Path vs. peds?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
S

sarephina

~:]
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
5
Hi everyone,

I am a third year medical student in the Northeast. I am currently trying to decide between pathology and pediatrics. One of the path residents I spoke to during my path elective said that many path residents once seriously considered going into pediatrics, but she wasn't sure about the reason.

People have asked me about the reason that I am considering these fields, since at first they seem so different. I'm not sure, but it seems like in path and peds, I just find it easier to be myself compared to when I am on other rotations. Of course there are many reasons I like both, but that seems to be the biggest common thread between them, for me.

I guess I'm posting this in the Pathology forum because I am leaning more toward pathology right now, due to nature of the actual work that most docs in these fields do... lol ~palm-->forehead... rubs~

Anyway, has anyone here ever tried to decide between these two fields of medicine? If you have decided, how did you finally make your decision?

Good luck to everyone who's going through the Match!
Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
Offhand I can't recall anyone who was trying to decide between path and pediatrics. That doesn't mean there aren't any, it's just that I don't know of any. I have heard path vs psych, path vs radiology, path vs derm, path vs IM. Lots of path residents started in surgical residency before switching.

If you feel happy in either one, then you have to decide which lifestyle you like better and which field challenges you more and gives you more out of your career. Personally, pediatrics was my least favorite rotation of med school. It wasn't that stressful, but it was irritating because (at least where I was) it was extremely anti intellectual. It seemed like we spent too much of our time learning how to manipulate people. Faking enthusiasm was regarded more than medical knowledge. I know that is not true everywhere, but that was my experience.
 
I was considering peds and went into path. A number of factors were involved in making the decision to do pathology, these will probably vary from one individual to the next.

If peds was just about taking care of kids it probably might have been a tougher decision for me. The parents are (in large part) what drove me away from peds. Another reason I didn't do peds is because I really don't have great dexterity. Putting lines into premies or doing spinal taps on them scares the hell out of me, with good reason.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I wanted to go into peds since before college! I had this notion that I loved kids and would love to help them as their doctor (I had a great pediatrician, and a pediatrician also in my family). I thought that the long term relationship you'd establish with the family from birth to young adulthood would be great. So, I went into medical school focused on being a general pediatrician.
THEN I did my actual family med and peds rotation and realized it so wasn't for me. I didn't like working based on algorithms, and also realized that you saw similar bread and butter diseases every day, day in and day out. Plus, during medical school I was more interested in making the diagnosis (my admission h&p's were spectacular ;)) but after the diagnosis was made, my interest waned. The personal interaction with patients just did not cut it, and the invested emotional and psychological effort didn't outweigh the benefits at the end of the day. I realized that there was no way I'd be happy doing peds for the next 20+ years.
I loved histology and pathology during medical school, and came back to thinking of path as a career during my third year. I loved the "mystery", the work up of cases, the visual aspect of surg path, and the impact my diagnoses made on patient care.

And I don't miss patient care ONE BIT. I'm intellectually stimulated on a daily basis. And, I get the personal interactions from the people around me. The bread and butter in path definitely is tolerable compared to the zebras you'll get (which are many!).
 
If you love both of these fields, you may be interested to know there is a subspecialty in pathology called "Pediatric Pathology"...

Though you wouldn't necessarily be interacting with children patients... you would be dealing with specimens from children and seeing the pathology if that is what interests you.

It may be worth checking out, could be right up your alley.
 
"It seemed like we spent too much of our time learning how to manipulate people. Faking enthusiasm was regarded more than medical knowledge."

From my experience, ALL of clinical medicine is like this. Its all about putting up those fake smiles and showing fake concern for people who so incredibly indifferent about their health it just makes you wonder why again you give a crap about these people in the first place, especially if your salary is mediocre. The CS is simply a way to test you ability to fake emotions and concerns toward fake patients. That's what clinical medicine is, a huge farce! And clinicians are the best actors in the world.
 
yaah said:
Personally, pediatrics was my least favorite rotation of med school. It wasn't that stressful, but it was irritating because (at least where I was) it was extremely anti intellectual. It seemed like we spent too much of our time learning how to manipulate people. Faking enthusiasm was regarded more than medical knowledge. I know that is not true everywhere, but that was my experience.
Click to expand...


