Academic Professionals in Obstetrics and Gynecology

   APOG
   The board of APOG is writing in response to the article by Ms. Gibson and Ms. Downie, Consent requirements for pelvic examination performed for training purposes as they revisit the issue of consent prior to pelvic examination. As the academic organization responsible for support for the academic missions in undergraduate and postgraduate More...
   Submit response
   Published May 14, 2012

3. Regulatory policy requires specific consent

   • Robert J. Byrick, President

   College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
   I write on behalf of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, in response to the recent article in CMAJ "Consent requirements for pelvic examinations performed for training purposes" (CMAJ, March 26, 2012). We appreciate that the authors of this article were only commenting on new policy guidelines from More...
   Submit response
   Published March 28, 2012