Mainstream Media and Responsibility

photo credit-Todd Baker
creative commons license

What responsibility does a mainstream paper have for what is published on its online edition? Either the Chicago Tribune thinks that normal journalistic standards do not apply, or it is extremely lazy when it comes to enforcing them.

For the second time in a month (see my previous entry here), the Tribune ran a story on its online edition that was factually unsound, full of scare tactics, and downright kooky regarding autism. The story, "Autism recovery stories: Mercury poisoning?" appeared on a Chicago Tribune blog that is part of the Chicago Tribune web edition. The story appeared under the byline of Julie Deardorff, who is the writer of the blog "Julie's Health Club", which is regularly included in the Tribune's web edition.

Now I know that if anyone from the Tribune comes here to comment, they'll most likely say that blogs are expressions of an individual's opinion, and thus are free from the usual requirements of things like the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. And while I feel that the ethics and responsibilities of personal blogs are still evolving, and that the public mostly expects that personal blogs will have to be filtered somewhat to figure out what is fact and what is purely personal opinion, I believe that when a journalistic entity (e.g., the Chicago Tribune) puts its imprimatur on a blog and includes it in it's web edition that professional ethics should apply. Otherwise all of what is printed in the Chicago Tribune (whether online or in print) becomes suspect as to its veracity. Unless of course the Tribune wants to start doing stories on Elvis sightings and Alien abductions, and change its name to the "Chicago Enquirer".



It's not like the Tribune is linking to random outside blogs of interest. The blog is one of many hosted on the Tribune's site, and Deardorff, the author of the blog, has a tribune e-mail address-jdeardorff@tribune.com.

Deardorff starts out this article repeating some of the same tired old falsehoods regarding mercury and autism.

For almost four years, no one could explain to Julie Obradovic why her daughter Eve (left) was suffering from "non-stop ear and bronchial infections, bladder infections, severe constipation that would leak out in water, eczema, loss of skin coloring (inability to burn or tan), chronic yeast infections, insomnia, seizures and staring spells."

But when Obradovic, of Homer Glen, Ill., discovered Eve had been exposed to mercury and the symptoms were signs of mercury posioning, she decided to investigate.

Here's her story, the fourth in an occasional series that looks at how parents have tried to treat their autistic children.

The very first line from the SPJ's Code of Ethics states:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

Now it wouldn't take much investigation to see that the diagnostic criteria for autism have almost nothing to do with the symptoms stated in that first paragraph of the story. A quick Google search for "DSM IV autism criteria" led me here. A quick Google of "mercury poisoning criteria" led me to the CDC here. A perusal of the two collection of symptoms would quickly let one know that there is very little, if any, overlap at all. A fairly complete comparison of the two was done by Kevin Leitch and can be found on Wikipedia here. Of note, Kevin Leitch doesn't even consider himself a "professional" blogger, yet he includes references to scientific articles, whereas Ms. Deardorff does not.

Later in the article, Ms. Obradovic continues talking about her daughter's illness:

At about age 3 and 1/2, I learned that she was injected with mercury at her most vulnerable stage of development. I didn't really know what to make of that, and decided to investigate. Months later, after exhaustive research, I was able to confirm that almost every single symptom of what was wrong with her was a symptom of mercury poisoning. It absolutely defied logic to believe that was a coincidence.

Ms. Obradovic is obviously referring to the "controversy" as to whether the mandatory childhood vaccines (and the low amounts of thimerosal-a form of mercury-that was long ago eliminated from them) cause autism. But Ms. Deardorff doesn't explain this at all in her article. Perhaps she thinks if she doesn't point this out that she doesn't have to also explain that all credible scientific evidence refutes this thoroughly.

Many credible, well researched, and well documented responses were written to the article, but Ms. Deardorff refused to either retract her post, or even to admit in any way that she had failed miserably in researching the article.

For those that think I'm being too hard on Ms. Deardorff, I return to the fact that hers is not a private blog located randomly on the net, but a blog sponsored and hosted by a major paper in a major US market. And I would hope that Ms. Deardorff would not claim ignorance of journalistic ethics, as her bio states that she has a degree in journalism (as well as an MBA).

