Monday, November 30, 2015

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child


American doctors seem to have this obsession with baby penises.

Almost as soon as a male child is born, the first question on most American doctors' minds for his parents is, "Are you going to have him circumcised?"

Some doctors take it a step further and ask "When, are you having him circumcised," as if the elective, non-medical surgery were already a given.

Whether they have some obsession with baby penis, or they want to make sure they can cash in on a freebie, or maybe they just don't know any better, I can't tell.

What can be certain is that American doctors seem to have this compulsion to see and touch a baby's penis.

What in the world are they teaching American doctors in medical school?

I just saw this story on Facebook and couldn't help posting it:


THIS HAPPENED LAST NIGHT AT North Oaks Health System Hospital in Hammond, Louisiana ... [A parent whose name was omitted for privacy] writes, "I just went with a friend to the hospital because her son is 4 months old and running a 103.8 °f fever. Immediately when Dr. Krieg walked in, he went for the diaper, saying a UTI was the most likely cause. He undid the diaper and we figured to check for a rash or swelling, and when he reached for the child penis, the mother grabbed his hands and stopped him, telling him not to touch him there.
"We told him that based on the baby's breathing we thought it was RSV. He kept telling us that he HAD to retract the baby's penis to look and see if anything was infected. My friend and I both lost it on him, telling him it was completely unnecessary for him to ever touch his penis, much less attempt retraction. My friend grabbed the doctor's hands and removed him. He looked shocked, moved on and left the room. 

"He came back and tried to assure us that it was okay and that the internet is full of lies (do tell, Dr.), and I proceeded to tell him that she and I both have older boys and know for a fact it is never necessary. He then tried to tell us if it was not RSV, the flu, or some other infection in his blood work, that he would need to do a catheter. I politely stepped in and told him that this was not true, they have baggies for small children to avoid catheters. His response was that once again there is misinformation on the internet (some rebuttal...). So I proceeded to inform him that my child's doctor was the one who told me of the baggies. And he said "but they get contaminated very easily". We both stated that we chose that route, and if he could not do so that we would go to another hospital. He said he would send someone in to do the swab if we were adamant about testing for RSV, then he left the room.

"The nurse came in after we refused to do the catheter, and she did a nasal swab and they also did x-rays to check for pneumonia. The baby's breaths were very shallow and very quick. The test took 30 mins to run. Dr. Krieg was gone about 45 mins. He came in and apologized for not believing us. He said he didn't think it could be RSV because the baby was not wheezing. He had a totally different attitude. I am 21 with 5 college credits in basic subjects, she is 23 with a high school education and we knew more about it all than he did. Never ever let doctors bully you. Push for what you believe. Instincts go really far.

"The baby has RSV but the fever finally went down so they sent us home. This morning the baby has no fever and is acting more playful after breathing treatments. My friend follows up with the pediatrician tomorrow."

And the thing is, this wouldn't be the first time I've heard of this happening.

Time and time again, I read these stories on Facebook and other mediums, of parents taking their children to the doctor, and the first thing doctors want to do is check their penises, and furthermore, if the children aren't circumcised, to forcibly retract the foreskin for this or that nonsense reason.

These stories are so well known that intactivist organizations have had to issue warnings to parents. (DOC for example.)

Sadly, some doctors do succeed in hornswoggling parents into letting them forcibly retract their child's penis which inevitably results in injury and often circumcision itself.

And then, like clockwork, almost as if it were a canned response, the doctors tell parents "You see, this is why you should have circumcised him earlier."

What is wrong with American doctors?

What are they learning in American medical school?

It's almost as if they've been geared toward destroying natural male anatomy wherever possible.

The first order of operation seems to be to make sure that a male child is circumcised. Not being circumcised is being viewed as a medical condition outright.

Next is to make sure that, if the child is not circumcised, ensure he is by causing the problems a foreskin is said to have, by forcibly retracting the child's foreskin, saying it's a "problem" if he can't be, or outright injuring the child so as to necessitate surgical intervention.

