Advice: preteen vs doctor re: "privates"

[besroma]

Yes, good for her for saying no and good for you for backing her up. But I would say it's probably a good idea to find a doctor she's comfortable with so that if she needs to be examined (if something IS wrong), it won't be too traumatic for her.

 

:iagree:

[kitten18]

other

I have said this before on other related threads.

I am fortunate enough to live in a country that doesn't subject their children to such degrading examinations, where people go to the doctor when they are sick,not for well-checks and the general health of the population is one of the best in the world.

 

Personally I get the impression from this board that the majority of American doctors are perverts.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[coffeefreak]

other

I have said this before on other related threads.

I am fortunate enough to live in a country that doesn't subject their children to such degrading examinations, where people go to the doctor when they are sick,not for well-checks and the general health of the population is one of the best in the world.

 

Personally I get the impression from this board that the majority of American doctors are perverts.

 

:001_huh:

[Murphy101]

Before we roll our eyes and raise our brows at blue goat and Melissa - I would be curious to know if this is standard in other countries and if not, why is it supposedly standard here? (supposedly bc for something standard, it sure doesn't appear to be done as routinely as standard implies given the number of parents here reporting they have never had a dr do it.)

 

Melissa may not have phrased it PC, but there is evidence that other countries have healthier children than in the states with less fuss and expense. That's worth noting to me when a dr says they need to do something as a matter of routine that is not at all routine in other 1st world countries with better outcomes than us.

[Melissa in Australia]

I stand by my statement. I would find it degrading to have to strip and spread before a stranger, especially as a teen.

[Melissa in Australia]

I can not believe the idiotic generalizations about drs.

 

 

.

 

I said I get the impression from this board. Personally I cannot speak about doctors in America, as I don't live there, only from what I hear on this forum.

 

But look at it from my side. If it wasn't common practice in your country, and you heard of a country that routinely got their children to strip and spread, you might form a similar opinion.

[Crimson Wife]

I don't think a quick visually check on a girl going through puberty is degrading, but a full pelvic exam on a child who is not s*xually active would be. There is a big difference between a peek and a "strip and spread". I refused the latter until I was an adult and felt it medically justified. My doctor started bringing it up when I was maybe 14 or 15 and I had to keep saying, "No, I'm still a virgin" every year until I actually sought out a gynecologist.

[musicianmom]

My oldest refused the quick peek at her 6-year-old checkup. The NP respected her wishes, no problem.

[Isabella]

I haven't read all the replies, so I might be repeating....but WHY does a Dr need to look under undies anyway!! I think it's ridiculous unless there is a problem.

 

I mean if we went to the Dr for a routine health check, unless it was an pap smear, we would not expect them to look at our privates, and I'd be horrified if it was expected! Why, then should we expect kids to be fine with it at any age! Except perhaps infants who would be checked once and for all for any abnormalities.

 

I think I'd be looking for a different Dr. if I were you.

[Isabella]

Degrading? I think that is a bit extreme.

 

 

I think the OP's daughter would not agree with you, neither would many others, myself included.

[KidsHappen]

I don't think a quick visually check on a girl going through puberty is degrading, but a full pelvic exam on a child who is not s*xually active would be. There is a big difference between a peek and a "strip and spread". I refused the latter until I was an adult and felt it medically justified. My doctor started bringing it up when I was maybe 14 or 15 and I had to keep saying, "No, I'm still a virgin" every year until I actually sought out a gynecologist.

 

There seems to be some confusion as to exactly what it is the drs. want to do. Several people have said just a quick peek in the undies and as I have pointed out that serves no purpose what-so-ever. Others have said to check for labial adhesions which would definitely require a "strip and spread" which is definitely a big deal. I think most young girls would find this traumatic and degrading. As a matter of fact, I would worry about any little girl over the age of about 8 who just threw their panties to the wind and jumped up on the table and spread their legs. I would not even think to ask my child about this. I definitely wouldn't allow it unless it was I felt that it was absolutely neccesary. IMO, once a little girl is out of diapers, there is no need for anyone to be doing any quick checking of anything without parental and/or her permission.

 

ETA: This wasn't directed at you, it just was just a perfect jumping off point for my little tirade. Sorry.:o

Edited May 24, 2012 by KidsHappen

[curriculumhoarder]

I've had this come with my 2 girls, last year when they were 12 and 11. I had told them that they had a right to refuse *anyone* and both were shocked. I am sorry that I didn't make that clear earlier but they seemed to be ok with the exams earlier.