Even if one feels that all blogs (including those sponsored by a major newspaper) are not subject to the same standards as a newspaper, one might consider what this online list of blogger ethics has to say:

...
• Never publish information they know is inaccurate -- and if publishing questionable information, make it clear it's in doubt.
• Distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.
...
• Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
...
• Disclose conflicts of interest, affiliations, activities and personal agendas.
• Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence content. When exceptions are made, disclose them fully to readers. ...

Unfortunately, Ms. Deardorff doesn't look good even when her actions are held up to this lesser standard of practice.

I hope that the Chicago Tribune is just ignorant of what is happening in its web edition, and has not willfully allowed such unsubstantiated rubbish to be published under its masthead. The history of the Tribune deserves better, the legitimate journalists on the Tribune deserve better, and most of all, the readers of the Tribune deserve better.

n.b. After I had most of this post written I discovered that Orac (who wrote some of those well thought out responses on the Tribune site) had already blogged on this article. Since I had already written most of mine, I decided to go ahead with this anyway. I encourage one and all to go to Orac's site and read what he had to say about this.

Magical Thinking

photo credit-D'Arcy Norman
creative commons license

Recently in the Chicago Tribune a story appeared entitled "Autism and the adopted child". I have to admit the title caught my eye, as the father of an adopted child that is autistic. The story referred to a blog post by a mom by the name of "Pickel" that was entitled 'Finally My Son is..."Finding the Words" '.

I should have known that my blood pressure was going to rise as I read this story. The first paragraph starts out:

Since we adopted our son from Russia in the summer of 2005 we have struggled with him. From his fingertips to his toenails the child is a medical mystery and developmental mess.

Anyone that starts off referring to their son as "the child" and as a "developmental mess" is digging themselves a hole in my book. I understand when adoptive parents don't bond immediately with the children they adopt. But it's been two years! When will she consider him her son?

Did we have any clue when we adopted him? Sure, some. We knew he would be delayed because most institutionalized children are. However, just before he turned 3 the local school district told us that they estimated his developmental age to be between 13 and 18 months. We were floored.

Little Pickel has been diagnosed with Institutional Autism, H Pylori, Severe Gastritis, food allergies, Gross and Fine Motor Delay, Receptive and Expressive Speech Delay, Post Traumatic Stress, Separation Anxiety, and Sensory Processing Dysfunction. He has also had three surgeries; ear tubes and 2 GI scopes.

He is only 4.

Oh, OK, I get it. This is one of those pity party pieces. What she really wants to say is "Poor me! I didn't get a perfect kid. I was willing to put up with a couple of weeks of inconvenience, but not two years!" Well, life doesn't work that way. When you sign up to be a parent, "You get what you get, and you don't throw a fit" (as they used to say in my son's 1st grade classroom).

The first several months with Little Pickel were pure hell. He had night terrors that lasted 45 minutes to an hour every night (he still has these 2-3 times a week). We discovered double ear infections that resulted in ear tubes. We also discovered some creepy crawlers that made the trip home from Russia with us. They were NOT very welcome in our home.

Developmentally, he did not progress quickly. By his 3rd birthday he had only about 100 words and could not put phrases or sentences together. He was just beginning to run without looking like an otter (or falling all over himself) and he screamed at me every time he tried to ride his tricycle (because he was so frustrated).

OK. So you rip a two year old from the only home he's ever known. Talk to him in a language he doesn't understand. And then YOU get upset when he expresses displeasure the only way he knows how, by screaming. And don't forget to complain that a few bugs came home in your luggage, and that your prize son isn't quarterback material.

We tried everything for him. We rid him of his H Pylori (a bacterial infection in his gut), we removed his problem foods (gluten, casein, bananas, oats), and we worked diligently on his sensory issues. Still, he seemed locked in his own world...screaming uncontrollably when things were not right, when I would back up the car instead of go forward, or if he could not have graham crackers to ease his tummy aches.

He had orange stools up to 10 times a day, acid reflux, gas that could light the entire house on fire, sleep problems so severe he was getting close to (maybe) 5 hours of sleep a night, no social skills, aggressive behavior so severe that I had to learn to physically restrain him or get hurt myself (or worse, allow him to hurt himself), and bum rashes so horrid we resorted to Bag Balm, a cream used for milking cows.

Is there a style manual out there that sets out that in order to describe how horrible your life with your special needs kid is, you have to describe their bowel habits and how violent they are? Her son had some GERD and food sensitivities, as well as the aforementioned ear problems. So do tons of other kids. So what? There's also lots of other things that kids have. Things such as asthma, physical disabilities, learning disabilities and emotional problems. That's life. Deal with it.

So, when we moved back to Chicago in the summer of 2006 from Russia it was like a weight had been lifted. He qualified for Early Childhood, we found the Pfeiffer Treatment Center and started him on a vitamin chelation* to rid him of his heavy metals, yeast, and to balance his bacteria, and our parents were both there to help us with him.

Since our move Little Pickel has thrived. One might say he is "Finding the Words".

I have said many times on my blog, Discussing Autism, that there is no cure for Autism. Because Little Pickel's diagnosis is Institutional Autism and not organic autism, he can be "cured" and he can recover. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of thousands of children with autism who will not be cured.

Now this is why I'm writing this post. Pickel comes out and says that her "Little Pickel" didn't have autism as a result of being poisoned by vaccines (he had 'institutional autism', which is supposed to be caused by gross neglect and lack of physical stimulation, not by toxins of any sort), but she goes ahead and takes him to someone who treats him with the same hocus pocus that they would use to remove all of the "toxins" from him. What sort of "magical thinking" is going on here?Why would anyone (parent or practitioner) do that? I mean, unless you were so totally corrupt as a practitioner that you would try to sell your wares to someone when even your standard goofy arguments (your kids were poisoned by vaccines/heavy metals/whatever) cleary didn't apply. And at the same time you have parents that are clearly so dumb as to accept that even though the cause of your kid's autism is totally different, you'll still use the same goofy treatments.

However, there are some children like Little Pickel who have been cured...and they have Autism.

The documentary, "Finding the Words" is their story. It is the story of eight "perfect babies", each given a grim diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as toddlers, whose grieving families fight prejudice, misinformation, and despair to get their children well again.

Written and produced by Elizabeth Horn Nelson, the documentary has really picked up steam because there are parents out there like me who have hope. Horn Nelson is also the co-founder and president of the Autism Recovery Consortium and even the Huffington Post picks her up. You can view the trailer for the documentary here

I'm sorry, which is it, Pickel? That you can't cure autism, or that you can? I love it when people can't even keep their stories straight.

According to Nelson Horn in a 2005 interview, "The first impression you get with this diagnosis is that you're on your own,'' Horn said. "Even though there were resources, there was no sense of direction anyone could give as to how to proceed.''

For over a year that is how we felt with Little Pickel. Then, when we had no where else to turn we found The Pfeiffer Treatment Center and finally got our answers. They were the only facility willing to perform biomedical testing for us. You can read a very scientific explanation here.

How much is Little Pickel talking now that we did a vitamin chelation? So much so that there are times he won't shut up! (Perhaps he should try out for "Autism, the Musical!")

He is constantly chattering about going to school and how much he likes his new teacher. He sings "Twinkle-Twinkle" loud and out of key as he is falling asleep. He is finally asking questions (but everyone is labeled as a she).

And occasionally from across the room or from upstairs I hear him yell..."Marcie, come here!" in a sing-sing song voice.

Could you punish a kid for that?"

Perhaps this is why so many people fall for all of the hocus pocus "cures" that are out there. They are uncomfortable with uncertainty. They can't handle that no one can tell them a definite reason that there child is autistic, and worse, that they can't offer them a cure. So when hucksters come along with "magic pills" that will make their kids all better they jump at it. It's reassuring. It gives you hope. And when you go to the doctor's office you have a built in pity party support group, where you can all play the game of trying to top each other in the "My life is worse than yours" game.

The only problem is that it's all a big house of mirrors. And to waste large portions of your time and money on such things is at best silly, and at worst abusive to your child who is getting unneccessary and unproven treatments.

