No, Ma'am, your 5 year old did not get gonorrhea from you
Sometimes an event is so ineffably sad that it almost defies comprehension. That was how I felt after a phone call on a bright Saturday morning in my last year of medical training.
As a chief-resident in obstetrics and gynecology, I was responsible for handling phone calls from patients who did not have a gynecologist of their own. On that Saturday morning, I took a call from a local women who was in her early 20’s. She sounded distraught, and at first, I couldn’t understand why she was calling.
“It’s about my 5 year old daughter,” she said. “I’m having a disagreement with her doctor and I want you to talk to him.”
“Okay,” I replied warily, “but I’m a gynecologist, so I’m not sure I could be very helpful.”
“No, no, you’re the right kind of doctor,” she insisted. “It’s a female problem.”
The mother proceeded to describe her daughter’s symptoms, vaginal itching and a greenish, malodorous discharge. The little girl’s pediatrician had examined her and gently taken a sample of discharge to look at under the microscope. When he returned to talk with the mother, he was very grim.
The microscopic evaluation of the discharge had reveal that the little girl was suffering from gonorrhea. It would not be difficult to treat; a simple shot of antibiotics should do the trick, but it could not end there. The pediatrician enquired if the mother knew where her daughter had contracted gonorrhea. It could only have come from sexual contact, which meant that someone had been sexually abusing the child.
The mother was aghast. She insisted that there was some mistake. There was no way her daughter could have been abused by anyone. The doctor disagreed.
The pediatrician informed her that, under the law, he had no choice but to file a “51A.” The mother understood that a 51A was a legal document alleging child abuse. It would set in train an investigation by child protection officials, and might result in her child being removed from her custody. The mother protested, but the doctor was adamant.
Now she wanted to know if it were possible that her daughter’s vaginal infection was something other than gonorrhea. I explained that seeing the bacteria under the microscope was quite reliable, but, in any case, the doctor had taken a culture. That meant that the laboratory would also identify the bacteria. The culture results would be virtually 100% accurate, and, I cautioned her, would almost certainly confirm the diagnosis of gonorrhea.
“Well, even if she has gonorrhea,” inquired the mother, “couldn’t she have picked it up from a towel or a toilet seat?”
I explained that that was highly unlikely. The gonorrhea bacteria could not survive outside the body for very long. Neither towels nor toilet seats were likely to be the source of gonorrhea.
Suddenly, her voice brightened.
“I know, I know,” she said, “My little girl got it from me!”
“From you?” I didn’t understand.
“Yes, from me,” she replied. I had gonorrhea a few weeks ago. My daughter and me, we take baths together all the time. That’s how she must have gotten it.”
She was quite relieved. “I knew it,” she declared. “No one has been messing around with her. She caught it from me.”
I wasn’t so sure.
“You had gonorrhea?” I asked with trepidation. “How did you catch gonorrhea?”
I knew what was coming.
“Oh, I caught it from my boyfriend. He had it and he gave it to me. We both got antibiotic shots and now it’s gone.”
My heart sank.
“No, Ma’am, your daughter didn’t get gonorrhea from you.”
“She didn’t? Of course she did,” the mother protested. “Who else could have given it to her?”
I tried to be gentle, but how can you gently tell someone that her boyfriend has been sexually abusing her daughter?
The mother burst into tears. “That means the doctor is right, doesn’t it?”
“Yes, he is probably right.”
The mother continued sobbing. “I’m sorry,” she said. “I’m so sorry I bothered you. I just thought that there had to be some other way.”
I assured her that it had been no bother, though I had been shaken to the core.
“I’ve got to go now,” she wept. “I can’t talk anymore. I don’t understand. I just don’t understand. What am I going to do now?”
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
MissingK8
aliquot
Roger Fallihee
madcelt
Norwonk
John Moore
Salon.com
Comments
In a way it's a positive thing the little girl caught gonorrhea, because who knows how much longer she would've been abused with no one noticing?
The little girl was actually lucky to have gotten gonorrhea. Otherwise the abuse would likely have continued undetected.
I can't imagine having to deal with that side of medicine.
The key was the statement :
"As a chief-resident in obstetrics and gynecology, I was responsible for handling phone calls from patients who did not have a gynecologist of their own."
Uh, no you aren't. NO hospital would take phone calls like this. Ask yourself WHY they would?? Nope. Didn't happen. Sorry, dude.
That's not to say child molestation doesn't exist; simply that THIS character likely isn't even an MD; much less a physician who heard this. Think I'm wrong? Print this guy's name and the hospital. No? Case closed.
