Sex Abuse Insanity

[DGS49]

‘Just the Grossest Thing’: Women Recall Interactions With U.S.C. Doctor

A woman HMFIC at USC has agreed to shell out $215 Million to thousands of women who suffered no physical or financial harm, and who have no actual evidence of having been "harmed" in any way. Bottom line: they claim to have been made to feel uncomfortable by a university gynecologist over a practice period of many years. Some of them claim that he actually touched their VAGINAS! ....A GYNECOLOGIST!!! CAN YOU IMAGINE??? (Full disclosure: My urologist has occasionally touched my cockandballs.)

The official line is that none of this money will come from tuition money or from donors. It appears they just had over TWO HUNDRED FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS lying around, with no real reason.

This is insane on so many levels. This is real money. Isn't there someone in this whole transaction sane enough to prevent this travesty?

 

[gulfman]

I suppose the proctologist will be in deep shit soon

 

[MarathonMike]

Say maybe I can cash in on my Doctor and his prostate exams. He makes me very uncomfortable especially when he turns on the Barry White music.

 

[DGS49]

Tort law needs to be completely re-imagined. (Not that there's any chance of that with lawyers controlling the legislatures, but...)

When a person is not harmed, and suffers no financial loss, those two factors should bear considerable weight in determining damages. Similarly when the - let's call it - psychological harm is unquantifiable and mainly dependent on the psychological "vulnerability" of the plaintiff, there should be some limits on recovery.

Take for example the imaginary assault suffered by the infamous Doctor Ford at the hands of Eventually-to-be-Judge Kavanaugh. Let's say she could prove it in a suit for damages and wants to recover money damages. She was not harmed in any way. She suffered no financial loss. It had no impact on her professional success or social life. Most girls would have just tried to forget about it and moved on.

Because it is an "intentional tort" she is entitled to some damages even without measurable losses, but they are microscopic.

Consider the person whose child is killed by a negligent driver in an auto accident. Although the loss is overwhelming, the parent suffers no financial loss. Indeed, they are relieved of a financial burden - possibly a significant one. Currently, damages might be calculated on the child's likely lifetime earnings. This is insanity. Those parents wouldn't have seen a dime of those earnings. Their financial damages are near zero. And yet in such cases they regularly recover MILLIONS, if the driver has good insurance.

Insanity.