Ethics of medicine
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Ethics of medicine
Many women go to gynocologists to diagnose, treat, and heal certain infirmities that plague the female body. Some of these DR.s are men. Sometimes a woman must be inspected in the female reproductive portion of the body. Is this accetable, since more than likely the Dr. isn't the woma n's spouse? What about mamograms? Some of these health issues are important to detect early to avoid, such as breast cancer. Is this ever appropriate for a christian to show parts of the body that are considered sacred to a member of the medical community? What about birth control, which is also why many women go to the gynocologist in order to get birth control. Is birth control a valid reason to show oneself to another human being who is not a spouse? Men also can go to the dr and get a vasectomy, in which they have to have a procedure where they also show their genitalia (which the whole thing also sounds painful with the shots and the cutting and the like). Is this right for a christian? Christians tend to make a distinction between the medical community and voyeurism. But is it ever right for the christian to do?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I know several godly male doctors who have assured me that they do not have any sexual thoughts toward female patients when giving them examinations. However, this may be simply because most female patients (like most women in general) are not particularly attractive to them and do not appeal to their sexual tastes. There certainly must be occasions when a particularly attractive woman exposing her breasts or genitalia to physical and visual examination could create a situation that even the strongest Christian doctor would find tempting.
In a number of surveys, an alarming percentage of medical doctors have confessed to having had sexual affairs with patients. While this does not mean that all doctors are untrustworthy, it certainly proves that medical training does not transform a normal male into a sexual neuter—a mere diagnostic machine, who is incapable of getting aroused by the sight of a patient.
For this reason, if Christians go to doctors at all, I would strongly recommend that they see a professional of their same sex. Obviously, even this expedient can no longer guarantee that the doctor will be free from lust, since there are many homosexuals in the medical field as well, but when you have need of a physician, you must take some chances, and make your wisest choices.
Speaking of "having need of a physician," it is interesting that Jesus said something about this. He said that people who are sick do have need of a physician, but that healthy people do not (Matt.9:12). The ramifications of this pronouncement upon our modern infatuation with preventive medicine would be an interesting topic to explore.
Going to a doctor to arrange for birth control would seldom be sickness related (though it could be in some cases), and would therefore not generally be one of the times that one needs to see a physician, according to Jesus. Of course, this is because there would be an extremely small percentage of cases in which there is any health issue that calls for the imposition of birth control.
As for your general question, I am of the opinion that it is generally a bad idea for a patient to expose her naked body to the eyes of men other than her husband—even if those men have had a lot of schooling (there are many highly-educated womanizers), have seen a thousand other nude bodies (so have some porno addicts), and are men of sterling character (why tempt them unnecessarily). There are enough physicians of both sexes to allow most patients to find a professional of their own gender.
On the other hand, in a situation where there is only one doctor available for all (perhaps in a tiny, remote community or on the mission field), and where, let us say, a woman's health or survival are seriously at risk, I would be inclined to say that it is better to save the life of the woman than to stand upon principles of prudery. Some may prioritize a situation like this differently than I would, but it would seem to me merely legalistic if, for instance, a woman were permitted to die of a condition that could be routinely remedied through surgery, simply because the only available surgeon was a man.
In a number of surveys, an alarming percentage of medical doctors have confessed to having had sexual affairs with patients. While this does not mean that all doctors are untrustworthy, it certainly proves that medical training does not transform a normal male into a sexual neuter—a mere diagnostic machine, who is incapable of getting aroused by the sight of a patient.
For this reason, if Christians go to doctors at all, I would strongly recommend that they see a professional of their same sex. Obviously, even this expedient can no longer guarantee that the doctor will be free from lust, since there are many homosexuals in the medical field as well, but when you have need of a physician, you must take some chances, and make your wisest choices.
Speaking of "having need of a physician," it is interesting that Jesus said something about this. He said that people who are sick do have need of a physician, but that healthy people do not (Matt.9:12). The ramifications of this pronouncement upon our modern infatuation with preventive medicine would be an interesting topic to explore.
Going to a doctor to arrange for birth control would seldom be sickness related (though it could be in some cases), and would therefore not generally be one of the times that one needs to see a physician, according to Jesus. Of course, this is because there would be an extremely small percentage of cases in which there is any health issue that calls for the imposition of birth control.
As for your general question, I am of the opinion that it is generally a bad idea for a patient to expose her naked body to the eyes of men other than her husband—even if those men have had a lot of schooling (there are many highly-educated womanizers), have seen a thousand other nude bodies (so have some porno addicts), and are men of sterling character (why tempt them unnecessarily). There are enough physicians of both sexes to allow most patients to find a professional of their own gender.
On the other hand, in a situation where there is only one doctor available for all (perhaps in a tiny, remote community or on the mission field), and where, let us say, a woman's health or survival are seriously at risk, I would be inclined to say that it is better to save the life of the woman than to stand upon principles of prudery. Some may prioritize a situation like this differently than I would, but it would seem to me merely legalistic if, for instance, a woman were permitted to die of a condition that could be routinely remedied through surgery, simply because the only available surgeon was a man.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve