Are Male Gynecologists Biblical?

[PrivateWoman]

I wanted to encourage everyone here to read an article, Are Male Gynecologists Biblical? This article reveals the truth that it was medical school that decided that male gynecologists were okay in the 1800s. Medical schools do a lot of things that are against God's will. Make sure you read the paragraph that explains how the abortion issue is similar to opposite sex intimate medical care.

I would love to hear what people here think.

 

[Gold Dragon]

In Leviticus 18, "uncover the nakedness" and "lie with" and in 1 Cor 7 "touch" are usually interpreted as a euphemisms for sexual intercourse. If you are reading those verses without considering the literary device of euphemisms, then bathing your naked children is a sin (verse 6) and two men lying on the ground is a sin (verse 22).

I am a general practitioner and emergency doctor and I would say if a doctor did not see or properly exam a woman (with her informed and uncoerced consent) because of this poor interpretation of scripture they would be medically negligent and not giving the proper care to their patient and opening themselves to litigation. At the same time, I always make it a point to have a chaperone (usually female) when performing sensitive examinations to protect the patient as well as for my protection. False accusations of sexual assault against doctors are not rare.

Men need to be responsible for their lustful thoughts no matter how much clothing someone is wearing in front of them. It is not a woman's responsibility to control the lustful thoughts of men. Their help in this area is appreciated but not their responsibility.

If a patient only wants to see female doctors or gynaecologists for whatever reason, even religious that is their right but not always an option because of availability. I hope the patient, their families or their doctors are not exposing her to unnecessary harms just to hold to a severe view of modesty. This currently occurs in many countries and cultures and has dire health implications for women.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...or_women_Understanding_cultural_sensitivities

 

[Judith]

The writer of the article sounds more like a Muslim than a Christian. The fact that he/she can twist the intent of scripture to fit her/his own bent should send a strong message to anyone reading the article. This article takes the mindset of the blind and bleeding Pharisee to a whole new level. I would tell women if you have a problem seeing a male doctor then see a female doctor but do not try and justify your personal desire by twisting scripture or to make you feel pious.

 

[Salty]

If you remember - several years ago - the now banned - "pastor" Steve Anderson started threads here on BB about the same subject? Here is his thoughts
FTR - I do Not agree with Anderson - just sharing the info.

 

[David Kent]

Looking at a Baptist church book of births in the 19th century. The births are recorded with the name of the midwife and nurse in attendance, In many cases the midwife was male, and when their is a female midwife, their was usually a male nurse, often the midwife in other births.

I found this rather strange amongst Strict Baptists.

 

[PrivateWoman]

In Leviticus 18, "uncover the nakedness" and "lie with" and in 1 Cor 7 "touch" are usually interpreted as a euphemisms for sexual intercourse. If you are reading those verses without considering the literary device of euphemisms, then bathing your naked children is a sin (verse 6) and two men lying on the ground is a sin (verse 22).

I am a general practitioner and emergency doctor and I would say if a doctor did not see or properly exam a woman (with her informed and uncoerced consent) because of this poor interpretation of scripture they would be medically negligent and not giving the proper care to their patient and opening themselves to litigation. At the same time, I always make it a point to have a chaperone (usually female) when performing sensitive examinations to protect the patient as well as for my protection. False accusations of sexual assault against doctors are not rare.

Men need to be responsible for their lustful thoughts no matter how much clothing someone is wearing in front of them. It is not a woman's responsibility to control the lustful thoughts of men. Their help in this area is appreciated but not their responsibility.

If a patient only wants to see female doctors or gynaecologists for whatever reason, even religious that is their right but not always an option because of availability. I hope the patient, their families or their doctors are not exposing her to unnecessary harms just to hold to a severe view of modesty. This currently occurs in many countries and cultures and has dire health implications for women.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...or_women_Understanding_cultural_sensitivities

Bathing small children is not the same thing as seeing a sexually mature person of the opposite sex naked. My grandfather changed my sister's diapers when she was a baby, but did not change the diapers of his mother-in-law who had Alzheimer's Disease because she was a woman.

I disagree with you. I've heard of some male family practice doctors who refuse to do intimate procedures on female patients due to convictions and how they refer their female patients to a female doctor or a NP for those things. That is easy in a practice with medical professionals of both genders. The truth is most pelvic exams are useless anyway. See this article that addresses pelvic exams at Pelvic exams for healthy women have no proven benefit, U.S. panel says.

Chaperones are useless for protecting the patient. Check out this great article about how chaperones do not really protect patients at Do Chaperones Really Protect Patients?. A chaperone does not change the fact that it is wrong for a male doctor to examine private parts of a woman who is not his wife. How about parents chaperoning their teenage daughter and their boyfriend having sex? Does it make it less sinful?

I disagree with you about lustful thoughts. Women should strive to dress modestly. I recommend you consider reading the book, Not Even a Hint by Joshua Harris that talks about how it is wrong for men to lust.

 

[PrivateWoman]

Looking at a Baptist church book of births in the 19th century. The births are recorded with the name of the midwife and nurse in attendance, In many cases the midwife was male, and when their is a female midwife, their was usually a male nurse, often the midwife in other births.

I found this rather strange amongst Strict Baptists.

It is true that there were some male midwives. But there were no male midwives in the bible though.

You can see an useful article about Man-Midwifery in the 18th century at The Man-Midwife in the 18th Century. I found the below paragraph very interesting. I feel that man midwifery played a role in bringing male doctors to examine women's private parts.

