Any port in a storm

First of all, let me just admit right off the bat that I will probably have nothing to say about anything other than Question 1 on the ballot today in Maine. It's on my mind a lot right about now, so if you find it excruciating to read another word about it, read one of Elizabeth's thoughtful posts and skip mine until, say... Thursday.

Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, let's move on to Question 1 odds and ends. First of all, this interesting little tidbit.

Maine’s Question 1 ballot question seeking to overturn the state’s same-sex marriage law is one of the most popular topics on Twitter messaging service this morning.

“Vote No Question 1” ranked the second most popular topic while “Maine” was the third most popular topic shortly after 11 a.m. today.

Much of the traffic appears to have been driven by celebrity gossip commentator Perez Hilton’s 9:16 a.m. tweet urging Mainers to vote no on Question 1.

The appeal of Twitter is lost on me, I must admit. (I have my own blog, oh Modern Technology Zeitgeist. I once wrote a Wikipedia entry for the hell of it. What more do you want of me??!?) However, I recognize its utility in getting information out to a lot of people very quickly. And, while I have not been particularly fond of Perez Hilton in the past, I am grateful for any help our side can get.

On a less helpful note, there is this:

Stand for Marriage Maine launched a new radio advertisement Monday, trying to get traction on an issue that arose late in the campaign.

A complaint was filed against a Nokomis Regional High School guidance counselor, Don Mendell of Palmyra, because he appeared in a television ad against same-sex marriage. Another guidance counselor filed the complaint.

"While Mr. Mendell is entitled to his own personal opinion," the complaint says, "he does not have the right as a licensed social worker to make public comments that can endanger or promote discrimination."

The new ad refers to the complaint, and says again that if the same-sex marriage law is allowed to stand, homosexual marriage will be taught in Maine schools.

Fish said the complaint against Mendell should be "chilling to anybody in Maine that has to go to the state for a license."

"We've said all along that one of the consequences of this bill ... (is it) leaves individuals and small business with religious, conscientious obligations vulnerable to litigation," Fish said.

Connolly reiterated Monday that the No on 1 campaign had nothing to do with the complaint against Mendell. "We totally don't think anyone should be fired for speaking out on any side of this issue," he said.

Well, thanks, Other Guidance Counselor. How nice to give the opposition an inflammatory (and justifiable) complaint to air in the closing days of the campaign. As someone who has had to defend himself from a frivolous complaint against his license, I am not at all happy that someone filed one against Mendell in a misguided attempt to... what? I don't see how anyone with half a brain could think this would be helpful.

Anyhoodle, now I wait. The Better Half and I will be heading to Portland tonight to be with a large group of like-minded people, all of whom have been working to defeat Question 1. Here's hoping we spend the night celebrating.

Consent

My younger son, the one with Cri du Chat, had surgery a week ago. Since then, he has been pretty miserable. Until yesterday, he had a ventilator that he repeatedly tried to rip out. He cried silently and arched whenever he was awake, even after the ventilator was removed. The doctors have done their best to keep him as doped up as they can consistent with his ability to breathe, but it has not been his best week.

He appears to be doing much better today.

All this has got me thinking about consent. I had to consent to this surgery, as I will have to consent to any medical intervention he will have for the rest of his life. He will never have the cognitive capacities required for decision-making.

We grant adults the right to consent to a surgery out of respect for their autonomy. They have access to their own beliefs and desires. They have a rational capacity. As long as they have the correct information for a medical procedure, they have the right to choose. To impose a medical procedure on someone who does not consent, even if everyone thinks it is the rational thing to do, is paternalistic. So I could not decide for an adult that a given surgery must be performed, because it is in his interest. Only he can decide that.

The whole point of consent is that one cannot really say what someone else would or should do - the person in question is the only one who can say that.

Yet I have to decide that for my son. I can't think about what he would consent to, if he were able. There is no thinking about Edmund being able to make such decisions. First, he is a child. Children cannot make rational choices about their futures. They do not have the information and cognitive structure to do so. If we think about what they would choose if an adult, we are thinking about someone with different beliefs and desires.

And second, Edmund is also mentally impaired. His inability to rationally choose is in his very genetic code. There is no Edmund-who-is-able-to-decide-rationally, and there will never be. He has awareness of his beliefs and desires, but no ability to choose rationally. I have the ability to choose rationally, but I can't do so in light of his own beliefs and desires - only mine.

I have been uncomfortable after surgeries I've had. Probably not as uncomfortable as Edmund is, but I have been uncomfortable. But every time, I knew it was coming, and I was uncomfortable because of a choice I was able to make about my health. Edmund is uncomfortable because of a choice I made. He had no say in the matter, he couldn't request that we give it some time to see if he really needed the surgery. I have to say what I think his interests are.

I choose the food my children eat, the schools they will attend, (at this stage) the friends they have, where they live, the discipline they will receive. Having to choose for a child when one does not access to their future beliefs and desires is always difficult for a parent. But the child can participate more and more as she gets older. Choosing for someone who will never be able to choose has its own unique moral burden.

I hope the surgery really was in his interests. I think it was. But I'll never know for sure. And I wish he could choose for himself.

