Arkansas GYN photographing exams

Warrant out for his arrest:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/arkansas-gynecologist-naked-pics-patients-exams-police-article-1.1758730

The full complaint can be read here:

http://www.yourprosecutor.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/04.15.2014-Becton-Arrest-Warrant.pdf

Ladies, have you ever felt that your doctor may have been photographing you or doing something inappropriate during an exam?

The media loves to report stories like this. Police detectives give up donut breaks to be the investigator for "crimes" like this. But how can authorities say the victim reported the pictures were taken without her knowledge when she knew enough to report it to the police? And since the Doctor hasn't voiced his account, how do we know there wasn't consent? Perhaps he wanted a picture of it for medical purposes similar to a cosmetic surgeon taking pictures before and after breast enhancement? You laugh but there's lots of gold diggers out there in US and lots of attorneys looking to strap themselves on to this for a cut of the profit to settle it.

I wonder if the pictures are good enough to make the gallery here?

I agree.

If she saw him take out his cell phone, she could certainly object. It is also common for doctors to photograph their patients for teaching purposes. The patient's identity might not be obliterated in his computer but that doesn't mean the identity would be published. Smart phones are actually used increasingly because they are light, compact and easy for people to use.

My mother in law is an oral pathologist, and she photographs patients. In many photos in her computer you can identify the patient if there are facial lesions, but when they are published the identities are obscured. Many offices have general consent forms that the patient signs which gives permission to take photographs.

The media loves to report stories like this. Police detectives give up donut breaks to be the investigator for "crimes" like this. But how can authorities say the victim reported the pictures were taken without her knowledge when she knew enough to report it to the police?

You laugh but there's lots of gold diggers out there in US and lots of attorneys looking to strap themselves on to this for a cut of the profit to settle it.

The above are all very reasonable points to take into account. And since once a complaint has been made, the whole process of exposure and media coverage and - aside from ambulance-chaser attorneys - also ambitious prosecutors looking out for an easy re-election or fast-track promotion, all get into the act, the process takes on a life and momentum of its own. I would despair of trying to objectively and impartially get to the bottom of things like this.

I also bet there are lots of officers who just love to 'peruse' this type of evidence, looking for more clues ... possibly another good reason to pass over a donut break ...

The fact that the complainant witness saw him taking pictures of her does not equate to her consenting, and thus the pictures were taken without her consent. As a lawyer who represents people on a contingent fee, who have been taken advantage of by corporations, insurance companies and negligent doctors, I resent the "ambulance chaser" comment. Although doctors take pictures for legitimate reasons all the time, they generally obtain written consent before hand and taking a picture of a patient in the stirrups with a cell phone does not sound legitimate to me and if it was legitimate, why is this doctor nowhere to be found? The fact of the matter is that doctors do inappropriate things ALL THE TIME. Just because they are doctors does not make them beyond reproach. I have seen plenty of doctors lie under oath and I have seen doctors do inappropriate (unnecessary) exams.

The taking of photographs is often addressed in a general consent form patient's sign but they are also often made with without specific consent when the patient's identity is not recorded--as in a vulva or breast, buttock, oral cavity, pharynx, etc.

I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that the doctor is innocent. It appears from the complaint that similar pictures were taken of other women, allegedly without their knowledge or consent. It should be easy enough to determine whether they knew and consented. If so, case dismissed. If not, he's going down for a felony.Apparently the doctor cannot be found.

I'm pretty stunned at the earlier comments to this article. For one thing, knowledge is not consent. Just because she saw him taking pictures does not mean that she consented to it. And I highly doubt that a general consent form includes photographs be taken and stored on the doctor's cell phone. Not on the hospital's computer. On his cell phone. Even if the photographs were taken for legitimate reasons and with a general consent form, it's generally a good idea to ask first. Especially given that the the body parts photographed were ones people generally like to keep private.

Also, comments about false allegations and "ambulance chasers" seem really dismissive. It seems like there's at least a strong possibility that a crime has been committed, so all of the actions taken by the legal system seem fair to me.

I strongly agree with Katalanta. First, a woman in that complainant's position, even if she becomes aware that pictures are being taken, is so extraordinarily vulnerable that she can hardly be deemed to have consented merely because she didn't immediately object and discontinue te exam. Second, police and prosecutors do not fall into the category of ambulance chasers. Finally, as far as I am aware this guy is still on the lam. If there were an innocent explanation, he would have come forward and offered it at once.

Second, police and prosecutors do not fall into the category of ambulance chasers.

Please read what was written. Here are the quotes about police and prosecutors which you can check a few posts down below:

"... also ambitious prosecutors looking out for an easy re-election or fast-track promotion, all get into the act, the process takes on a life and momentum of its own. I would despair of trying to objectively and impartially get to the bottom of things like this ... "

"... I also bet there are lots of officers who just love to 'peruse' this type of evidence, looking for more clues ... "

It looks like the point I and some others were trying to make is being reflected in some of the recent posts. Namely that cases of this nature are very difficult to judge because they so appeal to people's prurient interests and so easily conjure up strong feelings and gut reactions of disgust. People almost instinctively decide on guilt or innocence, regardless. None of us have any access to facts of the case except what is written in the two links in the first post. Are they correct? Maybe, maybe not, maybe partially. Let's not pretend that the media is a shining example of honesty and diligent fact checking either. They too have been known to get things wrong, often in the interests of a good salacious story, often as well out of simple confusion about things.

So until then, as enshrined in law in most every country: innocent until proven guilty (with the reasonable doubt rider thrown in for good measure).

And on the other hand, if the verdict is guilty as charged, that still doesn't mean there aren't individuals who will ride such a case to their own personal advantage, regardless of defendant and plaintiff.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal maxim meaning that a person's liberty cannot be taken away unless and until he has been proven guilty. It does not mean that it is in any way inappropriate to discuss a defendant's guilt or innocence on the basis of the published facts.

