As I see it, the difference isn't the invasiveness of the procedure but the relationship between the "examiner" and "patient."

Patients have the same reaction to healthcare providers if their examination is by government mandate. Some of the most frustrating and difficult visits are for DOT medical examinations. I used to work in occupational medicine and had to do these all day long. Thank goodness I've moved on.

The truck drivers complained--like airline passengers--that the DOT subjected them to an invasion of privacy. I asked questions about their health, their medications, had to touch them, had to examine for hernias, and other unpleasantries. I often had the miserable job of informing a patient that his or her career might be at stake due to an untreated medical condition.

In that way, I identify with the nicer TSA screeners. They don't make the rules, and they have to conduct invasive examinations and follow rules that may or may not make sense. Like me, I hope that they'll move on to other jobs.

The DOT rules, however, are guidelines. The examining provider has a lot more leeway than a TSA "officer". And the guidelines are at least loosely based on evidence-based practice.

Compare this to--say--a patient coming in for a preventive medical examination by choice. It's still not necessarily pleasant (lack of clothes, needles, etc.) but the relationship is far more favorable. The patient, not the government, is asking for the examination. (My patients also know that I'll do everything humanly possible to avoid doing a prostate exam. The new guidelines say that it should be optional anyway). The patient and I have established rapport, discussed his or her concerns, family history, symptoms, etc. And most patients would rather that I err on the side of thoroughness. Also, the patient has CHOSEN to see me: they've been referred by friends or online reviews, and actively elected to come in for the appointment.

If I identify a problem on a preventive visit, the patient is usually grateful--that's the whole point. In a DOT exam, if I found a problem, the patient would complain that I was a stickler for rules, overzealous, "too thorough" etc. Those patients weren't grateful to have a health problem diagnosed; they were mad that the government was forcing them to undergo an examination. And those patients usually hadn't selected me specifically. Their employer had a contract with the hospital, so there was no opportunity to choose the examiner.

Bottom line: it would be no better if healthcare providers conducted TSA screenings. (And none of us would want that job anyway.)

I'm sure the OP was just joking, but here's why the "TSA are just like doctors" argument is bunk. First, yes, there is the long training - for most doctors their MD status is a lifetime goal and requires a decade of consistent hard work to achieve. Yes, a decade. Among other things, this means that the potential negative consequences of any job related complaints are far, far, more dramatic.

There is an undercurrent of ethics running through the profession, borne of thousands of years of practice. Furthermore, as a profession, medicine takes patient dignity extremely seriously, while for TSA pax dignity doesn't seem to even be a concern. Do abuses happen? Of course they do. But unlike the TSA, medical professionals recognize that the power they wield is enormous, and that abuses will happen - and when they do they are handled in a much more transparent and open manner. Doctors don't close ranks, and don't have an "us against them" mentality.

Finally, one can always refuse treatment, and go to a different doctor. Always.