Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Informed Consent topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sen. Bridal seeks to enshrine federal consent standards after constituent complaint; committee will draft amendments
Summary
SB 90 would put into state law the federal expectations (42 CFR part 482) requiring informed consent before sensitive examinations on anesthetized patients, while carving exceptions for emergencies and treatment; committee heard medical testimony and will prepare clarifying amendments.
Sen. Bridal introduced Senate Bill 90 to incorporate federal expectations into state statute that require informed consent for sensitive examinations performed on patients under anesthesia.
The sponsor said the bill aims to make explicit in state law what 42 CFR part 482 already expects for Medicare and Medicaid-covered patients, while providing exceptions for exigent circumstances, necessary treatment-related exams, medical emergencies and court-ordered evidence collection. The measure would also direct disputes to the medical licensing board for oversight when questions arise.
Wes Ratliff, a retired pulmonary and critical care physician representing the Good Trouble Coalition, testified in support and described historical cases in which medical students performed pelvic examinations on anesthetized patients for educational purposes without specific consent. “Any unnecessary… simply for the state of education should never be performed on an anesthetized or unconscious patient without their specific consent,” Ratliff testified.
Committee members raised clinical “gray zone” concerns — whether routine ICU actions (rectal thermometers, Foley catheters), pediatric or delirious-patient exams, or supervised trainee participation could be unintentionally restricted. The sponsor and witnesses said the bill includes emergency-treatment exceptions and that an amendment is expected to clarify scope and to protect both patients and providers.
Representative Shackleford pressed whether removing disciplinary sanctions in an amendment would leave patients without remedy; colleagues noted licensed practitioners remain accountable to the medical licensing board and to liability protections even if statutory disciplinary language is limited.
The committee did not vote on SB 90. Members said they will draft and circulate amendments to address the listed gray zones and return the bill for a future vote.
