معاینه بکارت با درخواست شخصی: دیدگاهها و رویکردها

نوع مقاله: مروری

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه مامایی و سلامت باروری، دانشکده علوم پزشکی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد ورامین - پیشوا، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشیار گروه حقوق پزشکی، مرکز تحقیقات اخلاق و حقوق پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

10.22038/ijogi.2020.14956

چکیده

مقدمه: هرچند بکارت به‌عنوان یک ارزش غیرقابل انکار از سوی اغلب جوامع پذیرفته شده است، با این وجود معاینه بکارت با درخواست شخصی مورد تردید است، لذا مطالعه مروری حاضر با هدف بررسی رویکردها و دیدگاه­ها در ارتباط با این معاینه انجام شد.
روش‌کار: در این مطالعه مروری، پایگاه‌های اطلاعاتیSID ، Iranmedx، Magiran، ProQuest، Ovide، Sience Direct، EBSCO، MD Consult، Cochran Library، Scirus، Google Scholar و سایت‌های WHO و UNFPA با استفاده از کلمات کلیدی معاینه بکارت، درخواست شخصی، جنبه‌های اخلاقی،Virginity testing، Self-request و aspect Ethical از سال 2018-1970 مورد جستجو قرار گرفتند. زبان جستجوی مقالات انگلیسی و فارسی بود.
یافته­ها: معاینه بکارت با درخواست شخصی عموماً به‌دلیل فشارهای اجتماعی و فرهنگی انجام می­گردد و به‌دنبال پیامدهای فردی، اجتماعی و سیاسی، مورد انتقاد بسیاری از مجامع حقوق بشری است. سازمان جهانی بهداشت از آن به‌عنوان نماد خشونت علیه زنان یاد کرده است. در ایران ضمن حرام بودن و جایز نبودن معاینه، انجام این معاینه با برخی بندهای منشور حقوق بیمار و ارائه خدمات مبتنی بر احترام مغایرت دارد. علی‌رغم موارد یاد شده، معاینه بکارت با درخواست شخصی انجام می­گردد.
نتیجهگیری: معاینه بکارت بیش از اینکه یک معاینه پزشکی باشد، یک محصول اجتماعی است و همسو با سیاست­های سازمان جهانی بهداشت، نه تنها با اخلاق حرفه‌ای، منشور حقوق بیمار ایران و قانون اساسی کشور تناقض دارد، بلکه از نظر مراجع شیعه نیز قابل‌پذیرش نیست. با این وجود رویکرد غالب در قبال آن، سیاست چشم‌پوشی است. با توجه به یافته­های مطالعه حاضر اتخاذ رویکرد مناسب در قبال معاینه بکارت، مستلزم اجماع بین سازمان­های متولی و متخصصین حوزه­های پزشکی، قضایی، حقوقی، حوزوی و اجتماعی است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Self-Request virginity testing: Attitudes and Approaches