 

We go to a p-doc group so we see new docs all the time. One dr just smiled and nodded and said it was perfectly natural to refuse while another had to get a form for me to sign and sighed and fussed. So, even in one office, you can have all sorts of opinions on this. I side with the child because if that trust is violated, good luck getting her into the dr after 18yo. I know, because I've only had exams in relation to my children being born. I have *zero* trust of doctors and would honestly rather see a computer. I like my dr, but I can't trust her. Poor thing, she can't even earn the trust because it's so gone.

[mommytobees]

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the process?

 

At our pediatrician's office, an 11 year old is given privacy to change into a gown.

 

There's the talking part of the check-up & then the physical.

 

The girl is given a sheet/blanket for extra coverage so that, if she wishes, she can be sure only the are currently being examined is exposed.

 

The dr explains what she is going to do before she does it, and gets consent before she touches the girl, and, when doing anything more intrusive (palpitating the abdomen, frex) she makes she makes sure the girl understands what is happening (and why) and is ready for her to proceed.

 

The physical exam begins at the head moves down from there. So the pelvic portion follows the abdominal exam.

 

The dr explains what she is about to and why, receives consent, and does an incredibly brief *visual* glance. If there were any concerns or issues, the exam could be longer, but that has not been true for any of my kids.

 

What was excruciating (both physically and emotionally) was when one of the twins managed to fall on a rope on the playground in such a way as to get extensive labial lacerations. It was a very hard block of hours in the ER, and the follow-ups weren't fun either. (no lasting damage, thank G-d!)

 

...but it is brief, as unintrusive as possible, and, imho, reasonably justified. ...at least w/in my perspective on medical issue and preventative care! I do see benefit in annual or biannual physicals, for kids and adults - not just as preventative care, but to have a clear baseline and, at least as important for me, to maintain a working relationship with our mds, to have our pediatrician know our kids, and be able to recognize things that are out of the ordinary *for that kid*.

 

But, in this case with MY dd this isn't what happened.

 

She wasn't given a gown. She was asked to remove her pants.

 

She wasn't given grace to have privacy, she was scorned.

 

She wasn't given ANY explanations until _I_ sought them out, she was scorned and ignored.

 

Kris

[Annabel Lee]

But, in this case with MY dd this isn't what happened.

 

She wasn't given a gown. She was asked to remove her pants.

 

She wasn't given grace to have privacy, she was scorned.

 

She wasn't given ANY explanations until _I_ sought them out, she was scorned and ignored.

 

Kris

 

This IS an abnormal experience, but maybe not so much for military healthcare. Even adults are given gowns and allowed to undress & cover up in privacy before the doc reenters the room. It sounds like the doc didn't even leave the room here.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Annabel Lee
TMI

[Alice]

other

I have said this before on other related threads.

I am fortunate enough to live in a country that doesn't subject their children to such degrading examinations, where people go to the doctor when they are sick,not for well-checks and the general health of the population is one of the best in the world.

 

Personally I get the impression from this board that the majority of American doctors are perverts.

 

Perverts might nott be the best word, but it is pretty well documented that American medical practice has aggressiveness as one of its major characteristics.

 

We don't have well checks for older kids here either, and I have never heard of doctors doing a "quick check in the underwear" for kids when they do come in as a routine matter. In general women get checked when they start having paps after becoming sexually active.

 

This is interesting to me. Especially because the criticism of the American medical system that I hear the most is that we focus too much money and resources on treating the sick and not on preventative medicine. I think I'll have to do more reading on medical care internationally, as my impression has always been that other countries do more preventative care than us, not less. But after reading your comments and doing a quick Google search I see that that is not the case. I'll also point out that the general health of the population is related to a lot of things other than medical care: poverty levels, attitudes about nutrition and exercise, environment, etc. I don't know enough about the medical systems or society in Australia and Canada to have more of a discussion on that point.

 

I'll stand by the thought that well-checks in general are good, especially for kids. I've posted this a bunch of times before too so I won't do it again here, but there are a lot of things we can find on well-checks and a lot of things I have diagnosed at a routine physical. I'm not sure the idea that "i don't have physicals and I'm ok" is logical. The vast majority of the time, we don't find anything. However, sometimes we do. I'll also point out that often it's not diagnosed by the physical, but sometime in the history. Sometimes it's just in the history and discussion part of the appointment that issues come up and are addressed.