Sex and the Single Girl

photo by katielips
creative commons license

I was perusing a local autism listserve that I am on, and read this message from someone I don't know.

I haven't been on here for a while, but wanted to share something that happened today. I recently retired from teaching. My daughter, Amy, who is 35 and on the spectrum, has been my assistant for 16 years, since she graduated from high school. This is on a voluntary basis at a private school. Well, when I retired that meant that Amy was also out of a job. So we decided to look into a sheltered workshop. Amy is use to doing some office work and assisting me with the mundane work that all teachers hate. She has never done production work, but after touring the place she said that she thought she could do the work. Well, I didn't feel that the environment would necessarily be the best for her as she has a tendency to pick up behaviors from those she's around but I didn't express that at the time. But while we were standing in the shop talking to a staff member, a young man came up to us and was obviously attracted to Amy. He ask if she was going to work there and stuck out his hand to shake hands. We shook his hand and introduced ourselves. He said, "I'm going to ask her out." He then reached over and was about to give her a hug when the staff member stopped him and sent him back to his station. Oh, did I mention that Amy is very attractive and outwardly shows no signs of a disability? I couldn't help wonder what would happen if someone wasn't right there. This is my worst nightmare,since Amy is very compliant and vulnerable. So we are back to square one as far as a job for Amy. She's so talented I hate for her just to stay at home all day. Any suggestions?

I wanted to respond with either "Think you could find a nunnery to lock her up in?", "I think she's old enough to start dating", or the snarky "Good thing that staff member was right there, because I'm sure that that evil autistic man would have defiled your daughter on the spot right there, because we all know what hugs lead to". But I tick many people off on that list as it is, with my mad ramblings against quackery that some of them are inflicting on their children, and I would like not to be kicked off so I can show some of the newbies that not all in the "Autism Community"(tm) are off their rocker.

Now don't get me wrong, I understand to some extent where this parent is coming from. My (NT) daughter is only 5, but I am already shopping for a shotgun that I can clean when potential suitors come to call. I also understand the desire to protect one's autistic offspring from some of the exploitation that society can subject them to. So I can sympathize with the sentiment that one would want to take some precautions and make some preparations when introducing one's son or daughter to dating.

But give me a break! Her daughter is 35 years old, has worked, can express her own wants and needs, and from the sound of it mom has kept her from exploring any kind of relationships with the opposite sex at all. I know nothing other than what was written, and I have no idea if this woman's daughter was even interested in dating this man. But I think she deserves the courtesy of listening to her views on the subject, and she deserves to be in an environment where she can meet and mingle with people of both sexes, so she can form friendships and possible relationships.

I have no idea whether my son will ever want to marry (though I do know he likes blonds). But as hard as it may be, I am going to do my darndest to educate my son regarding sex, dating, and relationships with the opposite sex. I think one of the worst insults I could give him would be to presume that he is incompetent of forming and nurturing a relationship with someone else. Many in the world treat him as incompetent. The least I can do is to always presume competence, and do my best to support him.

Am I wrong? And what (if anything) should I post on that list? In the last two days since that was posted, there have only been suggestions regarding other places to look for employment. Noone else has questioned her actions.

She's So Beautiful

These are the words that come out of 4 out of 5 people's mouths when they first meet our daughter, and it's been bugging Liz and I. It's not something that we think about every minute of every day, it's just one of those little things that bug us.

Why, you ask?

Well, we've asked ourselves the same question. Why does this comment rankle us and just not feel right? It's not that she's an ugly kid. In fact, she is very cute (you'll have to take my word for it, as I'm not going to post pics here that would fully identify her). She has a smile that lights up a room, and enough social skills that she could compete with a politician in working a room. And we don't dress her like she's in a beauty pageant. So what's so wrong about pointing out that she's a good looking kid?

