Undignified discharge

Home collection best, says Commission

A PUBLIC dunny is not an appropriate place to provide a semen sample, an NT government agency has determined.

A Territory gentleman lodged an objection with the NT Health Complaints Commission about the indignity of being requested by a pathology service to produce a sample in a public toilet.

He then had to carry his deposit — in a jar in a clear plastic bag — across a public area.

A PUBLIC dunny is not an appropriate place to provide a semen sample, a Northern Territory government agency has determined.

A Territory gentleman lodged an objection with the NT Health Complaints Commission about the indignity of being requested by a pathology service to produce a sample in a public toilet.

The man, referred to as “Michael” in the commission’s annual report, then had to carry his deposit — in a jar in clear plastic bag — across a public area.

And it turned out his undignified trip wasn’t necessary.

“In response to the complaint, the pathology service advised that as the sample was not urgent, it could have been collected at home,” the commission report said. “The service also advised that the toilet had a double locking door, and that this was an appropriate space as it was both secure and private.”

But the commission disagreed. The pathology service was told that a public dunny was not a suitable place to carry out such a delicate procedure, and was instructed to direct patients to collect their samples at home in future.

In a separate incident, an inmate transitioning from a prison to a secure cottage managed by the Office of Disability was found to be the subject of “chemical restraint”.

The man’s behaviour plan included a provision for medication to be administered to regulate his behaviour. As that medication wasn’t used to manage a mental illness, it therefore met the definition of “chemical restraint”.

An investigation by the commission found documentation of the incidences of chemical restraint was inadequate, meaning there was “insufficient justification” for its use. “At least some of the staff involved in (the man’s) care were unaware of the legal authority for his sedation and there is no clear policy on the use of chemical restraint,” the report said.

The commission recommended safeguards be put in place for the use of such medications in future, and that staff be properly informed of the legal basis of their use.

The Health Complaints Commission received 253 complaints last financial year, 221 of which were resolved.

“The service also advised that the toilet had a double locking door” NT HEALTH COMPLAINTS COMMISSION