Osteopathy: rectal and vaginal  techniques

Osteopathy: internal pelvic techniques

Introduction
Osteopathy, a therapy based on manual manipulations, is gaining popularity for treating lower back pain. Among its controversial techniques are rectal or vaginal touch, used to manipulate the coccyx or pelvic structures. Though presented as a holistic solution, this practice raises scientific, ethical, and safety concerns.

1. Historical Context: From Stillian Origins to Modern Developments

Andrew Taylor Still, the founder of osteopathy in 1874, established a discipline focused on the body’s structural balance through external manipulations. His techniques, exclusively non-invasive, targeted joints, muscles, and fascia, never involving internal manipulations of rectal or vaginal cavities. For Still, osteopathic intervention aimed to release mechanical "blockages" through precise adjustments while respecting natural anatomical boundaries.

It was much later, with figures like Jean-Pierre Barral, that these intimate methods emerged. In Manipulations of the Prostate (2004), Barral described rectal techniques to treat pelvic dysfunctions, radically diverging from Still’s approach. Barral justified these practices through an expanded view of fascial chains, linking the pelvis to distant areas like the spine—a theory absent from Still’s original writings.

2. The French Legal Framework: Post-2007 Restrictions

In 2007, Decree No. 2007-435 redefined the scope of practice for "exclusive" osteopaths (non-medical/non-physiotherapist practitioners): pelvic touches (rectal or vaginal) are prohibited for them, reserved instead for licensed healthcare professionals (physicians, physiotherapists, midwives). This law addressed ethical and safety concerns, particularly risks of abuse or misdiagnosis. Physiotherapist-osteopaths may exceptionally perform these techniques under medical prescription for specific cases (e.g., perineal rehabilitation, coccygodynia).

3. The Controversial Rise of Pelvic Osteopathy

Despite these restrictions, L’Express revealed in 2023 a resurgence of these techniques, notably for back pain or migraines. Some osteopaths circumvent the law by advocating a "holistic" approach to the pelvis, promising relief for chronic pain. Patients report intrusive sessions:

• A woman describes a vaginal touch justified by an alleged "uterine misalignment" causing her lower back pain.

• A man recounts rectal manipulations without informed consent.

These practices rely on scientifically unvalidated theories, such as the idea that a "pelvic blockage" affects posture.

4. Controversies: Between Lack of Evidence and Psychological Risks

a. A Lack of Scientific Validation

No robust studies prove the efficacy of pelvic osteopathic manipulations for non-genital pathologies. The French Academy of Medicine and the Order of Physiotherapists condemn esoteric practices, warning they risk delaying serious diagnoses (endometriosis, cancers, etc.).

b. Psychological Trauma

Testimonies gathered by L’Express highlight psychological harm: patients shamed ("Your pelvis is locked"), feelings of humiliation, or even post-traumatic stress. One patient summarizes: "I felt violated, not cared for."

c. Weak Regulation

Though the Order of Physicians prohibits these acts, oversight is rare. Some practitioners use euphemisms ("internal approach") to evade prosecution. The line between osteopathy and quackery blurs, fueling public distrust.

5. Professional Debates: Holistic Tradition vs. Ethical Boundaries

Proponents of these techniques invoke therapeutic freedom and Barral’s legacy. However, even within osteopathy, voices dissent:

• "These methods discredit our profession," warns an osteopathy school instructor.

• Others note that schools have not taught these techniques since 2007, relegating them to opaque private training.

Proponents occasionally claim a lineage to Still, arguing osteopathy has always been "exploratory." This is historically false: Still, a devout Methodist and strict practitioner, rejected intrusions into natural orifices, associating such acts with the allopathic medicine he criticized. As one osteopathic historian notes: "Still saw the body as a sacred machine to repair from the outside, never to violate from within."

6. A Betrayal of Osteopathic Principles

Andrew Taylor Still, a 19th-century American physician, conceived osteopathy as a discipline respecting bodily integrity, focused on musculoskeletal balance without invasive techniques. The rectal touch, beyond its lack of scientific legitimacy, represents a radical break from this ethic. The osteopathic community as a whole should condemn this practice—not only to protect patients but also to preserve the discipline’s credibility.

Conclusion
Rectal or vaginal touches in osteopathy represent a dangerous departure from evidence-based medicine and osteopathic principles. Given the physical risks, ethical dilemmas, and lack of evidence, stricter regulation is imperative. Patients deserve transparent, science-backed treatments—not dubious traditions. The medical and osteopathic communities must condemn these methods, prioritizing ethics and patient safety.

Finally, a return to Stillian fundamentals could clarify the discipline’s boundaries: osteopathy, conceived as a non-invasive manual medicine, loses its essence when adopting risky techniques alien to its original philosophy. Had Still witnessed these deviations, he would likely have reminded us that "the osteopath’s hand is a tool of liberation, not penetration."

References

• Barral, J.-P. (2004). Manipulations of the Prostate. Elsevier Masson.

• Decree No. 2007-435 on osteopathic practices.

• L’Express (2023). "Rectal and Vaginal Touches for Back Pain: The Alarming Rise of Pelvic Osteopathy."