Well, for one thing she's only 5 years old. And people have been saying this for at least the last 2 years. And I just don't think it's appropriate to talk about really young girls as "beautiful". At least not when you first lay eyes on them. There's something in the comment that just sexualizes this young child by referring to her as beautiful. I mean, isn't there anything else that you might say? Like "She has a nice smile", "My, she's well behaved", or just "Hi, Sweet Pea!". OK, so most days they'd be stretching the truth if they said she was well behaved, but we wouldn't mind.

Unfortunately, we think that that the base reason that people say this probably doesn't have to do with people purposely trying to make her a sexual object, but it's just as bad. We've come to the conclusion that people do this because we are white and Sweet Pea isn't (we are a family thru adoption-both of our kids are bi-racial African-American/Caucasian). So when people first encounter Sweet Pea being introduced as our daughter, they're naturally a bit taken back. I get that. She doesn't exactly look like us. So while they're feeling awkward they feel the need to say something nice, and so come out with the "She's so beautiful" comment.

While I don't really think people are trying to be malicious, I wonder why this particular comment comes out. I suspect that it might have to do with the "unofficial racial preference rank order for adoption", which places relatively more value (in decreasing order) on kids that are white, asian, hispanic, and finally African-American. Being of mixed race (with half being Caucasian) bumps you up a half notch. So I think a big part of this comment thing is just people feeling sorry for us that we adopted kids that were of "lower preference", and wanting to say something to make us feel better.

Thus far Liz and I just usually mumble something non-committal, and go on from there. We don't think that people are consciously being rude, so don't make a big deal out of it. We sometimes think that maybe we're just being overly sensitive, but the comment just has never felt right. So, dear readers, let me know what you think. And if you ever happen to meet us on the street, you now know what not to say.

The Ivy Ceiling

What happens after high school?

That's one of many questions that many of us that have kids with disabilities think of. Will our kids be able to go to college, get a job, live independently? Will they be happy?

Two young people with disabilities enrolled in Florissant Valley Community College in the St. Louis, Missouri, USA area. They had hopes, dreams, and scholarships they had earned during high school. What happened to them is detailed in a story found here.

...It happened to Jennifer Adelsberger two years ago. She attended Florissant Valley for four years and was close to getting her associates degree in early childhood education. She has disabilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and has difficulty in reading comprehension. But, with help, she graduated from McCluer North High School.

However, at Florissant Valley, Adelsberger couldn't get her degree because her advisor, she says, told her that she would not be able to graduate. She needs four classes to get her degree; a math class, two in student teaching and a fourth in class training with children.

After she was told she wouldn't be able to pass those classes, she left school and has been looking for work since. Her father, Larry, says she's had her heart set on being a teaching assistant, working with young children, and what happened at Florissant Valley has affected her outlook and personality. ...

It would appear that the math class is the stumbling block. I find it hard to believe that the school can't identify a tutor that could help her to get thru that one class. I'm sure it couldn't possibly be that this young woman looks and talks a little different from the norm, and they didn't want her student teaching. Surely there is no other discrimination involved. This is born out by looking at the other case, in which things seemed to start out just fine:

...For Jeremy Andert, the fall at Florissant Valley was much quicker. He too had an A+ scholarship and he graduated from Hazelwood West High School in the spring of 2006. In the Fall, he began at Florissant Valley, taking just a remedial reading class and physical education. It was to be an easy transition from high school to the rigors of college.

He was doing well in reading and physical education. In fact, his teacher had written him a mid-term report, indicating he was passing the class and was succeeding in school. ...

It sounds like Jeremy was approaching things in a realistic manner, and things were going well. His mom thought he was doing well, too (who wouldn't, having been given the satisfactory mid-term report).

...However his mother, Cathy Andert, had a meeting with a school advisor, who told a different story. Cathy says the advisor told her that she didn't care to have "retarded" students in her classes and she wasn't "having" it. Cathy says she was taken aback by those comments. ...

I think I would have been more than "taken aback" by those comments. Ms. Andert was much kinder than I would have been. The school, for its part, offered this lame response:

...Laura Sternman, a vice president of student affairs at Florissant Valley, says such comments are not the college's "attitude" taken on campus. Sternman says the college does all it can to help disabled students, saying the school is "very proactive" when it comes to such help. ...

