Experimental Sexual Enhancement Surgery

Between 1954 and 1989 at St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center in Dayton, Ohio, James C. Burt, M.D. subjected thousands of women to unnecessary, non-standard, and experimental procedures without their knowledge. Most of the women were not told he would be performing additional experimental surgery on them following their planned procedures (i.e.: childbirth or hysterectomies). Many others were given truly little description thereby not fulfilling the requirements of informed consent.

 

Many of Dr. Burt’s victims permanently suffered from chronic vaginal infections, the inability to have pain free sexual/vaginal intercourse, urinary incontinence, urinary tract infections, chronic bladder infections, and chronic pelvic pain following the experimental surgical procedures. Sarah Rodriguez wrote that the after affects led to the end of many marriages, years of reconstructive surgeries, depression, the inability to have intercourse, and loss of trust in doctors. When patients complained to Dr. Burt about the symptoms he would tell them it was normal, and it would eventually go away then direct the patient away from seeking a second opinion.

 

Dr. Burt was a non-board-certified obstetrics and gynecology physician in Dayton, Ohio. According to him the female anatomy was poorly constructed for the missionary intercourse, leading him to invent procedures intended to ‘correct’ the anatomy and enhance sexual sensation. He began experimenting with sexual enhancement surgeries from 1954 to 1966, that consisted of episiotomy repairs, where he would add a few extra stitches (aka: the husband stitch). Eventually he included clitoral circumcision, pulling the clitoris down towards the vaginal opening (thereby forcing the urethra to dump into the vagina), and weakening the pubococcygeus muscle by cutting it, which he called the ‘love surgery.’

 

Not only did Dr. Burt believe women’s bodies were made incorrectly, but he also believed that in society women are viewed as the place where men are supposed to relieve their sexual tensions. This surgery was meant to shorten the amount of time needed for foreplay which meant less time required by the man to focus on the woman’s enjoyment since arousal was supposed to happen instantly. He, also, assumed all husbands wanted their wives to have tight vaginas to avoid any post childbirth complaints. By ‘correcting’ the effects of childbirth, age, and the ‘inadequate’ structure of the female body, he believed he would improve the stimulation of both partners; this, in turn, was meant to increase the woman’s sexual satisfaction just knowing that she is better ‘made’ for her man.

 

Nine lawsuits were filed between 1976 and 1986, all were dismissed for varying reasons. It was not until 1988 when a former patient of Dr. Burt informed the media, of his performing experimental and non-standard procedures without informed consent, that as many as 50 of his victims filed a combined 17 lawsuits. He closed his practice on January 12, 1989, and voluntarily surrendered his medical license to the State Medical Board of Ohio without any requirement to admit to any wrongdoing.

 

Citations

The Blue Light Buzz. (2020, March 6). The Medical Center At Elizabeth Place In Dayton Closes. Journal del La Reyna (World News Today). https://httpjournalsaolcomjenjer6steph.blogspot.com/2020/03/Dayton-hospital-closes-again.html

Browning v. Burt, 613 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 1993). https://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/supreme-court-of-ohio/1993/1993-ohio-178.html

James, S. D. (2012, Dec 13). Ohio woman still scarred by ‘love’ doctor’s sex surgery: women allege Dr. James Burt redesigned their genitalia without their knowledge. ABC News. https://abcnews.com/Health/ohio-woman-writes-book-love-doctor-mutilated-sex/story?id=17897317

Rodriguez, S. B. (2013). Female sexuality and consent in public discourse: James Burt's "love surgery". Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(3), 343-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0030-8

Rodriguez, S. B. (2015, September 1). Female circumcision and clitoridectomy in the United States: a history of a medical treatment. Journal of American History, 102(2), 517–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jav385

Rodriguez, S. B. (2020). The love surgeon: a story of trust, harm, and the limits of medical regulation. Rutgers University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv14t489b https://muse-jhu-edu.libweb.lib.utsa.edu/pub/176/monograph/book/77254/pdf

Wilkerson, I. (1988, Dec 11). Charges against doctor bring ire and questions. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/11/us/charges-against-doctor-bring-ire-and-questions.html