That the R family was on a first-name-basis with Dr. Beuf speaks on their personal relationship with him. This could've been a motivating factor in Dr. Beuf disregarding JBR's vaginal issues as normal.
Agree. Which is unethical. I've said this before, but I don't trust Beuf. I don't for one minute believe that he actually performed any vag exams on JB. He contradicts himself when asked about it. I also do not believe he did his due diligence based on her symptoms and that he was only trying to cover his own backside when he said he had performed those exams. He was a friend of the family and he put that first.
To put this into perspective, it's important to note that it's our society that has developed a terrible custom of calling the external female genitalia the vagina - which it is not. It is the vulva. However, a physician absolutely knows the difference.
SAWYER: But what about those reports that JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr Beuf, saw JonBenet 30 times in three years?
BEUF: Before your call, I sat down with her chart and counted. It was 27 times.
SAWYER: This is the first time Dr Beuf has gone over his records publicly.
And is that unusual to see a child that many times?
BEUF: Not with the kinds of problems which this child had. The majority of them were for sinus infections and for colds.
SAWYER: And by majority you mean?
BEUF: Probably 20 of the lot. I counted three in which she'd complained of some pain in urination. And the rest of them were cold, strep throats, sinus infections.
SAWYER: So many he said, there was some concern about asthma.
How many times did you give her a vaginal examination?
BEUF: Well, it was five or six times in that three year period.
SAWYER: We asked him to specifically review all notes that might pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.
September 1993 a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated with recent diarrhea.
April 1994 a visit about a problem perhaps related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.
October 1994 a routine physical. No problems noted, though some indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25 percent of children that age wet the bed.
March 1995 abdominal pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem.
August 1996 another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this number of complaints?
Would that be unusual?
BEUF: For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better. But if you have 4yo kids, you know how hard that is. The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally consistent with little girls her age.
SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?
BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.
SAWYER: Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual abuse?
BEUF: No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are very acutely aware of.
(BBM)
So, here's why it doesn't make sense:
First he says he says he performed a vag exam 5 or 6 times in a 3 year period. This would be an incredible number of times for anyone who is not expecting a baby or with some other OB/GYN issue, let alone a child.
Then, Sawyer asks him, "If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?" and he replies, "Probably."
But then he states, "I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia."
Well, which is it, doctor? You can't have it both ways.
My guess is that he never actually performed a vag exam. I think that is an outright lie. Although, it can be done on a child without anesthesia using an otoscope (ear scope), and he should definitely know that.
At best, he might have done a
visual exam of her
vulva. But, unless he used some kind of an instrument,
he never performed a vag exam.
The bottom line for me is this - this record is filled with red flags and he did not do his due diligence. He either turned a blind eye to the problems right before his face or he was negligent. Of course, there is another explanation - some kind of influence kept the dirty truth out of those medical records and his failure to report will forever keep that secret.
http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/bynum.html
