Legal Comparison of the Regulation of Chaperones in Intimate Medical Examinations in Indonesia and the United Kingdom: An Analysis of Patients' Rights and Medical Ethics

Abstract

This article examines the legal and ethical regulation of medical chaperones during intimate physical examinations, focusing on two contrasting jurisdictions: Indonesia and the United Kingdom. While chaperones are widely acknowledged in medical ethics as instruments for protecting patient dignity, autonomy, and safety, their legal status varies significantly across health systems. Indonesia currently lacks explicit statutory or ethical regulation mandating the use of chaperones, resulting in inconsistent practices and limited protection for patients and healthcare professionals alike. In contrast, the United Kingdom has established a robust framework through the General Medical Council, NHS institutional policies, and jurisprudence, where chaperone use is a formalized component of clinical governance. Using a normative and comparative legal methodology, this study analyzes constitutional principles, statutory instruments, and professional codes in both countries, supported by the ethical framework of biomedical ethics. The findings reveal a regulatory gap in Indonesia that undermines patient protection and propose a rights-based model of convergence—anchored in constitutional values and culturally contextualized—for integrating chaperone use into Indonesian medical law and practice. The article concludes by offering a six-pillar reform framework involving legal codification, ethical amendment, contextual implementation, education, institutional policy, and cultural engagement.