Actions speak louder than words, and Florissant Valley's actions speak volumes. And so does its web site, where you can follow a link from this page called “You Should Know the Difference Between High School and College for Students With Disabilities.”

There are things written there, such as

A college education is a privilege instead of a right and special programs are not required

Students are responsible for their own behavior and inappropriate behavior is not tolerated

Students are expected to do the same work in the same time frame as all students

These hardly seem consistent with an institution that says it is doing all it can to assist disabled students.

For those that are not in the US, community colleges are 2 year public institutions that offer lesser than bachelor degrees, usually "Associate of Arts" degrees. Students can pursue various courses of study there, or use it as a stepping stone to a four year institution. As can be gleaned from the above, education at the college level is not governed by the same sets of rules that apply to education up to that point.

Various people on the web have commented regarding how some colleges in some instances are providing accomodations for students with special needs. But it appears that their legal responsibility is only to supply equal access (things like physical access, access for guide dogs, etc.), and there is no requirement for them to accommodate developmental or behavioral disabilities.

While some colleges seem to have greater outreach than others, it appears that at least some people at Florissant Valley Community College feel so emboldened that they can say that they don't want to have to deal with 'retarded' students in their classes.

If you wish to express your opinion to Laura Sterman personally, here is her contact information:

Laura Sterman
Vice President of Student Affairs
St. Louis Community College-Florissant Valley Campus
3400 Pershall Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63135

314-595-4200

lsterman@stlcc.edu

You also might want to copy your note to the president of Florissant Valley, Ms. Marcia Pfeiffer:

mpfeiffer@stlcc.edu

I could not find a public listing of the e-mail of Henry Shannon, Ph.D., the chancellor of all of the St. Louis Community Colleges, but if it follows their convention, it should be

hshannon@stlcc.edu

How much accommodation is enough?

That was the question I asked myself when I read the story of Sophie Currier, an MD/PhD graduate of Harvard University who is asking for additional break time during testing for her medical license because she is breastfeeding.

The test that Currier is taking is the USMLE Step 2, a nine hour test that is the second of three tests that are necessary to become a fully licensed physician. A physician must pass at least the first two steps prior to starting their residency training. This test is usually taken one year prior to completing one's medical school education. That way, if you are not successful the first time, you have another chance to take the exam the following year, prior to starting residency. Evidently Dr. Currier took the test when she was 8.5 months pregnant the first time, and failed by a few points. If she doesn't pass the test this time, she'll have to delay starting residency for at least another year, until she passes the test.

I have a lot of sympathy for physician/mothers. Both jobs are very time consuming and tough, and juggling two full time jobs is next to impossible. One of my heroes during my internship year was a fellow intern who was a single mom to a 2 year old (her husband couldn't handle having a wife that was "smarter" than he was, so left her when she was in med school). We all tried to pitch in and help her out, but there was no doubt that that doctor mom fully pulled her share. She asked normal favors of us (as all friends would), but never asked for any special considerations because of her situation.

So my first inclination when reading the story was to think "Why couldn't the board give her some extra time to pump during the test? It's a 9 hour test, with only 45 minutes allocated to break time. Surely they could make some accommodation. I mean, this can't be a unique situation." But then I continued reading the article:

...Currier has already received special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act for dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, including being granted permission to take the test over two days instead of one.

In the lawsuit, she was seeking an additional 60-minute break on each day. The board cited the need to be consistent in the amount of time given to doctoral candidates and said other nursing mothers who have taken the exam have found the 45 minutes of permitted break time sufficient. ...

I'm all in favor of her getting accommodations for her dyslexia and ADHD. But it appears that since she'll be taking the test over two days instead of one, then she'll have 4 hours of testing on one day, and 5 hours on another. She still has 45 minutes of break time that she can allocate over that time, to take when she wants. This may not be the extra hour of break time each day that she wants, but it appears on the surface to not interfere too badly with her breast feeding requirement of having to pump or feed every 3 hours. Also:

...The judge said the board offered Currier several special accommodations, including a separate testing room where she could express milk during the test or during break time, and the option to leave the test center to breast-feed during break times. ...