Above all other symptoms and problems, not being circumcised is to be addressed first.

Is this what American doctors learn in med school?

There is something wrong with American medical curricula if this is what doctors are being taught.

The doctor indicts the internet for "lies and misinformation," but it is quite common knowledge that a child's foreskin should not be forcibly retracted, that the age of retraction varies from child to child, that the median age for foreskin retraction is approximately 10 years of age, and that not retracting is not a problem in a child before or even after the age of puberty.

Just what are American doctors being taught in American medical schools?

Why do stories like these keep happening?

Long-term visitors to the United States ought to be warned that doctors in America are often inadvertently, or quite deliberately misinformed about anatomically correct male genital anatomy, and that taking their child to an American-trained doctor could be hazardous to their child's health.

American doctors and American medical curriculum ought to be exposed for the misinformation they dispense.

Relevant Links:
https://www.facebook.com/mynorthoaks/timeline

http://www.northoaks.org/

http://www.healthgrades.com/provider/john-krieg-yshfd

Relevant Post:

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

16 comments:

  1. Doctors heal, not harm. These are quacks and medical charlatans. Not doctors.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm very sorry this happened to you, but as a pediatrician, I would never "forcibly" retract a baby's penis. However, my understanding is that generally, it can be retracted at about 4-5 yo. This, however, is not part of a regular exam. I have only done this when parents come to me with concerns necessitating it. This Dr. Seems to be a typical ER physician, with a bit less experience in this matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mari, current medical literature indicates that the median age for foreskin retraction is about 10 years of age. This is by no means any kind of expiration date either, as children have been known to be retractile from three years, to well into the teen years. At 4 or 5 years old, a non-retractile foreskin is still no cause for concern, and this is what parents need to be told. I have written a well referenced post here. Feel free to look through the medical literature I cite.
      http://joseph4gi.blogspot.jp/2015/06/phony-phimosis-how-american-doctors-get.html

      Delete
    2. Mari, please check the aap guidelines which also indicate 10 years as the median age of retractibility. 5 years and 16 years comprise the bottom and top 5th percentiles of this curve with 60% falling between the ages of 8 and 13

      Delete
    3. Actually the 2012 AAP report states that the foreskin is fully retractable at 2 to 4 months of the age. No kidding. If I have to look, I ask the patient to retract it themselves.

      Delete
  3. American physicians are not taught anything about the foreskin in medical school or residency, other than how to cut it off. The most popular histology text from when I went to medical school only mentioned the foreskin once as the what was cut off by circumcision. At a lecture on circumcision given a couple years ago, residents all admitted to being taught nothing about the foreskin in medical school. It not that physicians are taught the wrong things, they are never taught anything. The 2012 AAP report only made this situation worse by failing to include a section on the anatomy, histology, and function of the foreskin. It is an uphill battle.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Student doctors put so much faith in their professors, it's like being in a religion. Professors who teach these lies about proper care, hygiene and development of the male prepuce from infancy through adulthood, should be sued and knocked down off their know-it-all high horse pedestals and made examples of to discourage others from casting their religious based superstitious witch-doctor medical spells on innocent young people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 2011 Louisiana Laws
    Revised Statutes
    TITLE 14 — Criminal law
    RS 14:47 — Defamation
    I'll just leave this right here.. feel free to look it up and read it at your leisure..
    Side note: Your "meme" doesn't even have the right guy but you wouldn't know that cause you weren't even there. Strong work "Intactivist" smh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since when is the telling of true events "defamation"... I guess when it gets you into trouble... That's silly. Criminals could dismiss evidence against them by calling it "defamation."

      I took this meme (Why the scare quotes? It's a meme. Perhaps it hits home?) from the Facebook post I found the story on, and I wasn't there, I'll give you that. Still, it doesn't make this story and others like it any less true. If you have the picture of the actual guy I'll be more than happy to post it. The meme holds true; American doctors seem have an obsession with baby dick, and this story is a case in point.