I know my personal opinion doesn't help you decide which to do, but I agree with yaah's sentiments. I got dinged during peds for 'not smiling enough at a patient'. C'mon, are you serious?! Well child checks? Stab me in the eye with a red hot fork. I am dedicing mostly between Path and several Surg fields...I chose to do Peds Surg this year, and it put the proverbial nail in the coffin of me never wanting to deal with the Peds population. Kids make me laugh and I love them, but crazy parents and boring nature of the work = least favorite rotation.

So I guess what you can gleam from all that is to really try to think about what you would want to do in both Path and Peds. I know it's tough to do that without even deciding which one you want to do in general, but try to look into the future and see what you'd be doing. Some people really just love interacting with kids that much. I personally don't feel kids appreciate what you do for them, nor would I expect them to, so the interactions are generally not satisfying for me. Many parents are horrible at managing their children's health which gets me from zero to pissed in .3 seconds. However, if your interactions with kids are just simply gratifying for you, then consider that...there are many interesting areas of peds such as heme onc (maybe some overlap with Path), genetics, neonatology, etc.

But yeah, I found many Peds problems to be pretty straightforward. About the coolest thing I saw was Kawasaki's, (absolutely the epitome of the dz...little Japanese boy and all) and even that has a cookie cutter treatment plan that doesn't require too much cognitive requirement.

Ok, enough of my experiences. Maybe what I said will get you thinking about the two fields more...I guess a lot of it was ditching on Peds, but I have much respect for anyone who chooses to do Peds...it means I don't have to. heheh. I'm one of those people who liked almost everything I rotated through, but I do have one elimination method...if *field of medicine* was the only field left for you to practice, would you still do medicine or would you do something else with your life? If you put 'Peds' into the *'s, the answer would be, no I would not practice medicine...I would go be a DJ or a Photographer or something.
 
Pediatrics has to be the epitome of defensive medicine. Throw the kitchen sink at the little rug rats, "that should tell us what's wrong." Most academic pediatricians aren't quite right in the noggin... and for that reason, the one thing that may perhaps be worse than peds itself is doing a peds autopsy.
 
KluverB said:
Pediatrics has to be the epitome of defensive medicine. Throw the kitchen sink at the little rug rats, "that should tell us what's wrong." Most academic pediatricians aren't quite right in the noggin... and for that reason, the one thing that may perhaps be worse than peds itself is doing a peds autopsy.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with you here.

Nearly all of primary care is about defensive medicine, it's not limited to the practice of pediatrics.

Furthermore, the academic pediatricians I have worked with have generally been stellar and sane - they had quirks, but who doesn't.

Lastly, regarding pediatric autopsy, the lunacy you hint at may be the consequence of parental pressure to find a cause of death and make sense of a terrible thing.
 
listeriaismfb said:
I respectfully disagree with you here.

Nearly all of primary care is about defensive medicine, it's not limited to the practice of pediatrics.
Click to expand...

Kluver didn't say defensive medicine was limited to peds, he said peds is the epitome. I happen to agree with Kluver.

listeriaismfb said:
Furthermore, the academic pediatricians I have worked with have generally been stellar and sane - they had quirks, but who doesn't.
Click to expand...

This likely depends on where you are. In my experience, the larger and more well known the pediatric hospital, the higher the chance of faculty not being right in the noggin.

listeriaismfb said:
Lastly, regarding pediatric autopsy, the lunacy you hint at may be the consequence of parental pressure to find a cause of death and make sense of a terrible thing.
Click to expand...

The parents at our peds hospital would have a difficult time adding pressure to the process. Our pediatric autopsies are not infrequently all day affairs, with reports topping 30 pages. It's not uncommon for one of the not-quite-right-in-the-noggin pediatric oncologists to be blathering on behind you during the whole procedure.

Doing it for the children kicks everything up a notch.
 
Gut Shot said:
Kluver didn't say defensive medicine was limited to peds, he said peds is the epitome. I happen to agree with Kluver.



This likely depends on where you are. In my experience, the larger and more well known the pediatric hospital, the higher the chance of faculty not being right in the noggin.



The parents at our peds hospital would have a difficult time adding pressure to the process. Our pediatric autopsies are not infrequently all day affairs, with reports topping 30 pages. It's not uncommon for one of the not-quite-right-in-the-noggin pediatric oncologists to be blathering on behind you during the whole procedure.

