OK, I’m a doctor, but not a medical doctor. I have and do wear a white coat when the occasion (very rarely now) calls for it, but my primary function is as an educator, and that includes discussion of case studies including questions of, and the application of, medical ethics. There are a number of spurious assumptions floating through this thread, and, while I see the OP’s link to the specific case (The rapper’s “fatherly devotion”, I guess [another example of the crying need for sarcasm font]) is a very special circumstance indeed, the question, if posed in a larger frame of reference, is a far more complex issue and does not allow for simplistic reduction to “sick fuck” and/or attacks on womanhood or (insert your pet position here) moral reasoning. That’s why medical ethics is an applied skill- no possible list, rules, or guidelines could possibly cover every conceivable scenario, and frankly, given my familiarity with the extent to which politics and personalities enter into the process, whatever the “experts” from national or international professional group X finally reach consensus on really don’t mean a whole hell of a lot to me.
First, the results of such an exam are not totally meaningless, although that position is usually, but not always- correct. The absence of the hymen, in and of itself, means nothing, as many have declared. Sexual intercourse is not the only way, by any means, that a woman might loose her hymen. But the presence of the hymen is rather strong evidence the woman in question has not had vaginal sexual intercourse. While I heartily agree that such activity in an adult woman (including, and especially, when said woman is functioning in the social role of “the bride”) is nobody’s damn business, (including groom and either family) as a father, I can see some scenarios where interest about a negative result might exist without negative moral judgement (of the parents or the children) of either gender. Add the reality that abuse of a child/tween (of either gender) by a male unsub involving penetration shall leave evidence for some time, then there reasons such an examination might be meaningful.
If I (in the role of parent) have some reason to have a sneaking suspicion that someone close to the child (its usually a family member, but other classifications are also out there) might have sexually abused my child, and my child is young enough that what might have happened doesn’t really register with them, I’m in a serious moral quandary.
If I immediately seek out the authorities, I run the real risk of a) falsely accusing a member of my (or my partner’s) bloodline of inexcusably heinous behavior, and far more importantly, b) negatively shaping my child’s attitude towards sexual relationships for their entire life. All I have are maybes, could bes, behaviors or statements on the part of my child or the unsub that have a distinctly odd “taint” to them, and just good old parental instinct. Nothing substantial (because if there were, the SWAT team would be on their way to attempt to pry the .30/.30 out of my hands), not enough (rationally) to take action, but disquieting enough to provoke the single greatest fear a parent can carry- reacting to the suspicion of some possible transgression of this nature by minimizing one’s admittedly instinctual and seemingly paranoid suspicions, only to eventually learn, without question, that the “the” was incontestably real, enormously damaging, and an actually more guilt inducing experience as a consequence of parental non-response to this thing going on that the (now) older child must conclude their protectors knew about, or at the very least had suspicions about, and did nothing- thus either reaffirming the victim’s induced sense of low self-esteem or propagating a false image of the crime in which the perpetrator’s “needs” were perceived by the parent(s) to be of far greater importance than the child’s sense of bodily integrity/self-determination/expectation of parental devotion/protective love.
If I (now in the role of health care provider) am approached by a parent in the above scenario, and they, carefully and rationally, explain how knowing their quite young (to keep the case scenario somewhat manageable) son or daughter has been passively sexually active in the relatively recent past, or absolutely could NOT have been involved in receptive sexual penetration would represent the knowledge they need to tip the scales sufficiently that they could justify and proceed to take/not take action (in the face of the possibly unjust destruction of a loved one’s public reputation and mutilating that relationship for life, while excising one’s child’s trust of others and forever more warping the child’s attitudes towards sexuality, and additional costs that exceed what I could write here in a day, or missing what will eventually be deemed to have been obvious to anyone BUT the parents…).
NOW we have the kind of real world moral dilemma that requires the care giver to engage in the personal application of medical ethical reasoning. There’s no real black or white here. The practitioner (one hopes) knows the parent(s) adequately well enough to rule out psychological distortions; they also know that they could work in the needed physical assessment during the exam (in an admittedly dishonest bit of manipulating) to make that component of the exam seem somewhat routine, minimizing the immediate emotional impact on the patient, and can be reasonably sure the outcome of the clinical assessment will lead to serious actions only if the evidence is strong enough for the parent(s) to make a very hard call, facing an enormously difficult position, given the possibility (and only the possibility) that the “special” exam’s outcome could be that precious knowledge might be enormously enhanced. No list from any group of “experts” can take into account the subtle, subjective factors in this kind of real-world scenario. In fact, using such guidelines would amount to the practitioner abandoning her own autonomy and hiding behind a justification generated by some high-powered reputations that just.can’t.be.there.
SO-
You have to make the call. Saying “no” to the parent may constitute facilitating the continuation of truly malignant behavior that shall distort the child’s entire life, undoubtedly leading to severe PTSD, likely to substance abuse disorder, and possibly to the abuse of others down the line. Saying “yes” may result in the child eventually loosing trust in the medical profession, their parents, and their entry into a long and cruelly judgmental judicial process, in which their anonymity may be violated as thoughtlessly and thoroughly as their bodies were.
Make the call. Right now, knowing the outcome, whichever way you go, shall be your responsibility, and your responsibility alone. Good. Now justify it- not just to yourself, but to the entire world. No other person’s judgement will, nor should, supercede your own. You are the only practitioner close enough to the people involved to truly weigh all the factors.
This is were you earn the respect, status, and reimbursement due your profession. At least, when it is practiced so as to include personal integrity as one of your qualifications for the job. In matters of this delicacy, any guidelines that purport to provide absolute answers are a farce- a disservice to any profession and even more to the people whom they serve. If these truths make you uncomfortable, or if they make any young person you are privileged enough to be someone they look to for mentorship, then I highly recommend that you, or your mentee NOT pursue a white coat profession. Ugly truths, and making very difficult calls, well, they just come with the territory