Memo to readers: Stop being so damned gullible
Until then I always wondered about the mothers who supposedly tolerated incest and sexual abuse of their daughters. I thought I wouldn't be able to contain my anger if I ever met such a mother. This case completely blindsided me, both because I couldn't see it coming, and because instead of feeling anger, I felt unspeakably sad.
What if the boyfriend were actually the father of the little girl. Should the woman leave him? No, according to Amy. See: Are fathers optional?
What if the boyfriend/father impregnated the little girl? Should she have an abortion? No, according to Amy. See: Are there any bad reasons to have an abortion?
And finally, look at Amy's comments:
"Yet, somehow this seemed among the worst: a little girl who had been victimized and a mother who refuse to see what was right in front of her.
Until then I always wondered about the mothers who supposedly tolerated incest and sexual abuse of their daughters. "
It's always the mother's fault, isn't it Amy? Zero chance at all that this woman was ignorant. Nope. According to Amy, this mother REFUSED to see what was in front of her and TOLERATED the abuse of her daughter.
"judgemental assholism"
The science magazine Discover has a Vital Signs series where they do the same exact thing - sharing case studies to enlighten others about difficult or rare conditions. Pick up JAMA, NEJM, and other clinical scientific journals - every article is this same thing, but with much more intimate information about the patients studied. This how progress happens.
"NO hospital would take phone calls like this. Ask yourself WHY they would??"
It's called emergency or on-call care. You should be thankful that caregivers do this, otherwise you would only be treated during business hours.
And there is nothing wrong with the post. You couldn't find this little girl if you wanted to.
Of *course*, dick white, hospitals never would take calls from people asking about their medical problems. Are you SERIOUS?! What the hell do you think hospitals are FOR?!
And K Schecter, this post is just a story. There is no statement of opinion anywhere in the article. It's understandable that you didn't realize this, since I doubt you actually read most of it in your haste to insult Dr. Amy, but I'd advise you to take a minute to actually look over the post before you start making smartass comments about it.
You know, I don't usually leave comments like this, but the ignorance from you two is so goddamned astounding that I couldn't keep silent. For the love of God, you guys, get off the internet and calm down. Don't you have something better to do than constantly deride a single blogger?
Yet Amy has expressed some extremely rigid assertions in previous posts about women and their responsibility in the case of abuse. So what is wrong with asking her about her feelings in light of this case that she has shared?
Yes she felt sad, but what else? What about all the other judgments she reserves for single mothers, mothers who "let" their children be abused, etc? I think that considering the Amy we've all come to know here, those are indeed fair questions.
WHY oh WHY does it always come down to this?? Someone disagrees with Amy (which is fine, obviously. I disagree with her frequently), makes some personal attacks and then starts in on the "maybe she's not even a REAL doctor!" or "She's not practicing anymore, so she's not a REAL doctor!"
Can you seriously not come up with better than that? You can even Google to confirm she is who she says she is! And no, she is no longer practicing, but last I heard, all that education and experience doesn't fall out of your head when you retire @@
You realize, of course, that it is not always obvious that the guy who does things like this is a "bad choice"? Many child molesters are very good at appearing to be "good" guys, especially when it comes to children. They can be charming, gentle, loving and GREAT with kids (which can seem like a dream come true for some single moms, especially if they were previously in abusive/unhealthy relationships), and the mom has no reason to suspect a thing.
Child molesters/pedophiles come in all varieties, from the dirty insane-looking creep who gives you the willies right away, to the upstanding member of the community who coaches Little League in his spare time, to the beloved religious figure, to grandpa, to the husband you've been married to for years and you never had an inkling he could be capable of such a thing.
And, of course, we can't forget that women can be pedophiles/child molesters too. It's never quite as black and white as we'd like to think it is.
"Yet Amy has expressed some extremely rigid assertions in previous posts about women and their responsibility in the case of abuse."
I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about. I have said repeatedly that when a child's safety is being compromised by a parent, the child should be removed from that parent. I've have NEVER strayed from that claim or made any claims that contradict it.
How, exactly, does tolerating a boyfriend sexually abusing a child have ANYTHING to do with whether or not fathers are necessary? It doesn't obviously.
"It's a shame to see a number of people (or screen names) criticize the sharing of such information. This is how doctors and patients learn! No discernible date was given, no names were provided, and it wasn't a face-to-face interaction with identifiers - it's a case study. This is also an extremely common occurrence in medicine - it could've been syphilis, chlamydia, or a number of other STDs and mothers do cover up for their boyfriends and step-fathers quite often in case brought to OB/GYNs and Pediatricians."