Doing it for the children kicks everything up a notch.
Click to expand...

ALL of primary care is the epitome of defensive medicine, NOT just peds.

I've rotated at the biggest childrens hospital in the windy city. My experience runs counter to yours. No thirty page reports, no all-day affairs, and no blathering attendings during the posts. Not to say that this never happens, but I never saw it.

I've had more internists following me around during adult posts than I have pediatric attendings during infant/child posts. Granted this is all anecdotal evidence, but it's all I've got...
 
listeriaismfb said:
ALL of primary care is the epitome of defensive medicine, NOT just peds.
Click to expand...

Well, you're certainly welcome to your opinion.

listeriaismfb said:
I've rotated at the biggest childrens hospital in the windy city. My experience runs counter to yours.
Click to expand...

I rotate at the biggest childrens hospital in the country. Now, let's watch our anecdotes do battle!

draw4.gif
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Gut Shot said:
Well, you're certainly welcome to your opinion.


You know what they say about opinions :)


I rotate at the biggest childrens hospital in the country...quote]

I have found the source of your problem! :)
Click to expand...
 
Gut Shot said:
In my experience, the larger and more well known the pediatric hospital, the higher the chance of faculty not being right in the noggin.
Click to expand...

r = 0.97, P < 0.00001!

BTW, I sometimes have the pathologist join me in talking to the family about the autopsy results on a baby. Off topic, but I wonder how you guys feel about that. Maybe deserves its own thread so this one can focus on the psychopathology of academic pediatricians at large children's hospitals!:p
 
I considered peds before going into path. I don't agree with what many people have said here. I found peds to be a pleasant experience. It is one of the only primary care fields where I honestly empathized for ALL the patients. After all, they are kids, and unlike in medicine they are not mostly doing it to themselves. It was rather painful to deal with parents at times, but it just took patience.

Ultimately I decided on path because of my research interests, and because Peds is probably the LEAST financially rewarding specialty out there. But I'm sure I would have been happy either way.
 
I actually applied to peds programs/had interviews set up, then did my sub-internship (in October - my school has issues) and was miserable. I'm disappointed that it took so long for me to figure it out, but better late than later, I suppose. As people have previously stated, I missed not getting to participate in diagnosis (always had a dx from the ED or clinic), I realized I really don't care for patient management, I had really sick kids for the first time (much harder to deal with emotionally than I though), parents could be extremely frustrating, and many of the things other people have previously posted. I had scheduled a month in hemepath the following month because it was something I'd always been interested in, and it was excatly what I was looking for. Now I'm doing surg path to confirm that this is the right decision. It's led to a lot of life changes and a decision to defer for a year, which is sometimes petrifying to think about, but I feel like I made the right decision for me.

My advice would be to do a sub-internship in peds and a rotation in pathology as early as possible in your fourth year. That is the best way, I think, to be able to assess the two fields. Try to spend the next six months figuring out what is important to you. Do you really like being at the crux of diagnosis? Would you be ok if your career didn't involve a ton of patient contact? Do you prefer managment of patient issues? Do you love rounding? I think if I'd figured those things out earlier I wouldn't be in the position I'm in. :bang: I'd be happy to discuss further via PM. Best of luck to you!
 
oldbearprofessor said:
BTW, I sometimes have the pathologist join me in talking to the family about the autopsy results on a baby. Off topic, but I wonder how you guys feel about that. Maybe deserves its own thread so this one can focus on the psychopathology of academic pediatricians at large children's hospitals!:p
Click to expand...
I think that could be a great idea if in the right hands and if the pediatrician and pathologist are both prepared for the discussion beforehand. I can imagine it would help the parents to have the person who actually did the autopsy there to provide that perspective. That being said, I have no doubt that there are some pathologists for whom that whole idea would necessitate a change of underwear. And others who would decline, as it would hold absolutely no interest for them. Psychopathology is not limited to the pediatric service!
 
When I started med school, I considered going for peds, and path for (similar?) reasons.

I fairly quickly decided against both. I didnt want to struggle through a general peds residency for 3 years when I really wanted to do peds cardiology(which I might not get). And I really did not like histology.

But...

