States Move to Ban Pelvic Exams on Unconscious Women.

Despite long-standing ethical concerns, the practice has persisted.

A Pot Ignored Boils On: Sustained Calls for Explicit Consent of Intimate Medical Exams.

Unconsented intimate exams (UIEs) on men and women are known to occur for training purposes and diagnostic reasons, mostly during gynecological surgeries but also during prostate examinations and abdominal surgeries. UIEs most often occur on anesthetized patients but have also been reported on conscious patients. Over the last 30 years, several parties-both within and external to medicine-have increasingly voiced opposition to these exams. Arguments from medical associations, legal scholars, ethicists, nurses, and some physicians have not compelled meaningful institutional change. Opposition is escalating in the form of legislative bans and whistleblower reports. Aspiring to professional and scientific detachment, institutional consent policies make no distinction between intimate exams and exams on any other body part, but patients do not think of their intimate regions in a detached or neutral way and believe intimate exams call for special protections. UIEs are found to contribute to moral erosion and moral distress of medical students and compromise the sacred trust between the medical community and the general public. This paper refutes the main arguments in favor of the status quo, identifies a series of harms related to continuing the current practice, and proposes an explicit consent policy for intimate exams along with specific changes to medical school curriculum and institutional culture. Because patients are the rights-holders of their bodies, consent practices should reflect and uphold patient values which call for explicit consent for intimate exams.

Educational pelvic exams on anesthetized women: Why consent matters.

It is argued here that the practice of medical students performing pelvic exams on women who are under anesthetic and have not consented is immoral and indefensible. This argument begins by laying out the ethical justification for the practice of informed consent, which can be found in autonomy and basic rights. Foregoing the process of consent within medicine can result in violations of both autonomy and basic rights, as well as trust, forming the basis of the wrong of unauthorized pelvic examinations. Several objections to this argument are considered, all of which stem from the idea that this practice constitutes an exception to the general requirement of informed consent. These objections suggest that nonconsensual pelvic examinations on women under anesthetic are ethically acceptable on utilitarian grounds, in that they offer benefits either to the patient or to society, or on the grounds of triviality, in that consent is already presumed, or the practice is insignificant. Each of these objections is rejected and the practice is deemed indefensible.

Statement on virginity testing.

Virginity testing (virginity examination) is a gynecological examination that is intended to correlate the status and appearance of the hymen with previous sexual contact to determine whether a female has had or is habituated to sexual intercourse. Virginity examinations are practiced in many countries, often forcibly, including in detention places; on women who allege rape or are accused of prostitution; and as part of public or social policies to control sexuality. The Independent Forensic Expert Group (IFEG) - thirty-five preeminent independent forensic experts from eighteen countries specialized in evaluating and documenting the physical and psychological effects of torture and ill-treatment - released a statement on the practice in December 2014. In its statement, the IFEG outlines the physical and psychological effects of forcibly conducting virginity examinations on females based on its collective experience. The Group assesses whether, based on the effects, forcibly conducted virginity examinations constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or torture. Finally, the IFEG addresses the medical interpretation, relevance, and ethical implications of such examinations. The IFEG concludes that virginity examinations are medically unreliable and have no clinical or scientific value. These examinations are inherently discriminatory and, in almost all instances, when conducted forcibly, result in significant physical and mental pain and suffering, thereby constituting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or torture. When virginity examinations are forcibly conducted and involve vaginal penetration, the examination should be considered as sexual assault and rape. Involvement of health professionals in these examinations violates the basic standards and ethics of the professions.

Virginity Testing Beyond a Medical Examination.

Apart from religious values, virginity is important in different communities because of its prominent role in reducing sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancies. Even though virginity testing has been proclaimed an example of violence against women by the World Health Organization, it is still conducted in many countries, including Iran. 16 in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants aged 32 to 60 years to elucidate the perceptions and experiences of Iranian examiners of virginity testing.The perception and experience of examiners were reflected in five main themes. The result of this study indicated that virginity testing is more than a medical examination, considering the cultural factors involved and its overt and covert consequences. In Iran, testing is performed for both formal and informal reasons, and examiners view such testing with ambiguity about the accuracy and certainty of the diagnosis and uncertainty about ethics and reproductive rights. Examiners are affected by the overt and covert consequences of virginity testing, beliefs and cultural values underlying virginity testing, and informal and formal reasons for virginity testing.

Framing patient consent for student involvement in pelvic examination: a dual model of autonomy.

Patient consent has been formulated in terms of radical individualism rather than shared benefits. Medical education relies on the provision of patient consent to provide medical students with the training and experience to become competent doctors. Pelvic examination represents an extreme case in which patients may legitimately seek to avoid contact with inexperienced medical students particularly where these are male. However, using this extreme case, this paper will examine practices of framing and obtaining consent as perceived by medical students. This paper reports findings of an exploratory qualitative study of medical students and junior doctors. Participants described a number of barriers to obtaining informed consent. These related to misunderstandings concerning student roles and experiences and insufficient information on the nature of the examination. Participants reported perceptions of the negative framing of decisions on consent by nursing staff where the student was male. Potentially coercive practices of framing of the decision by senior doctors were also reported. Participants outlined strategies they adopted to circumvent patients' reasons for refusal. Practices of framing the information used by students, nurses and senior doctors to enable patients to decide about consent are discussed in the context of good ethical practice. In the absence of a clear ethical model, coercion appears likely. We argue for an expanded model of autonomy in which the potential tension between respecting patients' autonomy and ensuring the societal benefit of well-trained doctors is recognised. Practical recommendations are made concerning information provision and clear delineations of student and patient roles and expectations.

Professionalism and the intimate examination - are chaperones the answer?

Complaints of sexual impropriety against healthcare practitioners are escalating. Professionalism in the practitioner-patient relationship and the role-based trust in health care do not allow crossing of sexual boundaries. Communication with patients is key to prevent erroneous allegations of sexual misconduct. The intimate examination is difficult to define. A chaperone present during an intimate examination protects the patient and practitioner and should be considered a risk reduction strategy in practice.