My first response of discomfort came not from the story itself but from the picture of the little girl model with the stuffed toy. I don't think it's ethical to use the girl's model image for a sexual abuse story. I run a website and buy pictures from shutterstock.com. One of the terms users agree to is to not use the picture in a way that might compromise the reputation or image of the model. I don't know where Amy got that picture but regardless, on an ethical level, I think the use of that picture for this blog post potentially crosses the line.
"am I right in thinking that this was a post to make people think,. not intended to inspire debate?"
That's right. It is simply a shocking event that has stayed with me through all the intervening years.
How, exactly, does tolerating a boyfriend sexually abusing a child have ANYTHING to do with whether or not fathers are necessary? It doesn't obviously."
But the question you've been asked (and failed to respond to) is whether the status of the boyfriend would make any difference. Specifically, the original commenter asked if it would have mattered if the boyfriend had instead been the biological father
to the little girl.
After all, you did declare that a child has an absolute moral right to have both biological parents in their lives at all times, securing substitutes is immoral, and being a single parent is similarly immoral. There was no qualifier included in that assertion, and indeed you rejected the observation made by numerous commenters that having a single mother is better than having a mother and a bad father. While I understand that you might have assumed that everyone knew that you meant that there's a limit to how bad a parent one can be, that was not obvious from the article nor from most your responses.
So now we know that a child has an absolute moral right to be raised by both its biological parents, unless one of the biological parents poses a danger to the child. The question then becomes, how much of a danger? Is sexual abuse the line, or is physical abuse enough? How about verbal or emotional abuse? What if the father does not directly abuse the child, but abuses the mother in the child's presence? No direct danger to the child, but some would argue that such behavior is emotionally scarring to the child. If spousal abuse in the child's presence is enough, how about spousal abuse when the child is not around?
Leaving abuse aside, what about situations where the parent is otherwise displaying bad and potentially scarring behavior? Is the moral obligation of a mother to stay with the biological father of her children overridden if the father holds up liquor stores for a living? What if he's merely in a gang and associates with people who engage in such activity? You specifically said that a mother would not be justified in leaving a biological father over infidelity, so it appears that you've set one threshhold - bad acts by the father must be worse than infidelity. You've now given us another threshhold - sexually abusing the child is apparently severe enough. So it's not really a moral absolute, but more of a guideline. Flesh out the guideline - where exactly in the space between flagrant and ongoing marital infidelity and direct sexual abuse of the child does the harm done by a biological father outweigh the child's absolute right to have both parents present throughout their childhood?
As an aside to the person who says people critical of Dr. Amy have something against her due to the Isreal/Palestine split - I came along after that. I just think Dr. Amy is doing a bad Dr. Laura impersonation, relying on her status as a medical doctor to carry her through when she lacks the intellectual honesty and rigor to engage with difficult moral questions. Instead, she treats her own biases as moral absolutes, cherry-picks data to support her, ignores any data that undermines her position, and likewise ignores the numerous people who poke holes in her more ridiculous assertions.
Also, a question for the veterans around her from a newcomer: Does Dr. Amy make a practice of periodically posting tearjerkers like this? I only ask because this article could be read as a cynical attempt to win sympathy from the crowd after she's repeatedly alienated readers with recent posts and her histrionic responses to criticism.
Speaking of old jokes: What's the difference between a doctor and God? God never thought he was a doctor.
Oh absolutely. Everyone once in a while she'll post a humanizing article that helps wash away the fallout from the hardline, no-holds-barred, my-way-or-the-highway postings that are her usual fodder.
I have no reason to not believe that this story is legit. Her recent post about cancer screenings falls into this category too. Also, I don't think that there was anything in her "Fathers are Optional" post that would suggest that she would tolerate the above situation.
First, and foremost, I have no relation to dick white. His (or her?) comments are asinine.
But your comments are equally absurd.
"And K Schecter, this post is just a story. There is no statement of opinion anywhere in the article."
You clearly didn't read my post. Because clearly, I have not only read this post, and Amy's comments here, but also OTHER Amy posts, and paid enough attention to put them in context. My post was a direct response to Amy's followup comment. I believe you had better shore up your own critical reading skills before accusing someone else of being lacking that department.
I never questioned the legitimacy of this or any other story of Amy's. I don't think Amy is a fiction writer, but I DO think she is not completely honest about her EXTREME OPINIONS.
Amy seems to consistently blame ONLY the mothers. Not husbands, boyfriends or fathers. This bias extends through many of her postings and comments.
