Intimate medical examinations; establish requirements related to those of patients who are sedated, anesthetized or unconscious.
SB 2676 would regulate intimate medical examinations performed on patients who are sedated, anesthetized, or unconscious. It defines “intimate examination” to include breast, pelvic, anal, rectal, prostate, and other urogenital exams, and generally prohibits a health care professional or supervised student from performing or supervising such an exam unless one of several exceptions applies. Those exceptions include specific written informed consent, ordinary informed consent where the exam is within the scope and standard of care for the procedure, a medical emergency, or a court order for evidence collection.
The bill also sets detailed consent requirements. Before the exam, the patient or the patient’s representative must receive a separate written or electronic consent document describing the nature and purpose of the exam, the procedure, the identity of the clinician, and whether a student will perform or observe it, with an option to consent to or decline student participation. If the exam occurs under the bill’s exceptions, the patient must be notified at a reasonable time before discharge. The measure takes effect July 1, 2025.
The bill would add a new statutory requirement governing informed consent for intimate examinations on incapacitated patients and would apply to licensed health care professionals and students in residency, internship, or fellowship programs. It would not eliminate existing informed-consent obligations, but would create a separate, more specific process for these exams and make violations, including retaliation against reporters, grounds for professional discipline by licensing boards or medical education programs. It also preserves medical forensic examinations related to sexual assault or other crimes and allows court-ordered evidence collection.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded opposition, so there is no documented debate in the provided materials. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a patient-protection and transparency bill focused on consent and notification. Its structure suggests support for clearer safeguards around vulnerable patients, while also preserving necessary clinical, emergency, and forensic exceptions.
The main policy tension in the bill is between patient autonomy and clinical training or practice needs. Potential points of contention include whether the consent requirements are too burdensome for hospitals and training programs, how broadly the term “intimate examination” should be applied, and how to handle situations where a patient is unable to consent and a representative must act. Another possible area of concern is the bill’s discipline provision, which makes violations and retaliation professional misconduct subject to board action.