Committee hears survivors and experts urging requirement that patients be offered chaperones during sensitive exams

House members and witnesses told the Joint Committee on Public Health that two sets of bills — H2362/S1491 (requiring providers to offer trained chaperones during sensitive exams) and H2401/S1485 (requiring explicit consent for educational pelvic exams and related protections) — are intended to give patients a simple safety option during vulnerable encounters with clinicians.

Rory McCarthy, identified in testimony as one of more than 250 survivors who allege sexual misconduct by a Massachusetts rheumatologist, described how isolated, early‑morning or late‑day appointments left patients without a chaperone and vulnerable. “This experience has completely derailed my life and my identity,” McCarthy said. “He wanted us, his prey, in the office early in the morning or into the evening because there are no chaperones to be present during his acts of violence under the guise of sensitive exams.”

Multiple other witnesses told similar accounts of being asked to attend appointments when staff were not present, or being offered a chaperone that the clinician said was “not available.” Sophia Marsden, who testified she was groomed and abused by the same doctor, said staff were often sent home and nurses were not present during the visits she described.

Health services researcher Azza Abu Daga of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group summarized an analysis of non‑public data from the National Practitioner Data Bank and said none of the narratives in more than 1,300 physician reports that she reviewed indicated that a chaperone was present when alleged misconduct occurred. “The physical presence of a trained chaperone during sensitive exams is critical to prevent patient abuse,” she told the committee and recommended chaperones be available regardless of patient gender and acceptable to the patient, including by gender identity.

Physicians and clinicians also testified in favor. Dr. Moesha Jha (identified in testimony as a practicing primary care physician and author) said the bills provide procedural safeguards, reduce ambiguity about who a chaperone should protect, and require documentation of the patient’s choice.

RAINN (the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) and other national organizations urged clear informed‑consent rules for educational pelvic exams on anesthetized patients; witnesses said 26 states have laws or rules addressing explicit consent in such cases and professional bodies support informed‑consent norms.

Committee members asked questions about scope and wording. One legislator raised concerns that statutory language should allow chaperones to be trained practice staff (nurses or other trained professionals) rather than limiting chaperones to board‑certified clinicians, and committee staff signaled technical clarifications would likely be needed if the committee moves the bills forward.

No formal votes were recorded during the hearing. Committee leaders thanked the survivors and experts for their testimony and said staff would continue to work on language and scope.

Ending: The hearing gathered extensive personal testimony and policy arguments for both chaperone availability and explicit informed consent for educational exams. Witnesses urged the committee to advance legislation; committee members indicated they would review statutory language and technical drafting before any formal report or vote.