For its part, the USMLE (United States Medical Licensing Examination board) responded publicly on its website to the "Currier question" regarding breastfeeding during exams.

...How have you responded to Sophie Currier’s request for extra time to express milk?
As the papers filed in court show, NBME offered Ms. Currier a variety of comfort measures and personal item exceptions, such as permission to bring multiple, assembled pumps to eliminate the time involved in cleaning, assembling, and disassembling them; permission to pump milk while taking the test and on break time, with privacy within the constraints of exam security, in the individual testing room that she receives on account of her ADA disability. We also provided her with a sample schedule demonstrating how an examinee can flexibly manage the time to take a 20- to 30-minute break every three hours. ...

And I gotta tell ya, that's starting to sound pretty fair to me. But to give myself a little reality check before I ran my mouth off (since I am male, and therefore have never faced such a situation) I bounced this question off of a colleague of mine, herself an MD/PhD, who has small children and has breast fed. After thinking a bit, and without me even telling her the part about her getting to take the test over two days, she felt that the medical board had gone far enough. Indeed, she didn't even think they had to go that far. "Whisper Pump.", she said. To my blank look, she explained that the Whisper Pump is a wearable bra/pump contraption that you can wear while you work. It takes about 5 minutes to rig up, and pumps while you work. So it appears that Dr. Currier might not need any extra time at all in order to take the test and also pump.

I gotta tell ya, it feels a little uncomfortable arguing against someone getting an accommodation they say they need, especially when I have not walked in that person's shoes. But this one doesn't seem to pass the sniff test, and it would appear to me that Dr. Currier would spend her limited time better studying for her exam, rather than talking to her lawyer.

Hoodwinked

And by a 7 year old, no less. I don't know if I should be happy about this or not. I was totally flim-flammed by Buddy Boy tonight.

Let me back up a bit. Buddy Boy has been getting into playing computer games, as well as games on a Game Boy that we bought about 6 months ago. I'm sure that many of you are very familiar with the concept of using "electronic bribery" in order to encourage certain behaviors (reading, doing math problems, cleaning room, etc.). Well, not being perfect parents, we also are not above using time on the computer/Game Boy in this manner. The combination of his obsession with our limiting access has made time on electronic games very desirable to Buddy Boy.


If left to his own devices, Buddy Boy would play electronic games every waking minute we let him. Obviously, being an old fart who's first computer game was "Pong" in high school, I don't think that's very healthy.

I'm the one who usually puts Buddy Boy to bed at night. We put him to bed at 7:00 PM, as he will consistently get up between 5:00 and 5:30 AM, no matter how late he goes to bed, and we want him to get a good night's sleep.

I put Buddy Boy to bed at the usual time. We went thru our usual bedtime routine, making sure he went to the bathroom and brushed his teeth, picking out what song he was going to listen to on his "boombox" all night long, tucking him in. Prior to bedtime Buddy Boy had elected to play in his room by himself, not wanting to play with me or Sweet Pea. When I left him to go and play hide and seek with Sweet Pea he was laying under his bed playing with some small squishy animal figures.

I didn't see the Game Boy, and asked him where it was. He straight faced said "I don't know, Dad". I proceeded to take 3-4 minutes to search for it in his bedroom, but couldn't find it, so just left, as I didn't want to break our routine too much.

Liz has been the one to usually take him to the bathroom later, after a couple of hours. She's taken over this duty from me, as she thinks my whispering to him at these times wakes him up and makes it harder for him to get back to sleep.

Well Liz went in to take him to the bathroom tonight, and he was laying under his bed playing on his Game Boy. He evidently had sequestered it away someplace near bedtime, and had been playing it from 7:00 PM to 9:30 PM, when Liz went in there.

Liz wasn't too happy with me.

This isn't the first time Buddy Boy has lied about something, and I certainly don't want him to make a habit out of it. But as I sit here contemplating this, I've got to think that the ability to plan out the operation, lie to my face when directly challenged, and carry it out quietly shows some real skills that could transfer quite nicely to a lot of workplaces.

Now if I can only work on some effective strategies for him to remember faces of people he's met...