At the outset, to me, both fields rely heavily on data, research, probability and statistics, labs... more than the patients subjective story.

But once I did some more peds... what was "what is the most likely Dx based on so many factors" became "lets treat for this, come back in a week, If Im wrong, we'll treat for that".

I realize that I was inappropriately intellectualizing the day-to-day grind... 20 years down the road, in Peds, im not going to stay up on the local epidemiology, and follow the patients sed rate. Im going to become complacent to some extent.

I guess my point is, If your path/peds delemma is anything like mine... think about what will happen when the academic thrill wears off.
 
listeriaismfb said:
... regarding pediatric autopsy, the lunacy you hint at may be the consequence of parental pressure to find a cause of death and make sense of a terrible thing.
Click to expand...

I've done a good number of peds autopsies (mainly perinatal) and presented a whole lot of them at M&M and other conferences. I could have reused my presentations ad nauseam. They all have lungs that look like crud (prematurity), livers that look like failure vs. autolysis (ie. "TPN effect"), hearts with all sorts of scarring (MIs 2/2 hemodynamic instability), and often Potter's sequence. This last one sometimes being of academic interest.

However, no matter how many of these I've done, the same questions are raised, the same objections, the same discussions that tend not to go anywhere, the same attempts at education, usually by the same exact people. It's like 50 first dates (and that was a gawdawful film).

I think part of it has to do with the fact that the clinicians simply can't believe that they weren't able to save this child. There must have been something that they could have done.

At first I did think it was the parents driving this. But now, I'm convinced it's actually the clinicians. I know this will sound absurd, or paradoxical, but I actually think they're hoping we will confirm in the autopsy something they may have missed; that there was hope; that what they did wasn't ultimately futile; that there was something beyond the irreversible lung/heart/liver/renal injury that they could have acted on or prevented. Except that there usually isn't. Although, the flip-side of the coin may be that they do want to prove to the parents that they were right all along and have us spell it out for them in a long autopsy report what nine times out of ten was known already.

Of course, my view is somewhat skewed. I'm sure that because of (or rather in spite of) all the defensive medicine, for every autopsy we do, I'm sure dozens more survive and get to go home, and we, as pathologists sadly do not hear about.

"Think of the children!" is spot on!

Yes there's plenty of defensive medicine going on, but I just don't see the same amount of crazy testing being ordered on adults; perhaps, with the exception of neurology. :p
 
In my first year I had two consecutive (within a couple of days) autopsies on full term infants who went home from the hospital (different outside hospitals in different states) on day 2-3 of life, were readmitted in fulminant "sepsis" soon after, and were found at autopsy to have disseminated HSV (culture proven in multiple sites + characteristic histology findings). In both cases the mother in hindsight remembered having some lesions but never told anyone. In both cases it was completely unsuspected by the clinicians. All of my other pediatric autopsies had findings that were completely as expected by the clinicians. So, sometimes you learn something. Pediatric autopsies are also very educational for learning about congenital anomalies. I had a couple of autopsies with omphaloceles and a half dozen with congenital heart anomalies.
 
Thanks, everyone! You've given me a lot to think about.

yaah: I wonder if a lot of path residents switch to surgery.
It would be nice for there to be SOMEBODY to explain tests and stuff properly to patients. From my experience with my own primary care docs and during my clinical rotations so far, some clinicians seem ill-equipped (time/understanding) to do so&#8230; but should the pathologist do it? Assuming there is enough interest among pathologists, is it logistically feasible?

listeriaismfb: I haven't met any difficult parents yet, but I have heard about them&#8230; it's sad that the sick children are caught in the middle.

caffeinegirl: Yeah, the visual and intellectual stimulation in pathology are a big draw for me. Zebras are awesome! Hmm, I've read in some places that pathologists are at the cutting edge of medicine&#8230; is it true that you generally have ample time to look stuff up and keep up with new diagnostic developments? And just to clarify, do you mean that you think the bread and butter cases of path are more tolerable than the bread and butter cases of clinical medicine?

