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.