 

I do think we do too many routine tests and there are some that are recommended that I don't do on kids. Invasive tests are different in my mind than a routine physical. I had a mentor in residency who liked to say that lab tests are like picking your nose in public, you need to make sure you know what to do with what you get. ;) When too many routine tests are done we end up with results that we don't know what to do with and sometimes the testing itself ends up causing fear and anxiety. There is nothing I hate more than ending up following a test result in a kid who seems fine. I do think there are reasonable screening tests, for example hearing tests or cholesterol screening in kids who have significant family histories.

 

I also think it should be possible to have a discussion about medical practices that addresses differences in approach and opinion without assuming the worst intentions of the doctors. The majority of American doctors are not perverts and are not bad people. (And yes, I do realize there are exceptions and there are some terrible doctors and some that have done terrible things. I'll apologize in advance for my profession for all of you who have had those experiences.) You should realize that your opinion is being shaped because people post here when they are upset. No one is going to post "Hey I went to the pediatrician today and it was great. He was really respectful and wonderful. Just wanted you all to know." It's one thing to say, "huh, we don't do that in Australia or Canada or wherever" or "I don't think this is necessary for these reasons". It's another to paint with a broad brush and assume evil intentions for the majority of a profession.

 

I'm not talking about the doctor in the OP or the OP question, as I said earlier, of course she had the right to refuse and it sounds to me that the communication and exam was handled poorly. But the discussion has gotten far away from the OP question anyway and I wanted to respond to those points.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Alice

[NittanyJen]

And why do we need to evaluate that?

 

I never had that "evaluated".

 

That's like saying they need to look for gray hairs on my head to evaluate I'm getting older. I KNOW I'm getting older. Nobody needs to evaluate it.

 

The most common genetic aneuploidy (different number of chromosomes from the typical, like trisomy 21) is a variable number of X or Y chromosomes-- 1/500 live births! Fewer than 25% of these children are properly diagnosed in young childhood, but variable puberty is a second chance to catch a significant portion of others. I am not as well-versed in the female syndromes such as XXX, but but 1/667 live births is a boy with 47, XXY (an extra X chromosome) and "a quick check down there" can spot puberty that begins but stalls out, and timely testosterone therapy can begin, making a big difference in a young man's life.

 

I am sure there are things that could cause a young woman's puberty to potentially begin, then stall out as well. Identifying such a problem would not require a big exam, but a quick glance at each visit.

[dirty ethel rackham]

None of those reasons sound like cause to do routine checks. I can see talking to the child and parent about needing to do a check when there is an indication to do so. I still don't think you need a "privates" check to evaluate puberty when there are so many less invasive ways to do so. If that 16yo hasn't started her period, do you think it really matters whether or not you checked at 11? How about asking her when she started to develop breast buds or hair?

 

I never had a check until my first pap smear after I turned 18. My daughter hasn't been checked since she was out of diapers. If the doctor needs to know something he or she just asks. The undescended testes check was done when my boys were babies. They have had the "turn and cough" for sports physicals. It was clearly explained why. There wasn't any drawn out visual examination. If the doc needed to know something, he asked. I still don't understand why a doc has to see the privates to check for signs of puberty when there are other, less invasive ways to do so.

 

If there is a medical need, it makes sense. But routine? No.

[mommytobees]

UPDATE:

 

I decided to head into the base and clinic first thing this morning arriving about 20 minutes before they started seeing patients.

 

I am SO glad I did!! I was able to have an informal conversation with the head of Peds and filed an "informal" complaint through the military system (vs filing a formal complaint through the civilian side of the equation).

 

I can't apply for a new PCM due to staffing for 2-3 weeks, but I have contact points for a forced change of PCM if the insurance gives me any grief.

 

Sooooo, I'm nominally happy.

 

I am *very* happy with my conversation with the head of Peds. He had seen my daughter before and remembered her and agreed that none of what I said was acceptable behavior towards a child of any age or standing. He also agreed that it is important for a child to understand why something is being done AND the child still has the right to say "no" to the doctor. That the parent is then responsible to "check and see" for any visual abnormalities.

 

So!! There we are.

 

Thanks for everyones thoughts.

 

Kris

[mommytobees]

You forgot that they suffer from the "god-syndrome", are condescending, and ridicule patients who have done their own research. Not all, but lots. I've met them.