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mehri Robatjazi 1
  • Mahmoud Abbasi 2
1 Assistant professor, Department of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, Faculty o Medical Sciences, Varamin-Pishva Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate professor, Department of Medical Law, Medical Ethics and Law Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Although virginity has been accepted as an undeniable value in most societies, however, self-request virginity testing is skeptical, so this review study was performed with aim to investigate the attitudes, approaches and consequences towards this test.
Methods: In this review study, databases of SID, Iranmedex, Magiran , ProQuest, Pubmed, Ovide, ScienceDirect, EBSCO, MD Consult, Cochrane library, Scirus, Google scholar and WHO,UNFPA websites were searched by using the keywords of virginity testing, Self request, Ethical aspect since 1970-2018. The language for search was English and Persian.
Results: Self-request virginity testing is generally done due to social and cultural pressures and has been criticized by many human rights associations following personal, social, and political consequence. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recognized it as violence against women. In Iran, virginity test is religiously prohibited (Haram), and self-request virginity testing is in contrary with providing services with respect and few clauses of Iranian patient’s right charter. Self-request virginity testing is performed despite of all these mentioned.
Conclusion: Virginity testingis more social outcome than being a medical examination, and along with the policies of WHO, not only virginity test is contrary with professional behaviors, Iran patients’ rights charter, and Iranian constitute, but also it is prohibited according to Shiaat religious leaders. However, the dominant approach is a sort of negligence policy in this regard. According to the findings of this study, proper approach to virginity testing needs cooperation among responsible organizations and specialist in medical, judicial, law, religious, and social affairs.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Approach
  • Attitude
  • Consequence
  • Sexual abstinence
  • Virginity testing
  1. Landor AM, Simons LG. Why Virginity Pledges Succeed or Fail: The Moderating Effect of Religious Commitment Versus Religious Participation. J Child Fam Stud 2014; 26(3):1102-1113.
  2. Robatjazi M. Virginity 21th century strategy to improve reproductive health. Reproductive and Infertility Congress, Tehran; 2015. (Persian).
  3. Rafudeen A, Makasi Lp. Debating virginity-testing cultural practices in South Africa: a Taylorian reflection. J Study Relig 2016; 29(2):118-133.
  4. Robatjazi M, Simbar M, Nahidi F, Gharehdaghi J, Emamhadi M, Vedadhir AA, et al. Virginity Testing Beyond a Medical Examination. Glob J Health Sci 2015; 8(7):152-64.
  5. UN General Assembly. Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Retrieved 1979; 20:2006.
  6. Hegazy AA, Al-Rukban MO. Hymen: facts and conceptions. The Health 2012; 3(4):109-115.
  7. Juth N, Lynöe N. Zero tolerance against patriarchal norms? A cross-sectional study of Swedish physicians' attitudes towards young females requesting virginity certificates or hymen restoration. J Med Ethics 2015; 41(3):215-9.
  8. Christianson M, Eriksson C. A girl thing: perceptions concerning the word "hymen" among young Swedish women and men. J Midwifery Women’s Health 2011; 56(2):167-72.
  9. Cook RJ, Dickens BM. Hymen reconstruction: ethical and legal issues. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2009; 107(3):266-9.
  10. Burge A, Virgin E. "I will cut myself and smear blood on the sheet": Testing Virginity in Medieval and Modern Orientalist Romance. Edinburgh Research Explorer 2016; 14(44):17-44.
  11. Robatjazi M, Simbar M, Nahidi F, Gharedaghi J, Vedadhir A, Emamhadi MA, et al. Survey the Concepts of Virginity & its Pathology. Iran J Forensic Med 2017; 23(1):25-36.
  12. Sprecher S, Treger S, Sakaluk JK. Premarital sexual standard and Sociosexuality: Gender, Ethnicity, and Cohort Differences. Arch Sex Behav 2013; 42(8):1395-405.
  13. Independent Forensic Expert Group. Statement on virginity testing. J Forensic Leg Med 2015; 33:121-4.