As Barbrady777 noted, Amy did claim that children have an absolute right to be raised with their biological fathers, and blamed mothers who left fathers and called them selfish, even when the fathers were unfaithful or worse.
Amy has also judged women who have abortions to be uniformly callous and selfish.
She seems to have a serious hang up about mothers, while giving men, even abusers, a free pass. I don't think the women are necessarily innocent, but nor are they prima facie guilty.
Amy also seems to think that anecdotes are a satisfactory substitute for data. Any statistician can tell you that an n=1, no matter how seemingly compelling, is still just an n=1.
"I have said repeatedly that when a child's safety is being compromised by a parent, the child should be removed from that parent. I've have NEVER strayed from that claim or made any claims that contradict it."
Yes you have. You claimed that the only reason women leave biological fathers is because they don't like them. From "Are fathers optional?"
Amy:
"What other explanation is there for depriving a child of a father other than the fact that the mother doesn't like him enough to live with him?"
RogerF1953:
"1) Maybe the father beats the shit out of the child.
2) Maybe the father beats the shit out of his wife.
3) Maybe the father spends all of the families money at the racetrack.
4) Maybe the father is a serial adulterer.
5) Maybe the father is all of the above.
6) Or maybe the mom is just whimsical and fickel and gets bored with the same lover."
Amy: "Right, she doesn't like him."
Blame the women! They're always guilty! At least new blog will agree with you, because as he has written repeatedly, they are just "stupid whores."
ugh
You did the right thing writing this to the community. It shakes up concepts.
Don't put too much into the criticism... probably shakes up some people who have some deep seated fears, memories, confusions.. that's all.
Plus they don't understand how a professional would see this anyway... so leave the comments behind.
Bravo.
Oh, I would say you're VERY biased. I'm sorry you lost a child because the mother made an obviously bad decision. That does not, however, mean that every situation is so clear cut.
In the above story we have no way of knowing whether or not the mother had any reason to suspect her boyfriend. All I am saying is that frequently there were no reasons for anyone close to the pedophile to suspect they would do anything like that (until the child starts showing signs of abuse)...not even the women who love them and have close relationships with them. They're not all violent meth heads. Very frequently they were abused as children themselves, and many of them can be rather mild mannered, gentle, friendly men who appear very normal. And they are frequently GREAT with kids.
Yes, there are plenty of men who are obviously abusive and women keep their children there anyways. I'm only asserting that it is frequently the opposite case as well, so it is beyond unfair to claim that every child who is abused by a boyfriend, father etc. has a "stupid whore" as a mother. It is simply not the case.
I never referred to Amy as a he. Were you referring to someone else maybe?
I have to give thanks to the incognito "new blog." You're right, I really have no reason not to have a pic and profile info. So now I do. Check me out!
Thanks!
The one thing about ignorance is that its owner is inevitably unaware they possess it. And, sometimes, Amy you seem ignorant of that fact.
Skeptical? You sound contempuous which is a strange trait I'd imagine a doctor to carry.
I was a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of the only father figure I knew at that time. And he wasn't my father. My mother knew something was up, but it wasn't until I was taken away from her that she accepted that something was horrendously wrong.
However, before you come down so hard on the mother in this post, think about this, because my best friend of 20 years was molested by her father, and her mother never knew...her mother was devastated when she found out....so think on this...put yourself in that caller's shoes. You have a precious child and there is evidence right in front of your face that the man you loved and trusted has harmed the one thing you value more than your own life: your precious baby. You don't want to believe it at first, because if you do, you begin to question where you failed to protect your child. What didn't you see? What red flag totally missed being noticed? Then guilt. You're supposed to protect your children, and for them to violated and betrayed like that is bound to produce a lot of feelings of failure.
I am sure that mother got her daughter the help she needs, left her boyfriend, etc. I know not many do, but I can almost guarantee you that the woman wasn't crying because her dude cheated with her kid....her dude hurt and violated her baby. She wasn't crying for him. She was crying because in her heart she knew she had to believe what was right in front of her. A common initial reaction is denial. Who in the hell wants to realize that their baby is being molested? No one. I can't blame her for desperately seeking a 'normal' reason, and I'm sure she eventually came to terms with it.
Why does everyone assume the mother always knows? I'm a mother myself now, and while I used to assume that moms knew everything and missed nothing, I know different. Thank god my children will never experience what I did as a toddler.
That line from my prior comment should read
'I am sure that mother got her daughter the help she needs, left her boyfriend, etc. I know we always hear about the ones who let the abuse continue though not many do, but I can...'
bv
Hotels Birmingham Airport
directory submission
Cheap Used Cars
Konferens