Whether or not law enforcement personnel have a prurient interest in looking at these pictures is irrelevant to the question of guilt. (Almost certainly some of them are women, and are revolted by what they see.)

Thank you for clarifying that Senior. It's really important that people know what "innocent until proven guilty" means. It also means that in a trial, as opposed to a defendant trying to prove his/her innocence, the onus is supposed to be on the prosecution/state to prove guilt.

I would like to add, in response to the comments about ambitious prosecutors, officers, lawyers, etc. I do agree that politics plays a big part in how crimes like this get handled. And sure, there are lawyers out there who will gladly take on the case to get some monetary reward. But that does NOT mean that the complaint is illegitimate. It doesn't mean that no crime has taken place. It does not mean that the women, if a crime has indeed taken place, have no right or basis to sue. It does not mean that anyone who might have an advantage in the guilt (or innocence!) is wrong to pursue justice, whatever that might look like. The legal system isn't perfect, but the doctor who was accused is more than welcome to stop fleeing and hire his own lawyer. He can also give his own account to the story, otherwise we're just going to have to go with what was reported in the news.

Well he has been arrested, granted bond, and has probably bonded out by now. Here is the link to the sleezy local news station that rightfully has more reason to be in jail than he does:

http://www.kait8.com/story/25277689/paragould-doctor-appears-for-bond-hearing-also-faces-civil-lawsuit

I bet those pictures would fit in quite nicely in our gallery. However, I do feel bad for the victims and how their trust was violated.

HIS medical license will be revoked for this even if he is able to win in criminal court.

HIS medical license will be revoked for this even if he is able to win in criminal court.

How would that work? As a judicial process, how could winning a case still result in what would in effect be a punishment?

To qv's point, the Licensing Board can revoke his state license on ethics grounds if they want. An issue doesn't have to be criminal with conviction for them to do this. Vice versa also. In short, the standards the Board values are not always aligned with criminal laws. However you can rest assured the the State Board is on his side and will give him every benefit of the doubt. They get lots of complaints in reality that turn out to be nothing and so they tend to be a bit calloused to these. If they didn't, there wouldn't be any gyns with licenses. As a gyn, if you so much as brush some women's clit wrong you may get a report. The pics were probably taken accidentally when he tried to answer a cellphone call with a glove on or something. He deleted them immediately. It's not as if he uploaded them to some gyn-o-porn site or something. Remember, we don't know the whole story to this and I wouldn't trust the two entities serially reporting it either...the local sheriff and the sleazy local tv news looking for ratings.

Alex2 - thanks for the more detailed explanation.

To my point about the license revocation. I forgot about the possibility of accidentally snapping a picture when trying to answer a phone. These days the touch screen phones could easily cause you to hit the wrong key when trying to answer the phone.

My contention about the license revocation has to do with IF the board determines the said doctor did violate the very ethical standards every doctor should adhere to than i have to agree with the board. these people at the board are physicians themselves and are therefore more emphatic than a Jury in Civil or criminal court of what a practicing health care provider has to deal with.

Answering the phone when conducting an examination? Bad manners and disrespectful in my opinion.

At the very least the doctor should apologise to the patient for the disruption if the call was urgent and not stand over them whilst on the phone. I wonder what the doctor might say if the patient took a call during an exam?

Unfortunately these days there are those who consider their phone more important than those they are actually with in person!

Unfortunately these days there are those who consider their phone more important than those they are actually with in person!

Just a week or two ago I went to the doctor with my wife and the doctor was also interrupted while busy with my wife (not a detailed exam, but more of a cursory check). He too picked up the phone and answered the query. I guess the rationale is that a patient isn't going anywhere and a phone call might be important and if not answered, the caller will hang up.

I'm of a generation that still thinks cell phones and the like are something out of a 1950's science fiction comic ... not really something we're used to. I venture to say that those coming after us think differently. And who also have different ideas about phone politeness and etiquette ...

"The pics were probably taken accidentally when he tried to answer a cellphone call with a glove on or something."

Not bloody likely, and certainly not on multiple occasions. How do we know they were deleted immediately?

Here's a bit of an update:

http://www.thv11.com/story/news/crime/2014/04/19/woman-sues-arkansas-doctor-paul-becton-charged-voyeurism/7911781/

That's an awful lot of accidental photos.

The doctors that I go to have signs in their waiting rooms that say you must turn off your cellphone. I have never had a doctor interrupt my exam with a cellphone call. One doctor I went to had a sign that was actually meant as a joke, but said "If you are caught using your cellphone your co-pay will be tripled". I never saw anyone use their cellphone in the waiting room. Everyone stepped outside the office to take any calls. I would also hold the doctor accountable if they used their cellphone while in the exam room with me.

There's also the "deep web" where a lot of stuff like this winds up.

Just an aside perhaps, but the 'deep web' ? ... Whatever that is supposed to be. It sounds like something out of the X-Files, all conspiracy and hidden stuff. Mulder would have loved it and Scully would have hopefully brought him back to reality. People do love their mysteries.

And come to think of it, since there is obviously something depraved and wicked that resonates from the term 'deep web', I bet many people might very well consider Zity to be part of the 'deep web' ...

It's not from the X-Files, it's real. Have you heard of Silk Road? That was in the news most recently, and the best example of the type of stuff floating around below the surface of what most users would generally consider the web to be.

Anyway, for your own reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web

Anyway, for your own reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web

Interesting. From what I make of it, it mainly seems to be content that cannot be found via search engines. That would seem to me to mainly be corporate content and business and financial data along with governmental and military data. Those are the kind of things most would wish to keep inaccessible via regular queries. Sounds obvious, but not necessarily ominous.