Philosophy Now Forum

Should doctors not check a certain part of the patient's body during routine checkups without the consent of the patient and / or the patient's family (if the patient was of a certain age or younger) ?


Should doctors only check that part of the body if the patient had a particular medical concern that related to it?

The part I speak of is the GENITOURINARY TRACT.

Proud Cosmopolitan wrote:Should doctors not check a certain part of the patient's body during routine checkups without the consent of the patient and / or the patient's family (if the patient was of a certain age or younger) ?


Should doctors only check that part of the body if the patient had a particular medical concern that related to it?

The part I speak of is the GENITOURINARY TRACT.

Tough question. So much more info is required. I guess it would all depend on the entirety of the situation, care to expound? If you're in the US please don't violate HIPAA, by exposing the name of a patient, that's not you.

Don't worry this is a question about patient privacy / modesty in general and how I am sure most people would find having to go through any examination of that part of the body to be embarrassing or to say the least. I'm in Canada by the way.

Proud Cosmopolitan wrote:Don't worry this is a question about patient privacy / modesty in general and how I am sure most people would find having to go through any examination of that part of the body to be embarrassing or to say the least. I'm in Canada by the way.

Well I try to see anything such, purely clinically, so I have no problem getting naked. I do have a problem getting the finger up my rectum, (male Prostate Exam) but that's because it hurts a bit, nothing major, but at least mine is sensitive. Of course I've had a problem when the doctor was a female. I tend to be quite modest as I'm heterosexual, and fear being inadvertently aroused. With males it's OK, unless I thought they were homosexual, but of course that would be for another reason. I couldn't be certain he could separate his private and professional life, such that if I felt violated, he'd suffer with a foot in the face. No I'm not violent as a rule, just defensive! So the point is that one should treat an exam clinically, but keep a watchful eye on the doctors methodology, ensuring he or she are professionals. Since you're a female, at least here in the US, a second person is required to be present, usually a female nurse, if your doctor is male, to ensure there are no improprieties.

I'm sure most females would sooner see the dentist than the gyno or gynecologist since they'd be laying there half naked with their feet in the stirrups and with a speculum up their "ying yang, vag area, vajayjay or vagina" and they'd need a chaperone to boot if the gynecologist is a male. There is such a thing as a PEDIATRIC GYNECOLOGIST and with them a young girl would be lying there with her legs in the "frog leg" position while the pediatric gyno checks their vulvar or vulval area. Depending on the girl or woman, I'm sure they find it embarrassing or and as for whether or not Canada is the same as the US in terms of needing "chaperones," yes we are.

Proud Cosmopolitan wrote:Should doctors not check a certain part of the patient's body during routine checkups without the consent of the patient and / or the patient's family (if the patient was of a certain age or younger) ?


Should doctors only check that part of the body if the patient had a particular medical concern that related to it?

The part I speak of is the GENITOURINARY TRACT.

You mean... should routine check-ups not require special permission to check sexual organs or areas about sexual organs?

I don't think special permission should be required,, if the doctor thinks it's statistically necessary (people generally have large chances of getting diseases down there or ill conditions). But only if there's an actual reason for it.

That said, of course it's up to the patient to stop any check ups, and the doctor should inform them first so they have a chance to stop it.

But many people might feel it inappropriate or otherwise don't like the straight-forward way. To them I'd just say "it's for your own good, learn to live with it", depending, it might not be worth to ignore those people though... as long as they exist and are loud enough to bother you, you might as well give them what they want. If there's no group of such people who thinks it's very important to have special permissions, you might ignore them. They have the chance to say no nevertheless. And they're not exactly loosing anything, except metaphysical properties which doesn't really exist anywhere but their own mind.

Maybe this would "seem like a scheme"

Female patients: Female gynecologist Male general physician for "the rest of them"

Male patients: Male andrologist / urologist Female general physician for "the rest of them"



PROBLEM SOLVED.

My explanation for this question is that I remembered reading on other Internet message boards primarily to do with parenting ( though I only have a "fur kid") about how some parents seemed bothered that their doctors were too quick to take off the diapers or underpants of their children and give them genital checks that the parents felt were "unnecessary," (possibly since the kid had one at his or her last checkup and the parents felt another genital exam was "redundant" or the kid needed to see the doctor for any reason unrelated to his or her male or female "parts.).

You mean babies?
What have they got to be embarrassed about? Somebody has to change their diapers and wipe their bums every couple of hours and somebody has to bathe them every day? (For that matter, why should people become embarrassed about standard equipment at any time of life?)