Pathologenius: I came across some pediatric path cases during my path elective! Yeah, that's definitely something I would like to look into, if I go into pathology&#8230; pediatricians in general seem to be very nice people. ^_^

pathdude999: ick. I think that's one of the worst parts about clinical medicine&#8230; trying to help people who won't help themselves&#8230; makes me feel kind of useless&#8230;

Dral: lol I just heard some peds residents here talk about Kawasaki, how they saw one case last year and spent the rest of the year talking about it.
Interesting exercise. I think the answer for me would be yes for any field of medicine, even ob/gyn (everyone just seemed really bummed about the future of the field). ^_^ But who knows, as the faerie dust of Doctorhood settles...

gbwillner: what is your research interest? I've contributed to a bunch of different kinds of research projects here and there&#8230; but I've heard that for PhD's, specific research skills are more "marketable" than flexibility. I wonder if that is also the case is for MD's&#8230; I guess it would depend on whether I do academic medicine, and how much research vs. clinical work I want to do&#8230; uh&#8230; somehow I want to squeeze a family in there too&#8230; geez, what am I thinking? haha

JPmamd09: it's better that you found out before you began your residency&#8230; one of the path residents I met during my elective had become an ob/gyn attending before she decided to switch. I'm actually not a great fan of rounding&#8230; we seem to just repeat the same info 3 times each morning&#8230;

howelljolly: no matter what I end up going into, I'm worried about becoming complacent&#8230; sometimes I wonder if lawyers are a necessity to keep docs on their toes.
There seems to be such a variety of practices for any field, and Life is so unpredictable, that I don't know how anybody can decide what to do, whether in medicine or other careers&#8230; well, at least location is pretty much set for me&#8230; whatever I do, I want to do it around NYC. lol

Gut Shot: wh00! An anecdote battle! You and listeriaismfb have at least one captive MS3 in the audience! ~stares~

KluverB: can you ask the clinicians about the cases that do survive? Help brighten your day&#8230;
learning from autopsies&#8230; I think humans have been around long enough for us to know a LOT about our gross physical makeup. But is there absolutely nothing more to be gained from the study of cadavers? Maybe the conference attendants hope some new surprising insight will come out of repeated discussions of the same cause of death?
I think one of my anatomy professors had recently done a study about the variation of bile duct formations&#8230;
 
Last edited:
I'll be honest with you, my peds rotation was my first and I didn't love it, but I liked it. It being first had something to do with that I'm sure. I went through peds surg and that's what sealed the deal for me as I said before. Surgery steps everything up a notch (or several) for parents.

I dunno, I think there is a 'kid loving gene' that people have. There are people that you can just label as 'kid people'. I don't dislike kids, I really like them and they crack me up, but I'm not one of those 'kid people'.

I'm not going to say that those are the only people that can be satisfied with a career in peds, but I think it's worth it to do some introspection and see if you have that 'gene'. Also, ask some of your friends/classmates who you trust to give you an assessment. Starting a convo about the topic may give you some insight. Lastly get some face time with attendings. If you tell them you have an interest in the field, they should be more than willing to talk you through some of your own thoughts. I did that recently and got a lot of insight out of it.
 
sarephina said:
KluverB: can you ask the clinicians about the cases that do survive? Help brighten your day… learning from autopsies… I think humans have been around long enough for us to know a LOT about our gross physical makeup. But is there absolutely nothing more to be gained from the study of cadavers? Maybe the conference attendants hope some new surprising insight will come out of repeated discussions of the same cause of death? I think one of my anatomy professors had recently done a study about the variation of bile duct formations…
Click to expand...

Well, the autopsy conferences are somewhat... final. However, yes, there are a number of other recurring conferences, grand rounds, etc. here and there where we do get updates on some patients.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for doing autopsies. As my patho prof used to say... Everyone should have one. There are tons of interesting cases, lots of missed diagnoses. However, my experience with the peds services in this respect have not be optimal (see previous posts). Reason and common sense tend to fly out the window in the face of pediatric cases. Once again IMHO, YMMV.
 
sarephina said:
caffeinegirl: Yeah, the visual and intellectual stimulation in pathology are a big draw for me. Zebras are awesome! Hmm, I’ve read in some places that pathologists are at the cutting edge of medicine… is it true that you generally have ample time to look stuff up and keep up with new diagnostic developments? And just to clarify, do you mean that you think the bread and butter cases of path are more tolerable than the bread and butter cases of clinical medicine?
Click to expand...