(Cross-posted at Cat's Cry)

In case I haven't mentioned it

If you live in Maine, please vote No on question 1 today.

It's fie on literary theory week - or, signify this!

Enjoy.

ARGH!!!!!!!!!!

Please forgive me, but I need a moment of catharsis.

Ahem...

Attention, parents! It is hard enough examining your small children when they are afraid to come to the doctor's office. Many are at the developmental stage where they fear strangers, and no amount of cajoling will comfort them while I loom over them with a stethoscope and tongue depressor. Add into this mix the memory of vaccines, and lots of kids just don't like to be in my exam room. Dealing with screaming, terrified children is one of the things a pediatrician must accept with equanimity. (I must admit that I don't enjoy the kicking, but we all have bad days.)

However (*taking slow deep breaths*) nothing, but NOTHING frustrates and infuriates me more than when you play into this fear by telling your kids I will give them a shot if they misbehave. It undermines my attempts to gain trust, reinforces their terror, and instills the idea that shots are simply punitive and not to keep them healthy.

If you do this, I will cheerfully undermine your authority by directly, smilingly contradicting you. I will, in my most upbeat, Mr. Rogers-esque tones, remind them that shots are to keep them healthy, and that we only give them if children need them, not if they are "bad." And it serves you right if your children then question your honesty, because lying to them and making me your heavy is your own [incredibly profane participle] fault.

A small (but irksome) point

The other day, the Better Half and I were driving from our house on our way to getting me a new winter coat. (I would like to take this opportunity to praise the devoted service of the blue Eddie Bauer coat that has served me well for every one of the past sixteen winters. You had a good run, Old Blue.) Anyhow, driving along the main drag in our town, possibly Maine's most liberal city and the state's "gay mecca," I mentioned that someone had removed all the "Yes on 1" signs.

(Before I continue, if you're a reader who lives in Maine and you haven't yet voted "No" on question 1, put your computer to sleep, drive to your city office, get your vote out of the way, and come back.)

This isn't the way to win elections, friends:

St. Michael Parish business manager David Alexander, who is based at the Pastoral Center next to St. Mary's Church on Western Avenue, reported Saturday that the "Yes" signs were removed again from the grounds.

Three days earlier, he reported that someone removed all the "Yes on 1" signs on church property and replaced them with "No on 1" signs.

"I look on that as offensive and a desecration of church property," he said.

On Wednesday, he called the city to be sure he could remove the unwelcome signs. Then he replaced them with a dozen "Yes on 1 signs."

While I think that "desecration of church property" line is a bit much (dude, they're signs, not goat blood), it is both illegal and uncool to remove the opposition's signs. It is doubly so if they appear on their property.

It is not as though I do not understand the impulse. On Halloween, in my very neighborhood (possibly the most liberal in town, which is saying something) there was a van with a "Yes on 1" sticker disgorging trick-or-treaters (and also blocking the street). As much as Mr. Middle Finger itched for a good wave (which, for the record, didn't happen), nothing is gained by behaving in a loutish, confrontational manner.

I hope, fervently, that we win tomorrow, and I don't think a few signs here or there will make a difference. (I have noted that most "Yes" signs have been either in front of churches or in public spaces, as opposed to in people's actual yards.) But let's try to behave like responsible citizens, one way or another. Our side has the strength of argument going for it, which will mean a lot more than uprooted signs.

Beating a dead cognitive horse

Yesterday was my older son's birthday. Hooray! He's two! If you have not had a two-year-old, you should get yourself one. They are awfully cute.

His aunt and uncle brought him one of those plastic garages with cars that go down a ramp. Thoughtful present, he adores it. To my chagrin, the side of the package boasted all sorts of cognitive benefits he could expect from playing. With. A. Toy. Garage.

Sigh.

Listen, I have no doubt that playing with toys is better for a child's cognitive development than being locked in an attic and throwing him raw meat every so often. But a garage is not going to get your kid into Harvard! It will, however, amuse him for a while. If he didn't have the garage, he would amuse himself with some other toy, that would likely be equally beneficial.

Please allow me to rant:

1. Children do not learn words well by merely seeing images and hearing the word spoken. They learn much better if they just hang around people using language, following eye gaze, etc. (Here's a great book by well-respected psychologist on the topic). Videos are of limited educational value.

2. TV has been established to show a slight language delay in children. Not a language deficit. A delay. And that is the only damage TV in reasonable amounts has been clearly established to show. TV is not an ideal teacher. Nor will it, in reasonable amounts, destroy your child forever.

3. It has been shown that children do better in an environment where they have some stimulation. It is not good to be raised in a Romanian orphanage. It has not been shown that because some stimulation is better than no stimulation, it is therefore best of all to subject your child to constant social, sensory, and linguistic stimulation. They might well need some downtime. Or to learn to discover sensory and linguistic stimulation on their own.

4. Let's be a bit more humble. We know relatively little about cognitive development. It might not be best to try and program your kid when we know so little about both the hardware and software.

5. It's a hell of a lot more fun to be a parent if you can just hang out with kids instead of optimizing them. And if you're having fun as a parent, it just might be beneficial for your kid.