  14. Eşsizoğlu A, Yasan A, Yildirim EA, Gurgen F, Ozkan M. Double standard for traditional value of virginity and premarital sexuality in Turkey: a university student’s case. Women Health 2011; 51(2):136-50.
  15. Robatjazi M. Religious view especially Islam towards virginity and virginity testing. Conference of Healthy Family Population and Sustainable Development, Tehran; 2015. (Persian).
  16. Horan PF, Phillips J, Hagan NE. What is abstinence? The meaning of abstinence for college students. Journal of HIV/AIDS Prevention & Education for Adolescents & Children 2009; 2:51-66.
  17.  Robatjazi M, Simbar M, Nahidi F, Gharehdaghi J, Emamhadi M, Vedadhir A, et al. Virginity and Virginity Testing: Then and Now. International Journal of Medical Toxicology and Forensic Medicine 2016; 6(1):36-43.
  18. World Health Organization. Eliminating virginity testing: an interagency statement. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.
  19. Robatjazi M, Gharehdaghi J, Jafari A. Virginity and virginity testing medical, Jurisprudential, legal perspective. Tehran: Legal Medicine Research Center; 2017. (Persian).
  20. Robatjazi M, Simbar M, Nahidi F, Gharedagh J, Emamhadi MA, Vedadhir A, et al. Using of the Colposcop in Hymen Examination. Iran J Forensic Med 2016; 22(1): 23-30.
  21. Toufighi H, Mosavipour F, Nematollahi Z. Determination of incidence and characteristic of sexual offences in women referred to Tehran legal medicine organization. Sci J Forensic Med 2008; 7(25):4-10. (Persian).
  22. Sommers MS, Fisher BS, Karjane HM. Using Colposcopy in the Rape Exam: Health Care, Forensic, and Criminal Justice Issues. J Forensic Nurs 2005; 1(1):28-34.
  23. Robatjazi M. The use of technology on virginity testing. Iranian International Conference on Women's Health, Shiraz, Iran; 2015. (Persian).
  24. Olson RM, García-Moreno C. Virginity testing: a systematic review. Reprod Health 2017;14(1):61.  
  25. Wynn LL, Hassanein S. Hymenoplasty, Virginity Testing, and the Simulacrum of Female Respectability. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2017; 42(4): 893-917.
  26. Juth N, Tännsjö T, Hansson SO, Lynöe N. Honor-related threats and human rights: a qualitative study of Swedish healthcare providers' attitudes towards young women requesting a virginity certificate or hymen reconstruction. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2013; 18(6):451-9.
  27. Behrens KG. Why physicians ought not to perform virginity tests. J Med Ethics 2015; 41(8):691-5.
  28. Pelin SS. The question of virginity testing in Turkey. Bioethics 1999; 13(3-4):256-61.
  29. Gürsoy E, Vural G. Nurses' and midwives' views on approaches to hymen examination. Nurs Ethics 2003; 10(5):485-96.
  30. Ebenezer D. The human rights implications of virginity testing in South Africa. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 2016; 16(4):228-246.
  31. Thornberry E. Virginity Testing, History, and the Nostalgia for Custom in Contemporary South Africa. African Studies Review 2015; 58(3):129-148.
  32. Zeyneloğlu S, Kısa S.Yılmaz D. Turkish nursing students' knowledge and perceptions regarding virginity. Nurse Educ Today 2013; 33(2):110-5.
  33. Robatjazi M, Simbar M, Nahidi F, Gharehdaghi J, Emamhadi M, Vedadhir A, et al. Virginity and virginity testing: then and now. Int J Toxicol Forensic Med 2016; 6:36-43.
  34.  Shalhoub-Kevorkian N. Imposition of virginity testing: a life-saver or a license to kill?. Soc Sci Med 2005; 60(6):1187-96.
  35. Moaddab A, McCullough LB, Chervenak FA, Dildy GA, Shamshirsaz AA. Virginity testing in professional obstetric and gynecological ethics. Lancet 2016; 388(10039):98-100.
  36. Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Tehran: Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran; 1989.
  37. Robatjazi M. Islam and cultural reasons for virginity testing. Iranian International Conference on Women's Health, Shiraz, Iran; 2015.
  38. Gerami MA. Estafeta. Tehran: Islamic Science Research Center; 2018. (Persian).
  39. Saanei Y. Estafeta. Qom: Tebyan Cultural Institute; 2018. (Persian).
  40. Modarresi M. Estafeta. Tehran: Islamic Science Research Center; 2018. (Persian).
  41. Rezapore S. The Evaluation of medical rights in Iran. Tehran: Haq Gostar Legal Database. 2011. (Persian).
  42. Rodley N. Report of the Special Rapporteur, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/32. New York: UN. Commission on Human Rights; 2000.