In a clinic with two consultation desks, my colleague and I were both seeing patients when suddenly a woman’s voice rang out, “My daughter is only 16, how could she possibly have syphilis? She’s never even had sex, so why are you testing her for syphilis?” I looked up and saw a mother, with an angry and bewildered expression, questioning our young doctor.

Just as my patient had finished, I quickly stood up and said, “Don’t worry, don’t worry. Let me take a look too and see what’s going on with the child.” I walked over to the girl and, behind the curtain, asked her to lift her clothes. There were scattered faint red patches on her abdomen and back, and a few copper-red macules could be seen on her palms and soles, some with slight peeling on the surface. It truly did appear highly suspicious of secondary syphilis rash. However, the mother was reluctant to accept the reality before her eyes and was visibly agitated.

I explained to the girl's mother that misdiagnosis can sometimes occur. By drawing blood for testing, we can help rule out the diagnosis for the child. Sometimes, atypical rashes may require a biopsy, and screening for infectious diseases like this is necessary before proceeding with a biopsy. We are making preparations on both fronts so nothing is delayed. The child's studies are intense, right? Time is precious, and we are considering what’s best for the child.

The mother's emotions eased. The 16-year-old girl hung her head low. It was unclear whether she understood what syphilis meant or whether she was aware of some of the consequences of having this disease. After the test order was issued, the mother took the girl and left the examination room. Later, according to the HIS system, they had paid the fees and completed the blood draw for testing.

The next day happened to be my and my colleague’s outpatient clinic, and we were both seated in the same room. In the afternoon, the child’s mother brought the girl back for a follow-up. The test results showing RPR 1:16 and TPPA positive confirmed our diagnosis—the girl had syphilis, secondary syphilis. Clearly, the girl had engaged in forbidden fruit and had not taken safety measures. As for how she contracted syphilis, that was not within the scope of our consideration. We filed an infectious disease report card and, following the standardized treatment protocol for syphilis, provided the girl with a full course of penicillin therapy in adequate doses.

Afterward, the girl was brought by her mother to the hospital for follow-ups over the next one to two years. I didn’t run into them several times, but the last I heard, the girl’s RPR titer had turned negative. Although syphilis antibodies remain positive for life, the RPR turning negative is a very positive outcome for the girl.

This happened many years ago, and the girl should be in her 20s by now. I still remember it very vividly and deeply feel that sexual education for young people, especially students, should have been brought into the open a long time ago. Such incidents are worth reflecting upon.