Does a person afflicted with constant, mild urethral leakage, accompanied by obsessive doubts, fall under the exception to the rule "certainty is not removed by doubt," such that his doubt is considered valid?

Some jurists have made an exception to the rule: "Certainty is not removed by doubt" in the case of a person with a perpetual impurity (such as a woman with irregular bleeding or a person with urinary incontinence). If such a person performs ablution (wudu') and then doubts whether the discharge has stopped, and proceeds to pray, their prayer is not valid. The doubt here refers to the cessation of the discharge, not the occurrence of the discharge itself. Therefore, the questioner is not an exception to the rule and is not obligated to act upon doubt, because the original state is purity and the absence of any discharge after cleansing (istinja (definition)'), especially since they are afflicted with obsessive doubts (waswasa).