I refer to the Your Say comments by Philip Ho.

From a medical emergency specialist's point of view, we should only report what we see (the significant positive findings) and what we don't see (the significant negative findings).

It is not our job to judge whether a crime has been committed or not. And even then, we do not do the all the examinations ourselves, it is usually a teamwork - together with doctors and nurses from other specialties as well (eg, obstetrics and gynecology).

Rather, it is the prerogative of the police to gather other information besides medical reports, piece them together then come out with a reasonable conclusion and present it to the court for judgment.

That's why if we look at the Hospital Pusrawi's report carefully, no where did the doctor say that sodomy did not happen (as some claim). He (and another doctor - two sets of handwritings, actually) merely recorded down what the victim said (the history) and recorded the significant negative findings of the examination.

Finding no gross injuries does not mean no rape or sodomy had happened - it could have happened much earlier and this gives the injuries sufficient time to heal.

If the injuries were more subtle, then this could have escaped the untrained eyes of those not specialised in this area (and because of this - the doctor referred the patient to the experts in HKL).

But the value of the information in that report is this:

1. Now, supposedly, the victim says that he/she was severely injured, is groaning in great pain, and says that he/she was having significant difficulty in passing motion with lots of blood in the stools over the last few days (recent event); and yet, the physical findings show that the anal region is perfectly normal. This shows some discrepancy between what the victim says (the history) and the findings.

2. Should another hospital that the victim visits later on come up with a second report saying that there were gross injuries to the private parts and yet the first report said that the physical examination were perfectly normal, then we know something fishy is going on - a fabrication etc.

The second report is inconsistent with the first report. My argument then is how could this piece of incongruent evidence be admitted to the court?

You can find a similar explanation in this report .

So, while as a medical professional, I agree the releasing of the Pusrawi medical report is a significant breach of patient confidentiality and a sin in the medical ethics, yet, it has already happened.

It is very much like crying over spilled milk. But looking at it from the positive side, this leaked information helps to prevent anyone from anywhere from fabricating another medical report - which, I believe, is a bigger sin than the first one.