The perception of the man-midwife inveigling his way into the domestic sphere was paramount in the objections of many male protesters, as they saw man-midwifery as an attack on husbands’ masculinity. They denounced men-midwives’ duties as ‘infringing on the husband’, for the man-midwife touched women intimately. The same objector implored ‘duchesses and countesses etc.’ to ‘show some sense of modesty’ as women of inferior birth were ‘being debauched’ by their bad examples. Deflecting claims of impropriety, some men-midwives worked blind, practising under bed sheets, tied bib-like around their necks, to obscure women’s genitalia and preserve their modesty. However, it could be argued that this practice led to serious errors in the lying-in chamber.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Bathing small children is not the same thing as seeing a sexually mature person of the opposite sex naked.

I agree it is not the same thing. But if you interpret Leviticus 18 without taking into account euphemisms, verse 6 says a man should not uncover the nakedness of any kin. However if you understand how to read literary devices like euphemisms, it does not pose a problem.

I disagree with you. I've heard of some male family practice doctors who refuse to do intimate procedures on female patients due to convictions and how they refer their female patients to a female doctor or a NP for those things. That is easy in a practice with medical professionals of both genders.

If the doctor has a NP that is trained in pelvic exams or a colleague who can do this in a reasonable timeframe, it is not medical negligence. Otherwise it would be.

The truth is most pelvic exams are useless anyway. See this article that addresses pelvic exams at Pelvic exams for healthy women have no proven benefit, U.S. panel says.

I agree that pelvic exams of healthy asymptomatic women has no benefit and is potentially harmful. But not examining a known symptomatic woman is medical negligence and can lead to significant misdiagnoses and harms to the woman.

Chaperones are useless for protecting the patient. Check out this great article about how chaperones do not really protect patients at Do Chaperones Really Protect Patients?. A chaperone does not change the fact that it is wrong for a male doctor to examine private parts of a woman who is not his wife. How about parents chaperoning their teenage daughter and their boyfriend having sex? Does it make it less sinful?

Having the correct interpretation of Leviticus 18 makes it not sinful.

I disagree with you about lustful thoughts. Women should strive to dress modestly. I recommend you consider reading the book, Not Even a Hint by Joshua Harris that talks about how it is wrong for men to lust.

Sure women dress modestly. But no matter how modest a woman dresses, a man can have lustful thoughts about her. That is not her responsibility but his.

 

[Salty]

NO one forces a woman to be examined by a male. If you dont want to - that is your decision.
But dont make others feel guilty about their decision.

Private Woman - quick question - if you were in the emergency room with only a male doctor and male nurse -
would you demand a female - especially if every second counted?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Having the correct interpretation of Leviticus 18 makes it not sinful.

To be clear, this statement refers to the examination illustration and not the teenage sex illustration.

 

[Salty]

... How about parents chaperoning their teenage daughter and their boyfriend having sex? Does it make it less sinful? ...

PW - this is simply a ridiculous analogy!!!

 

[BlueMoon]

I think this topic is ridiculous. Gold Dragon is correct. That is not what Scripture is saying. However, based on Scripture, if PrivateWoman was PrivateMan, and a gynecologist, it would be sinful for her/him to examine females, with her current belief.

 

[Yeshua1]

Bathing small children is not the same thing as seeing a sexually mature person of the opposite sex naked. My grandfather changed my sister's diapers when she was a baby, but did not change the diapers of his mother-in-law who had Alzheimer's Disease because she was a woman.

I disagree with you. I've heard of some male family practice doctors who refuse to do intimate procedures on female patients due to convictions and how they refer their female patients to a female doctor or a NP for those things. That is easy in a practice with medical professionals of both genders. The truth is most pelvic exams are useless anyway. See this article that addresses pelvic exams at Pelvic exams for healthy women have no proven benefit, U.S. panel says.

Chaperones are useless for protecting the patient. Check out this great article about how chaperones do not really protect patients at Do Chaperones Really Protect Patients?. A chaperone does not change the fact that it is wrong for a male doctor to examine private parts of a woman who is not his wife. How about parents chaperoning their teenage daughter and their boyfriend having sex? Does it make it less sinful?

I disagree with you about lustful thoughts. Women should strive to dress modestly. I recommend you consider reading the book, Not Even a Hint by Joshua Harris that talks about how it is wrong for men to lust.

I think that make doctors can do their job in a detached medical way, and not be leering or doing bad things in the room with patient.
So should only female Doctors deliver babie also then?

 

[Eliyahu]

Interesting Subject.

Human beings have always developed the ways to deviate from the God's Will or to ignore His Guidance about the holiness.

Purely speaking, Are Male Gynecologists Biblical? is correct.

In reality it can be hard to comply with now.

My mother delivered me at home with my father's assistance. Simple.

Thanks to PrivateWoman.

Eliyahu

 

[Reynolds]

I wanted to encourage everyone here to read an article, Are Male Gynecologists Biblical? This article reveals the truth that it was medical school that decided that male gynecologists were okay in the 1800s. Medical schools do a lot of things that are against God's will. Make sure you read the paragraph that explains how the abortion issue is similar to opposite sex intimate medical care.

I would love to hear what people here think.

I don't know, but going to a good looking female urologist can be embarrassing.

 

[Salty]

My urologist is an older female

 

[Alcott]

Are any gynecologists biblical?