Yes, babies have to be checked all over, every time. For rashes, ringworm, infection, inflammation, allergic or sensitivity reaction, chronic and acute conditions that can become very serious very fast; for signs of abuse, neglect or innocent mishandling. They don't know how to say what might be wrong, so you can't ask them: you have to see and sometimes touch. It would be unethical for a pediatrician not to look over the whole baby when he's doing a general checkup. The primary caregiver should be present, of course, and be prepared to give whatever information is required, like "Have you noticed this blister? Has he had others like it?" or "Have you changed detergents recently?".

Older children can be questioned, and for most of their doctor visits, you only have to deal with the specific symptoms they or the caregivers complain about. A general checkup, though, still requires full examination. Over five, the kid should be given the choice to have a caregiver in the examination room or not; the adult can be interviewed separately.

Skip wrote:You mean babies?
What have they got to be embarrassed about? Somebody has to change their diapers and wipe their bums every couple of hours and somebody has to bathe them every day? (For that matter, why should people become embarrassed about standard equipment at any time of life?)

Yes, babies have to be checked all over, every time. For rashes, ringworm, infection, inflammation, allergic or sensitivity reaction, chronic and acute conditions that can become very serious very fast; for signs of abuse, neglect or innocent mishandling. They don't know how to say what might be wrong, so you can't ask them: you have to see and sometimes touch. It would be unethical for a pediatrician not to look over the whole baby when he's doing a general checkup. The primary caregiver should be present, of course, and be prepared to give whatever information is required, like "Have you noticed this blister? Has he had others like it?" or "Have you changed detergents recently?".

Older children can be questioned, and for most of their doctor visits, you only have to deal with the specific symptoms they or the caregivers complain about. A general checkup, though, still requires full examination. Over five, the kid should be given the choice to have a caregiver in the examination room or not; the adult can be interviewed separately.

Maybe having the doctor check that area of the body (or the genitals) is a good idea if the child happened to be a YOUNG GIRL since bath soap may sometimes bother young girls in that part of their body, not to mention how their inner vulval or vulvar lips could stick together and they sometimes couldn't urinate. In some cultures / societies young girls could undergo such horrific practices such as female "circumcision" which really should be known as "female genitalia mutilation" or "genital cutting" which ranged from cutting off just the clitoral hood to the ENTIRE VULVA and it would also be a good idea to also safeguard young girls from practices such as that that may deny them enjoyment of sex and cause them other problems like increased painful periods not to mention childbirth difficulties throughout their lives. I was just saying that though young girls may find it embarrassing or , they may also have special reasons for having the doctor check that part of the body.

The Voice of Time wrote:

Proud Cosmopolitan wrote:Should doctors not check a certain part of the patient's body during routine checkups without the consent of the patient and / or the patient's family (if the patient was of a certain age or younger) ?


Should doctors only check that part of the body if the patient had a particular medical concern that related to it?

The part I speak of is the GENITOURINARY TRACT.

You mean... should routine check-ups not require special permission to check sexual organs or areas about sexual organs?

I don't think special permission should be required,, if the doctor thinks it's statistically necessary (people generally have large chances of getting diseases down there or ill conditions). But only if there's an actual reason for it.

That said, of course it's up to the patient to stop any check ups, and the doctor should inform them first so they have a chance to stop it.

But many people might feel it inappropriate or otherwise don't like the straight-forward way. To them I'd just say "it's for your own good, learn to live with it", depending, it might not be worth to ignore those people though... as long as they exist and are loud enough to bother you, you might as well give them what they want. If there's no group of such people who thinks it's very important to have special permissions, you might ignore them. They have the chance to say no nevertheless. And they're not exactly loosing anything, except metaphysical properties which doesn't really exist anywhere but their own mind.

I'm sure women ought to consider pelvic exams a "necessary evil" since they could suffer a variety of "female problems" such as cramps during "that time of the month" for example though I wonder how an EXAMINATION of the VAGINA could diagnose those sorts of cramps when I know for a fact they happen deep within the UTERUS.

Proud Cosmopolitan wrote: Maybe having the doctor check that area of the body (or the genitals) is a good idea if the child happened to be a YOUNG GIRL since bath soap may sometimes bother young girls in that part of their body,

Soap or detergent sensitivity is common in both boys and girls, as is diaper rash, and it causes them a great deal of discomfort.
Stop with the coy "that part of the body" nonsense. Excretory and reproductive functions are just functions; the genitals are merely body parts, like any other.
Doctors don't think this way: Nobody who thinks this way can become a health care professional.

