Despite being a crucial branch of medicine for the protection and improvement of women's health, gynecology often remains overshadowed by cultural taboos in Turkey. These taboos manifest across various levels, from individual health behaviors to societal perceptions, creating significant barriers to women's access to gynecological services.

Perceptions of Privacy and Shame

The traditional and conservative societal structure in Turkey defines topics related to women body in the field of “private”. Despite having gynecological problems is a shared experience by many women in the society, it is still a source of shame to for many women to utter their health issues and seek treatment. They might hesitate even when they are in a doctor’s office and furthermore, they might prefer denying that they have a health issue altogether.

Many women struggle to reach gynecological healthcare because their trust relationship to the healthcare system is ruptured. While majority of women prefer a supportive companion during consultations due to emotional support and ensuring doctor-patient rapport, there are situations where sensitive information about patient’s gynecological health is shared in the presence of a third.

Especially in the rural and under-educated regions of the country, many women steer clear of gynecologist’s appointments because they think their family can reach to their personal information. Due to experiencing a dilemma between fear of being exposed as someone having a gynecological problem and shame of talking about that problem, many women refrain themselves from healthcare services.

In such areas, the gender of the doctor performing the gynecological examination is also important. Studies in the literature report that women expect to have a female doctor performing the examination (Altay and Kefeli, 2012) and many women avoid being examined by a male gynecologist. This situation can make it difficult for women to access health services, as the limited number of female gynecologists cannot meet all the demand.

Virginity and Societal Pressure

A study conducted by the KAOS Civil Society Organization (2020) that compiles women's experiences mentions the experiences of female patients that undermine trust in their relationships with doctors. For example, anecdotes are shared about doctors dictating their moral judgments about premarital sex to patients during the examination and making comments about whether the hymen is there or not, female patients share how traumatizing and embarrassing the examination was for them.

The study underlines that, beyond the fact that these experiences are embarrassing for them, these taboos around virginity also have an impact on treatment decisions. For example, women participating in the study share anecdotes of doctors asking, “Are you married?” to assess whether they have an active sex life. If the patient is single, they prefer an ultrasound examination, which may have lower diagnostic accuracy, instead of a vaginal examination. At this point, it is mentioned that patients should state that they have an active sex life despite not being married and therefore prefer a vaginal examination.

The concept of virginity exerts significant pressure on young women in Turkish society. Unscientific beliefs that gynecological examinations could result in the loss of virginity deter many women from visiting a gynecologist. This reluctance hampers early diagnosis and treatment, potentially leading to more severe health issues over time.

A deep investigation into patient experiences will help understand how common such situations are and will reveal the seriousness of the problem. As women share such experiences, better practice standards can be developed, and the impact of taboos may decrease.

References:

Alpar, A. (Ed.). (2020). Gynecologist conversations. Kaos Gay and Lesbian Cultural Research and Solidarity Association (Kaos GL).

Altay, B., & Kefeli, B. (2012). Anxiety levels of women coming for gynecological examination and some affecting factors. Dokuz Eylul University School of Nursing Electronic Journal, 5(4), 114–134.