      Thanks for the compliment, and thanks for your readership.

      Delete
    2. American physicians don't have an obsession with the "baby dick", they have an obligation to treat their patients. Which includes but is not limited to a head to toe assessment of a patient. And it holds even truer when a patient can't tell them like you or I can when it burns when I pee. It would be convenient for a parent to bring their child in and say look this is what's wrong with them and the MD say sure and send them out the door. Thing is they can't do that b/c they actually care about the well being of their patients and doing that would be neglect. I won't sit here and say that yes they're a few "bad" MD's out there, but that's with any profession(look at our government). But I honestly believe that 99% of physicians out there that took the oath to do no harm actually stand by and practice it, including the MD in question.

      Delete
    3. American physicians have an obligation to give their patients, and their patients' parents, complete, accurate, and verifiable information. Lo, it is their professional responsibility to be well-informed, so that they can treat their patients with the best of care.

      As professional medical practitioners, doctors need to be up-to-date as to correct diagnosis and treatment of a medical problem. It doesn't look well on them if their patients or their patients' parents are better informed than they are.

      Is it that the doctors care about the well-being of their patients? Or is it that they want to push their world view that all males need to be circumcised on patients or their children? Given the way our for-profit medical system works, I'm inclined to believe that doctors are looking for any which way to cash in on freebie procedures; a doctor won't make as much telling parents that their children will be fine, as much as he will telling them he needs to circumcise them.

      In theory, doctors are supposed to do no harm. I want to believe that. In practice? That they are more concerned with first making profit, or furthering their own personal belief that all males need to be circumcised is our indictment as intactivists.

      American doctors don't have an obsession with babies penises, you say? Is the first order of operations when a child is sick is to check and make sure he is circumcised? Is retracting the foreskin of a penis of a child suspected to be afflicted with UTI the first thing European doctors are trained to do? Somehow, I feel things are different in non-circumcising countries.

      My question stands; what are American doctors being taught regarding anatomically correct male anatomy? Are they being deliberately trained to manhandle children's penises? Are they being trained AT ALL???

      The fact that stories like these keep repeating themselves tells me that something is wrong with our system. Something is wrong with our medical curriculum if doctors are this stupid and dumb. American medical curriculum needs an overhaul as far as I can tell.

      That you don't forcibly retract a child's foreskin to "check" for anything is knowledge found in current medical literature. It should sound as ridiculous as digging your fingers in a baby girl's vagina to "check" and make sure she's OK.

      One of two things is happening; either doctors are being taught hogwash in American medical school, or the haven't, they haven't bothered to look up current medical literature on the subject, and they're simply that stupid.

      This shouldn't be happening this day and age in a country that is supposed to be "the forefront of medicine."

      Delete
    4. Read my next post.

      A nurse has actually refused to schedule an appointment for a child because, in her mind, the child needs to be circumcised first.

      Yet another case in point...

      I'm going to start posting these more often...

      Delete
    5. stewpoppa,

      If what you said was true, all these doctors wouldn't cut off foreskins.

      Delete
  6. I've just read the Louisiana law you referenced. I guess you don't have news outlets in Louisiana? You know because it could potentially expose people to "hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to deprive [them] of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse?"

    What a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Imagine if a girl had a fever, and the doctor's first idea is to pull down her panties and spread her legs...

    ReplyDelete
  8. if doctors here are so misinformed regarding male anatomy and intact care, you have to question their expertise in other issues as well. They routinely over prescribe antiobiotics and other medications and often make mistakes on basic diagnoses. Is America at the forefront of modern medicine? Im not so sure. Its important for everyone to stop thinking of doctors as gods and to remember most are just people trained as body mechanics and that there are plenty of mediocre ones out there.

    ReplyDelete