In some cultures / societies young girls could undergo such horrific practices such as female "circumcision" which really should be known as "female genitalia mutilation"

It is. And so is male circumcision genital mutilation. Little boys can get some terrible complications from this, including disfigurement, impotence and painful urination for life. Infection is common, as the religious practitioners are not always punctilious in aseptic technique, and must be caught early to prevent permanent harm. (Several countries have outlawed circumcision altogether; some require the consent of both parents; I believe in most of the industrial world, it's done in hygienic conditions - not by a rabbi detaching the tiny prepuce from the glans with a dirty thumbnail!)
Additionally, even uncircumcised boys can have penile infections; all babies can have inflammations of the anus from straining at stool, which is an indication of improper diet and needs to be corrected; all children can have food and chemical allergies, chafes from harsh fabric, bedbug and flea bites, yeast or mould infestation, handprints from spanking, and very much worse signs of sexual or disciplinary abuse: stove and cigarette burns, welts and bruises are more prevalent than you would like to know; so are vaginal and anal tears.

I was just saying that though young girls may find it embarrassing r they may also have special reasons for having the doctor check that part of the body.

They don't need to be embarrassed. If they are, it's because some adult has taught them to be ashamed of their bodies, and that adult needs a severe reprimand.
They don't need a special reason, either. Every body part can be sick or injured. We can't decide to care only for the 90% of the patient that no prude has trouble talking about.

Skip wrote:

Proud Cosmopolitan wrote: Maybe having the doctor check that area of the body (or the genitals) is a good idea if the child happened to be a YOUNG GIRL since bath soap may sometimes bother young girls in that part of their body,

Soap or detergent sensitivity is common in both boys and girls, as is diaper rash, and it causes them a great deal of discomfort.
Stop with the coy "that part of the body" nonsense. Excretory and reproductive functions are just functions; the genitals are merely body parts, like any other.
Doctors don't think this way: Nobody who thinks this way can become a health care professional.

In some cultures / societies young girls could undergo such horrific practices such as female "circumcision" which really should be known as "female genitalia mutilation"

It is. And so is male circumcision genital mutilation. Little boys can get some terrible complications from this, including disfigurement, impotence and painful urination for life. Infection is common, as the religious practitioners are not always punctilious in aseptic technique, and must be caught early to prevent permanent harm. (Several countries have outlawed circumcision altogether; some require the consent of both parents; I believe in most of the industrial world, it's done in hygienic conditions - not by a rabbi detaching the tiny prepuce from the glans with a dirty thumbnail!)
Additionally, even uncircumcised boys can have penile infections; all babies can have inflammations of the anus from straining at stool, which is an indication of improper diet and needs to be corrected; all children can have food and chemical allergies, chafes from harsh fabric, bedbug and flea bites, yeast or mould infestation, handprints from spanking, and very much worse signs of sexual or disciplinary abuse: stove and cigarette burns, welts and bruises are more prevalent than you would like to know; so are vaginal and anal tears.

I was just saying that though young girls may find it embarrassing r they may also have special reasons for having the doctor check that part of the body.

They don't need to be embarrassed. If they are, it's because some adult has taught them to be ashamed of their bodies, and that adult needs a severe reprimand.
They don't need a special reason, either. Every body part can be sick or injured. We can't decide to care only for the 90% of the patient that no prude has trouble talking about.

I imagine some girls and women and even boys and men could could be embarrassed or about having those areas of the body checked due to cultural hangups everyone seemed to have about things to do with <gasp> <gasp> SEX , for example how women couldn't go topless in public because society has "sexualised" the FEMALE BREAST.

Sure, but that's nothing to do with medical ethics.
A sensitive practitioner takes cultural hang-ups into account; has a nurse take the history of female patients; screen patient for suitability at student rounds; have their mothers present; drape them with sheets - even refer to a colleague with whom they would feel more comfortable. An insensitive one doesn't notice - and sometimes that indifference is less embarrassing for the patient than consideration. You do the best you can for each one. Their hang-ups are something they have to deal with.

Skip wrote:Sure, but that's nothing to do with medical ethics.
A sensitive practitioner takes cultural hang-ups into account; has a nurse take the history of female patients; screen patient for suitability at student rounds; have their mothers present; drape them with sheets - even refer to a colleague with whom they would feel more comfortable. An insensitive one doesn't notice - and sometimes that indifference is less embarrassing for the patient than consideration. You do the best you can for each one. Their hang-ups are something they have to deal with.

Maybe in a perfect world male and female doctors would share offices and the female dr. could check the woman's "female parts" while the male dr. could check the rest of her. PROBLEM SOLVED.