Gynaecologists appointed by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal to examine women undergoing annulment proceedings have a very sensitive role. Photo: Shutterstock

A woman whose husband wanted a marriage annulment told a gynaecologist, commissioned by the Church’s Ecclesiastical Tribunal, she had regular intercourse with her spouse but an examination revealed she was a virgin.

The examination also revealed that the woman, who wanted to cling on to her marriage, could not have sex because she suffered from a severe case of vaginismus, a condition where there is involuntary tightness of the vagina making intercourse difficult or impossible.

The story of this woman – who had to expose intimate details about herself to a gynaecologist unknown to her as he was picked by the tribunal – was briefly outlined in an article published in the Malta Medical Journal.

The article highlighted the sensitive role of gynaecologists appointed by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal to examine women undergoing annulment proceedings.

Proving the marriage was not consummated is grounds for annulment

Such examination is requested in cases when a couple wants the Church wedding to be annulled. Proving the marriage was not consummated is grounds for annulment.

In their article, gynaecologist George Gregory Buttigieg and lawyer Gabrielle Buttigieg look into the medico-legal aspects of such examination, evaluate the gynaecologist’s role and outline clinical pitfalls.

They stress the sensitive nature of the job where the gynaecologist is faced with a patient to perform “a most intimate examination”. Unlike other cases, such a person would not have chosen that particular doctor and is aware that the conclusion reached could have a large impact on her life.

The article is peppered with short anecdotes that shed light on what some of the women patients go through.

It highlights that some patients do not have a clear idea of what loss of virginity truly means (rupture of the hymen) and what the gynaecologist is looking for, matters that should be made clear by the gynaecologist.

“One particular patient stated rather proudly that she had had a regular full gynaecological assessment every year for the last 10 years including smear testing but she was still a virgin as she had never had intercourse,” the authors write.

They also call on gynaecologists to take note of points related to sexual activity that could arise during the visit.

“One patient, for example, spontaneously stressed her husband’s perennial avoidance of vaginal penetration in favour of anal intercourse,” the authors write.

The psychological dimension of women undergoing such an examination during such a stressful moment of their life should not be ignored and gynaecologists have to handle these patients sensitively.

The authors speak of a case of a woman who had vaginismus. When asked about her sexual history she spoke about “how an uncle used to abuse her as a child – a fact she had revealed to no one including a very patient husband”.

When looking into the legal aspect, the authors insist on the importance of having consent forms for patients to sign even in cases when the examination reveals information that is not directly linked to the purpose of the examination, such as pelvic damage from a sexually-transmitted disease.

It is important that the patient consents in writing to divulge such information to avoid possible medico-legal “nightmares”, they say.