Citation

Brennan PA. J. Clin. Forensic Med. 2006; 13(4): 194-202.

Affiliation

Emergency Department, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia. patricia.brennan@sswahs.nsw.gov.au

Comment In:

J Clin Forensic Med 2006;13(4):160-1

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.jcfm.2006.02.004

PMID

16571379

Abstract

This paper reviews the literature in respect to the photo-colposcopic examination of anogenital injury in the sexually assaulted child, considered to be the 'gold standard' of examination, and how this compares with gross visualisation, still the standard procedure in adult examinations. It then examines the claim that, because the presence of injury does not provide a distinction between consensual and non-consensual intercourse in adults, photo-documentation is unnecessary medically and constitutes an invasive procedure which is ethically unacceptable. The paper questions whether the unwillingness of forensic physicians to extend photo-colposcopy to the examination of adult victims is related more to political and gender issues than to claims made on ethical and medical grounds, and concludes that any move to ban anogenital photography in adult forensic examinations (currently under consideration in the author's own jurisdiction) would possibly constitute an interference with independent clinical judgment and an incursion into the patient's right to evidence-based medicine.

Language: en