Gulin AKÇAY
(Ankara Şehir Hastanesi, Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Kliniği, Ankara, Türkiye)
Gökhan KILIÇ
(Ankara Şehir Hastanesi, Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Kliniği, Ankara, Türkiye)
Elçin İŞLEK SEÇEN
(Ankara Şehir Hastanesi, Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Kliniği, Ankara, Türkiye)
İbrahim Buğra BAHADIR
(Ankara Şehir Hastanesi, Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Kliniği, Ankara, Türkiye)
EMRE ERDEM TAŞ
(Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)
HÜSEYİN LEVENT KESKİN
(Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Türkiye Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)
Ayşe filiz YAVUZ
(Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)
Yıl: 2021Cilt: 18Sayı: 2ISSN: 2149-9322 / 2149-9330Sayfa Aralığı: 131 - 138İngilizce

0 0
Clinical and ethical perspectives of medical professionals towards female genital cosmetic procedures
Objective: To evaluate the attitudes of medical students and professionals towards female genital cosmetic procedures (FGCPs) in terms of medical justification, applicability in practical life, ethical concerns, patient autonomy, and the clinical/social/psychological benefits-harms of these procedures. Materials and Methods: A semi-structured questionnaire providing information about the attitudes of medical students and specialists (n=623) towards FGCPs including G-spot amplification, clitoral hood reduction, vaginoplasty, labia majora augmentation/reduction, labia minora augmentation/reduction, hymenoplasty, laser procedures, vulvar/perianal bleaching, and liposculpture, was completed by a target population and evaluated statistically. Results: Participants stated that FGCPs could be performed only upon patient request and there could rarely be a medical indication for their performance (p<0.05). Nearly half (44.5%) of the participants regarded hymenoplasty as controversial in terms of ethical issues, and 44.6% of participants do so for G-spot amplification. Over half (54.5%) of the participants agreed on the positive effect of FGCPs on improving the quality of life, 55.4% on improving self-esteem, and 54.1% on improving sexual functions of women. About half (49.3%) of respondents thought that the advertising and encouragement of FGCPs should be forbidden and 47% were indecisive about whether FGCPs constituted genital mutilation. Conclusion: The majority of the participants declared that FGCPs could be performed only upon patient request and improve self-esteem, quality of life, and sexual functions. The most controversial procedures in terms of ethics were hymenoplasty and G-spot amplification. Detailed guidelines for the protection of both patients and physicians are needed because the recommendations on FGCPs are insufficient to define the boundaries of medical justification, genital mutilation, advertising, and ethical concerns
DergiAraştırma MakalesiErişime Açık
  • 1. Schick VR, Rima BN, Calabrese SK. Evulvalution: the portrayal of women’s external genitalia and physique across time and the current Barbie doll ideas. J Sex Res 2011;48:74-81.
  • 2. Ellibeş Kaya A, Doğan O, Yassa M, Başbuğ A, Özcan C, Çalışkan E. Do external female genital measurements affect genital perception and sexual function and orgasm? Turk J Obstet Gynecol 2020;17:175-81.
  • 3. Nejadsarvari N, Ebrahimi A, Ebrahimi A, Hashem-Zade H. Medical ethics in plastic surgery: a mini review. World J Plast Surg 2016;5:207-12.
  • 4. Vieira-Baptista P, Almeida G, Bogliatto F, Bohl TG, Burger M, Cohen-Sacher B, et al. International Society for the study of vulvovaginal disease recommendations regarding female cosmetic genital surgery. Low Genit Tract Dis 2018;22:415-34.
  • 5. Vieira-Baptista P, Lima-Silva J, Fonseca-Moutinho J, Monteiro V, Águas F. Survey on aesthetic vulvovaginal procedures: what do portuguese doctors and medical students think? Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2017;39:415-23.
  • 6. Leye E, Ogbe E, Heyerick M. ‘Doing hymen reconstruction’: an analysis of perceptions and experiences of Flemish gynaecologists. BMC Womens Health 2018;18:91.
  • 7. Royal Collage of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Ethical considerations in related to female cosmetic genital surgery. Ethical Opinion Paper; October 2013.
  • 8. FDA Warns Against Use of Energy-Based Devices to Perform Vaginal ‘Rejuvenation’ or Vaginal Cosmetic Procedures: FDA Safety Communication; July 2018.
  • 9. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 795. Elective female genital cosmetic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 2020;135:36-42.
  • 10. Ahmadi A. Ethical issues in hymenoplasty: views from Tehran’s physicians. J Med Ethics 2014;40:429-30.
  • 11. Singh A, Swift S, Khullar V, Digesu A. Laser vaginal rejuvenation: not ready for prime time. Int Urogynecol J 2015;26:163-4.
  • 12. Goldstein A, Jutrzonka S. Ethical considerations of female genital plastic/cosmetic surgery. In: Goodman MP, editor. Female genital plastic and cosmetic surgery. 1st ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2016:39-44.
  • 13. Cantor JD. When an adult female seeks ritual genital alteration: ethics, law and the parameters of participation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117:1158-64.
  • 14. Barbara G, Facchin F, Meschia M, Vercellini P. “The first cut is the deepest”: a psychological, sexological and gynecological perspective on female genital cosmetic surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015;94:915-20.
  • 15. Committee on Gynecologic Practice, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 378: Vaginal “rejuvenation” and cosmetic vaginal procedures. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:737-8.
  • 16. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; Female genital cosmetic surgery – a resource for general practitioners and other health professionals. Melbourne: The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; 2015.
  • 17. Runacres SA, Wood PL. Cosmetic labiaplasty in an adolescent population. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2016; 29:218-22.
  • 18. Westermann LB, Oakley SH, Mazloomdoost D, Crisp CC, Kleeman SD, Benbouajili JM, et al. Attitudes regarding labial hypertrophy and labiaplasty: a survey of members of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and the North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2016;22:175-9.
  • 19. González-Isaza P, Lotti T, França K, Sanchez-Borrego R, Tortola JE, Lotti J, et al. Carbon dioxide with a new pulse profile and shape: a perfect tool to perform labiaplasty for functional and cosmetic purpose. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2018;6:25-7.
  • 20. Sharp G, Tiggemann M, Mattiske J. A retrospective study of the psychological outcomes of labiaplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2017;37:324- 31.
  • 21. Veale D, Naismith I, Eshkevari E, Ellison N, Costa A, Robinson D, et al. Psychosexual outcome after labiaplasty: a prospective casecomparison study. Int Urogynecol J 2014;25:831-9.
  • 22. İnan C, Ağır Çağrı M, Sağır Gökdağlı F, Özer A, Özbek Ö, Dayanır H, et al. Assessment of the effects of perineoplasty on female sexual function. Balkan Med J 2015;32:260-5.
  • 23. Ostrzenski A. Vaginal rugation rejuvenation (restoration): a new surgical technique for an acquired sensation of wide/smooth vagina. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2012;73:48-52.
  • 24. Female genital mutilation. World Health Organisation (WHO) - Fact sheets. Last Accessed Date: 10.10.2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/female-genital-mutilation.

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © 2019 Tüm Hakları Saklıdır.