 

 

 

 

I think it's insane.

 

ROFL!! Maybe it shouldn't but that really made me laugh!!

 

This is actually why I *like* using the military healthcare system. Most active duty medical professionals I've know are NOT stuck in their "I am god" role. Yes, there are exceptions, but the majority of the active duty docs are normal/real people.

 

Plus, they get the military life. I'm sorry if "you" (whomever you is) don't like it, but my daughter has had NUMEROUS doctors over the years and there isn't anything we can do about it. Military docs don't even blink or ask about her previous doctors other than what the plan entailed.

 

It is the civilian ones who tend to have problems and have a god complex.

 

Kris

[mommytobees]

I think the OP's daughter would not agree with you, neither would many others, myself included.

 

I think degrading shouldn't be the point, but it is VERY much the case.

 

As Alice mentioned, this came down to communication. When I talked with the head of Peds this morning he wanted to make sure I understood WHY this part of the exam was important. It is normal to a point.

 

I'm okay with that. I don't have a problem with the "we want to make sure everything is okay" part of the exam. HOWEVER, the child has the right to have everything explained TO them and still have the right to say "no".

 

Kris

[jubilation]

Any age. It is inappropriate for a doc to pressure a kid into allowing an exam they're not comfortable with. Kids have a right to bodily autonomy just like adults do.

[Amy in NH]

She has a right to refuse. You have a legal right to refuse on her behalf.

 

The doctor was in the wrong to try to force the issue. A simple explanation of why the look is a part of a usual checkup and allowing you/your dd the right to refuse it would have been sufficient.

 

Our ped does a quick check at the boys' checkups, but he *always* asks them and me for permission.

 

Cat

 

:iagree: And if permission isn't given by the child, the doctor backs off. Even if permission is given, the doctor usually says something about private parts being private.

[Nakia]

Unfortunately none of that describes what my ped did to me as a child. It was humiliating. He hurt me. And he screamed at me and my mother when she finally got up the courage to refuse on my behalf. He did invasive exams on me starting when I was an infant.

 

I found out years later he was fired from the hospital he worked at and lost his practice.

 

The point being we should not blindly trust doctors. And not all doctors are as thorough in their explanations and as respectful in their approach as yours.

 

I don't think American drs are pervs as some sort of general rule, but I do think we have a lot of procedures that are unnecessary. Yes, it is possible something will be discovered from the exams, but the times that is the case is far smaller than we are led to believe. I believe it is my right and the right of an 11 year old to refuse the poking and prodding unless there is a very good reason for it.

 

Wendy, that is awful. Truly. As a health care professional and a mother, I am horrified for you. :grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

[Melissa in Australia]

This is interesting to me. Especially because the criticism of the American medical system that I hear the most is that we focus too much money and resources on treating the sick and not on preventative medicine. I think I'll have to do more reading on medical care internationally, as my impression has always been that other countries do more preventative care than us, not less. But after reading your comments and doing a quick Google search I see that that is not the case. I'll also point out that the general health of the population is related to a lot of things other than medical care: poverty levels, attitudes about nutrition and exercise, environment, etc. I don't know enough about the medical systems or society in Australia and Canada to have more of a discussion on that point.

 

I'll stand by the thought that well-checks in general are good, especially for kids. I've posted this a bunch of times before too so I won't do it again here, but there are a lot of things we can find on well-checks and a lot of things I have diagnosed at a routine physical. I'm not sure the idea that "i don't have physicals and I'm ok" is logical. The vast majority of the time, we don't find anything. However, sometimes we do. I'll also point out that often it's not diagnosed by the physical, but sometime in the history. Sometimes it's just in the history and discussion part of the appointment that issues come up and are addressed.

 

I do think we do too many routine tests and there are some that are recommended that I don't do on kids. Invasive tests are different in my mind than a routine physical. I had a mentor in residency who liked to say that lab tests are like picking your nose in public, you need to make sure you know what to do with what you get. ;) When too many routine tests are done we end up with results that we don't know what to do with and sometimes the testing itself ends up causing fear and anxiety. There is nothing I hate more than ending up following a test result in a kid who seems fine. I do think there are reasonable screening tests, for example hearing tests or cholesterol screening in kids who have significant family histories.

