Alleged Rupture of the Urinary Bladder by the Pe?iis 217 



In examining a sterile heifer, I encountered a chronic, 

 indurated, cervical abscess, which is shown in Fig. 39. The 

 origin appeared perfectly clear to me. Upon inquiry, it 

 was at once admitted that a man had attempted to "open" 

 her to cure the sterility. Repeatedly I have observed in- 

 juries to cervix and uterus by veterinarians. 



E. Alleged Rupture of the Urinary Bladder 

 by the Penis 



Uebele, cited by Harms, reports that a heifer died from 

 rupture of the urinary bladder a few days after coitus. 

 Any veterinarian who has passed a catheter through the 

 urethra of a cow should appreciate the difficulty of the pas- 

 sage of the penis of the bull through that narrow canal, ob- 

 structed at the beginning by the valve-like cul-de-sac. An 

 ignorant meddler, mistaking the urethra for the cervical 

 canal, might cause such injury. The veterinarian should 

 take every possible precaution against being deceived, 

 whenever the lesions appear so removed from the ordinary. 

 Under certain abnormal anatomic conditions, the urethra 

 might well suffer severe lesions during attempted coitus, 

 especially when the lower portion of the hymen persists. 

 The hymeneal remnant slopes somewhat upward and back- 

 ward, forming a sort of pouch in the floor of the vulva, 

 with the urethra at its bottom. The membrane, catching 

 the penis, may deflect it downward into the urethra, and 

 either the penis or the urethra and bladder, or all, may suf- 

 fer injury. But that is aside from the point. The healthy 

 normal genital tract of the heifer or cow is not readily 

 damaged by the penis of the bull during coitus. When such 

 post-coital injuries are recognized, the diagnosis as to 

 cause should be very guarded. Under certain conditions, a 

 false diagnosis might well lead to litigation, especially when 

 a bull belonging to one man breaks into an enclosure where 

 cows belonging to another are kept. 



In all such injuries the veterinarian should not fail to give 

 consideration to two other possibilities, each of which is 

 more probable than penial injury — sadism (which see) and 