Having time to stay current depends I think on your level of specialization. If you're a generalist, it's tough to stay current on all of the developments in the entire field...that's why subspecializing is so attractive, because you can maintain that level of expertise.

When I was trying to choose a specialty in med school and a subspecialty during residency, I looked at the bread and butter of the day-to-day life....were the "cool" cases either often enough or crazy enough for me to bear the bread and butter? Pathology definitely fit the bill...there's enough variety and weird cases to keep my short attention span occupied.
 
caffeinegirl said:
Having time to stay current depends I think on your level of specialization. If you're a generalist, it's tough to stay current on all of the developments in the entire field...that's why subspecializing is so attractive, because you can maintain that level of expertise.

When I was trying to choose a specialty in med school and a subspecialty during residency, I looked at the bread and butter of the day-to-day life....were the "cool" cases either often enough or crazy enough for me to bear the bread and butter? Pathology definitely fit the bill...there's enough variety and weird cases to keep my short attention span occupied.
Click to expand...

And that prompts the question (NO, it doesnt BEG the question)..... What are you doing your fellowship in? And, What is the bread and butter of pathology?
 
JPmamd09 said:
My advice would be to do a sub-internship in peds and a rotation in pathology as early as possible in your fourth year. That is the best way, I think, to be able to assess the two fields. Try to spend the next six months figuring out what is important to you. Do you really like being at the crux of diagnosis? Would you be ok if your career didn't involve a ton of patient contact? Do you prefer managment of patient issues? Do you love rounding? I think if I'd figured those things out earlier I wouldn't be in the position I'm in. :bang: I'd be happy to discuss further via PM. Best of luck to you!
Click to expand...

Thanx for the advice. But I'm still finding it really really hard to decide between pediatrics and patho and I'm thinking of pursuing one of these in US after I complete my MBBS here and I don't want to land up with the wrong residency :(

I am from India and here patho isn't much sought after and students more or less hate studying patho. I totally totally loved patho and the book Robbins Pathologic Basis of Disease... that book is all I know and all that I love about patho.

And about pediatrics...I used to hate children but after my rotations (in India the best students go into pediatrics...so the faculty are very smart and learned..so their teaching helped a lot) I just can't stop going to the pediatrics ward...whenever I get some time I go to the pediatrics ward all by myself.... but sadly I can't do the same for patho...I mean there's no scope that I can go into the department and check out how things work or how things look from the inside

the only -ve thing about pediatrics is that it doesn't pay as much as patho or even intenal medicine(say gastro or cardio etc)

I mean suppose I get into peds and then I hate it.. :( then the moeny wouldn't make it worthwhile for it (I know 150k+ is a lot)
but say I get into patho...n then i hate it... but still I'll be having good working hours, good lifestyle and good money....

I"M JUST PLAIN CONFUSED :confused::(:mad::bang::annoyed::scared:

is there any IDIOTS GUIDE TO DECIDING BETWEEN PED N PATHO :D
 
howelljolly said:
And that prompts the question (NO, it doesnt BEG the question)..... What are you doing your fellowship in? And, What is the bread and butter of pathology?
Click to expand...

The bread and butter of pathology depends on what you decide to do (surg path, ME, blood bank, micro, etc etc etc). I suggest you look at the FAQ's and sticky's in this forum or spend a day in the pathology department shadowing pathologists. It's not that simple to explain in written form (it's quite lengthy actually!), and it also depends on what setting you're practicing in (academics vs private, large versus small hospital, etc).

As for my fellowship, the subspecialty I chose has the great combination of volume and variety in disease processes (infectious, inflammatory, neoplastic) in biopsy form with clinical correlations....dermpath. The bread and butter would be BCC's, SK's, AK's, etc...tolerable and quick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

O
Radiology vs Path
Replies
8
Views
1K
90sportsfan
9
CaptainFire
Derm vs. Path
Replies
12
Views
1K
WEBB PINKERTON
WEBB PINKERTON
mike-sheree
California makes forensic path P.C.
Replies
8
Views
1K
mike-sheree
mike-sheree
P
MD -> path residency vs clinical chemistry fellowship for a PhD holder
Replies
9
Views
2K
poten_PhdtoMD
P
M&L
  • Locked
What’s with peds pathology ?
Replies
43
Views
2K
gyngyn
gyngyn
Top