 

I also think it should be possible to have a discussion about medical practices that addresses differences in approach and opinion without assuming the worst intentions of the doctors. The majority of American doctors are not perverts and are not bad people. (And yes, I do realize there are exceptions and there are some terrible doctors and some that have done terrible things. I'll apologize in advance for my profession for all of you who have had those experiences.) You should realize that your opinion is being shaped because people post here when they are upset. No one is going to post "Hey I went to the pediatrician today and it was great. He was really respectful and wonderful. Just wanted you all to know." It's one thing to say, "huh, we don't do that in Australia or Canada or wherever" or "I don't think this is necessary for these reasons". It's another to paint with a broad brush and assume evil intentions for the majority of a profession.

 

.

True ,

Perhaps I should have used better wording

[Bluegoat]

Before we roll our eyes and raise our brows at blue goat and Melissa - I would be curious to know if this is standard in other countries and if not, why is it supposedly standard here? (supposedly bc for something standard, it sure doesn't appear to be done as routinely as standard implies given the number of parents here reporting they have never had a dr do it.)

 

Melissa may not have phrased it PC, but there is evidence that other countries have healthier children than in the states with less fuss and expense. That's worth noting to me when a dr says they need to do something as a matter of routine that is not at all routine in other 1st world countries with better outcomes than us.

 

I don't know how standard it is in other countries to do that sort of exam as routine, and I don't think I would go nearly as far as Melissa did in what she said about doctors. But there are huge cultural components to the practice of medicine. OUr assumptions about what it means to be proactive, our feelings about health, what we think constitutes good reason to intervene - these things are not obvious. Our ideas about them come from how we are raised and how we are taught.

 

There has been plenty of study on the cultural component of medical practice, and it is a very interesting subject. American medicine is well known for being very aggressive - a lot of testing, invasive procedures, surgical solutions and more serious treatments done for the same problems. There is a real idea that we should aggressively attack disease and battle against it, and that to do so is laudatory even when it is more difficult for the patient. An example of this (an old one I'm afraid as I haven't read on this topic in many years so it may no longer be the case) is that American doctors are much more likely to recommend a mastectomy when doctors in many other countries would reccomend a lumpectomy.

 

Whether this is a good thing or not depends on your own view of course - my guess is it has its good points and bad ones. And the same with other cultural approaches as well - they probably have their good and bad points, and they all seems to have their quirks.

 

In any case, as far as your question goes, well child exams don't seem to be the thing past the time of giving vaccines in Canada, so up to about age two. The next time they see the doctor as a matter of routine is at five and then not until the teen years.

[Bluegoat]

This is interesting to me. Especially because the criticism of the American medical system that I hear the most is that we focus too much money and resources on treating the sick and not on preventative medicine. I think I'll have to do more reading on medical care internationally, as my impression has always been that other countries do more preventative care than us, not less. But after reading your comments and doing a quick Google search I see that that is not the case. I'll also point out that the general health of the population is related to a lot of things other than medical care: poverty levels, attitudes about nutrition and exercise, environment, etc. I don't know enough about the medical systems or society in Australia and Canada to have more of a discussion on that point.

 

I'll stand by the thought that well-checks in general are good, especially for kids. I've posted this a bunch of times before too so I won't do it again here, but there are a lot of things we can find on well-checks and a lot of things I have diagnosed at a routine physical. I'm not sure the idea that "i don't have physicals and I'm ok" is logical. The vast majority of the time, we don't find anything. However, sometimes we do. I'll also point out that often it's not diagnosed by the physical, but sometime in the history. Sometimes it's just in the history and discussion part of the appointment that issues come up and are addressed.

 

I do think we do too many routine tests and there are some that are recommended that I don't do on kids. Invasive tests are different in my mind than a routine physical. I had a mentor in residency who liked to say that lab tests are like picking your nose in public, you need to make sure you know what to do with what you get. ;) When too many routine tests are done we end up with results that we don't know what to do with and sometimes the testing itself ends up causing fear and anxiety. There is nothing I hate more than ending up following a test result in a kid who seems fine. I do think there are reasonable screening tests, for example hearing tests or cholesterol screening in kids who have significant family histories.

