United States Societal Backlash Against Vulvar Examination of Preteen Girl

Abstract

Background Although a physical examination should include assessment of all major organ systems, inspection of the external genitalia may present unique challenges to patients and doctors. The current nationwide controversy involving a woman pediatrician and 59 sixth-grade schoolgirls from East Stroudsburg, PA. illustrates how a seemingly simple routine medical examination could be regarded by angry opposing viewpoints. Methods The data were collected hy an exhaustive search of newspaper accounts, court records and the computer internet. Results On March 19, 1996, as required by the state public school code, 59 eleven and twelve-year-old girls whose health records had theretofore not been completed by a private physician were examined by a school physician whose job it was to perform “a medical examination and comprehensive appraisal of health.” A genital examination was included. The physician described it as visual inspection and “retract[ion]” of the external genitalia “to see if there were any warts or vaginal lesions.” In the days that followed, parents of some of the girls complained publicly that the genital examination was inappropriate, unindicated, unauthorized, unprecedented, unexpected and emotionally traumatic; characterizing it as “indecency,” “molestation,” and “rape.” The school board and state police found it consistent with health department guidelines. Some private patients, the local hospital and county medical society publicly praised the doctor. Nevertheless, the story of the “Pennsylvania outrage” was carried in newspapers from Oklahoma to Florida, condemned on nationally syndicated talk-radio programs and strongly criticized on at least 7 different internet web sites. The local district attorney was “inundated” with telephone calls of protest from as far away as Minnesota and Wisconsin. The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties legal organization from Charlottesville, VA., became involved. Two lawsuits have been filed in federal court alleging, among other things, that in spite of the explicit objections from the girls, “strip searches and body cavity searches” were performed violating their rights under the 4th amendment to the Unite States Constitution. Conclusion Notwithstanding the doctor's good intentions, there was widespread expression of sentiment in opposition to the belief that a routine genital examination served the best health interests of these girls.