 

I also think it should be possible to have a discussion about medical practices that addresses differences in approach and opinion without assuming the worst intentions of the doctors. The majority of American doctors are not perverts and are not bad people. (And yes, I do realize there are exceptions and there are some terrible doctors and some that have done terrible things. I'll apologize in advance for my profession for all of you who have had those experiences.) You should realize that your opinion is being shaped because people post here when they are upset. No one is going to post "Hey I went to the pediatrician today and it was great. He was really respectful and wonderful. Just wanted you all to know." It's one thing to say, "huh, we don't do that in Australia or Canada or wherever" or "I don't think this is necessary for these reasons". It's another to paint with a broad brush and assume evil intentions for the majority of a profession.

 

I'm not talking about the doctor in the OP or the OP question, as I said earlier, of course she had the right to refuse and it sounds to me that the communication and exam was handled poorly. But the discussion has gotten far away from the OP question anyway and I wanted to respond to those points.

 

I think the other question to ask with regard to routine testing is whether we are always better off to discover whatever it is that is revealed. People tend to assume that if there is an abnormality or whatever they are always better off to find it, and as soon as possible. That doesn't seem to always be the case though. Early detection doesn't always offer an advantage, and some things resolve themselves no one does anything. Or they make themselves known later and can be dealt with then. But if we discover them we feel the need to do something about it, and sometimes doing something is worse than the thing itself.

 

I agree there are a lot of reasons for different levels of health in populations and it isn't always about medical practice. In the case of the US I am sure having no universal care is an issue. But I myself don't take it as proven that more exams and testing gives better results - I don't think I would equate that with preventative care necessarily.

[Rosie_0801]

I don't know enough about the medical systems or society in Australia and Canada to have more of a discussion on that point.

 

I think the most essential point is that with universal healthcare, you can go to the doctor if you want to. On Australian message boards, no one ever (that I can recall) asks if they should take the kid to the doctor. If they want to, they go. Even if their doctor doesn't bulk bill, they'll get most of the fee back from Medicare. But I'm not much good for discussing the Australian system because I only go to the doctor if I need a script or a referral, other than the six week checkup for babies.

 

Rosie

[nd293]

I believe anyone has the right to say no to an examination. It is our job as parents is to take the fear out of a necessary exam, of course, but a doctor asking for an unnecessary examination seems inappropriate, to say the least.

[Mrs Twain]

Sorry I don't have time to read 16 pages.

 

From the medical doctor's point of view:

He/she will do a quicky look at the gential region for some simple reasons--

Look for infection of the exterior skin/mucous membranes, look for sexually transmitted diseases (warts, herpes), and evidence of trauma which would make the doctor suspect sexual abuse.

 

If the child and/or the parent is adamantly against a genital exam, it raises a red flag with the doctor that something bad may be going on, i.e. sexual abuse, etc.

 

If I were you, I would try to talk my kid into letting the doctor just take a quick look. This is to help and to protect the patient.

 

Sorry if this is doesn't fit into the general discussion by page 16.

[ThisIsTheDay]

I am so glad to see an update, particularly with such a positive outcome. That you felt threatened by the doctor was shocking, and it made me nervous for you. If a dr. made me feel that way, I'd think twice before taking my kids to another doctor, ever. And I know they'd be terrified. What an awful experience for your dd. I'm glad you were able to get some resolution today, and she can take comfort in both the dept. head's response, and your ability to protect her.

[StaceyinLA]

I'm surprised because - like many others - this was never done to me at that age. The closest my doctor got to 'down there' was to palpate my stomach. This basically meant my pants were pulled down a couple of inches below my belly button. The doctor never lifted my pants up to look. And I had several different pediatricians during the pre-puberty and puberty years, because we moved a lot back then.

 

I'm sure my doctors checked when I was a very little girl, but I don't remember that. I have no memories of any doctor's exam where I had to pull down my pants until I was getting a full pelvic. And I'm not that old. ;)

 

This.

 

I don't recall ever being looked at in that area as a child/pre-teen, and none of my children have been examined in that area, even briefly, by a doctor since they were wearing diapers.

 

The single exception was ds when he was struggling with his "size" at around age 12. I took him in to see the ped. Of course, at a point in the visit, he felt he needed to look since that was the reason we went. Ds didn't want him to initially and fought it. Ped told me and ds that he couldn't force the issue, but he needed to do it to assure ds that all was normal. I discussed it with ds in private, and he wound up allowing it. It took all of 3-5 seconds, and that was that.

 

Dds were never looked at again after the diaper stage until they went to a gynecologist. Even then she only discussed things with them and did a general overview because they weren't sexually active.