Autism, Vaccines, and Fried Mice

***Disclaimer:  I am very pro-vaccine.  But arguing about that is not my purpose here.  I'm interested in why and how we believe medical advice.  And how that ties in to bigger ideas of motherhood.

One of my favorite novels is Jennifer Donnelly's The Winter Rose.  This epic historical piece tells the story of India, a wealthy woman who becomes one of England's first female doctors.  Set in the first decade of the 20th century, India, who is admit about making a difference in the lives of the poor, takes a job at a clinic in Whitechapel.  Convinced if she can just educate the people there about nutrition and sanitation, their lives will be vastly improved.  She learns, quickly, however, that the problems that plague the poor of London are not that simple.

One of those lessons comes from a nurse she is working with and involves a fried mouse.  One of India's patients is a small girl suffering from TB.  India is incensed when she finds out that the girl's mother has given her a fried mouse to eat, a common "old wives' tale" cure for the disease.  She is frustrated by the ignorance of such a remedy, pointing out that mice carry diseases which could have made the child worse.

But the nurse she is talking to is wiser. She explains to India that it's hard to watch your child suffer and not do anything.  The mother doesn't have much money, but she has plenty of mice.  So, while frying a mouse and feeding it to your child might not be a good thing to do, it is something.  And while the nurse doesn't make this point, her argument seems to be that the fried mouse was as much tonic for the mother's sense of helplessness as it was for her daughter's symptoms.

This seems to me to be part of what is behind the vaccine/autism debate.  We know so little about the disorder, especially about what causes it.  When some scientists presented a cause, backed by some data, it makes sense that people latched onto the idea.  I think this idea also hit a chord with the attachment parenting movement, though I haven't completely thought that through.

I have  The Panic Virus sitting at home, waiting for me to get to it.  I'll be interested to see what Mnookin has to say on the issue.  But the title alone fits with my argument here.  Avoidance of vaccination comes from a fear of harming your child.  And which side you come down on depends on which you fear more, the potential harm of vaccines or the potential harm of diseases these vaccines prevent.

I have certainly had nights where I'm up with a sick child and I'm rummaging through the medicine cupboard trying to find something to give him because I just want him to feel better.  And, I will admit, I have occasionally given him medicine that is not exactly for his age or is slightly expired, because I just want to do something!

I think as parents we are told everything is fixable and preventable.  [I've talked about something similar before, see my post on Attachment Parenting and Helicopter Parents]  So, if our child is sick, there must be something we can do.  And we are a bad parent if we can't figure out what that is.  And this is a motivation behind the vaccination/autism issue.

We also have a tradition of listening to other parents over medical professionals.  Much like the fried mouse incident~it's something you know another parent has done or believes and therefore you put more stock in that than something that comes from the government or a medical authority.  Parenting by "fad" has always been a popular approach, one that does not always run parallel to medical advice.  And really, who can blame parents.  Just look at the every changing advice on whether a newborn should sleep on her back, stomach or something else altogether. 

It seems safe to say that mothers don't feel valued by groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics.  And if you are not respected by a group, why would you listen to and respect its opinions?

Attachment Parenting and Helicopter Parents

In a recent blog post  Erica Jong discusses her thoughts on some modern motherhood dilemmas.  There's a lot in her article, so I'm not going to get into a point by point analysis.  But I would like to use it as a jumping off point, or perhaps some new material to weave into the tapestry I've started here.

Two parenting topics she criticizes are attachment parenting and helicopter parents.  For those of you who might not know, attachment parenting is a parenting theory spearheaded by William and Martha Sears.  [If you really want, you can find their book here].  The basic point of this approach is that you literally "attach" your infant to you.  You hold her all the time, you let her sleep in your bed, you breastfeed, etc.  Not surprisingly, the Searses are anti-day care or any care that isn't parental.

Helicopter parenting might be the "grown up" version of attachment parenting.  The term is usually used in conjunction with high school and college students whose parents are overly involved, calling Deans about a exam grade for example.

Jung argues that attachment parenting basically makes overburdened guilty mothers feel worse.  And I agree with that.  However, I think she misses a chance to look at the bigger picture, one that includes both ends of the age spectrum.  Both of these "strategies" seem to me to be tied to Lerner's thesis in The War on Moms.    Parenting in this country is not a supported service.  You really do have to fend for yourself.  And if you do, why are we surprised that a) someone has taken it to the extreme and b) parents have a hard time trusting that their college student will be assisted by anyone else.

Attachment parents are hesitant (or resistant) to handing their child off to strangers not because they think they know better, but because they have been told through our cultural structures and societal overtones that this child was their choice and is their responsibility.  They receive no financial support or even access to basic necessities.  One can't even buy diapers with food stamps.  Instead, they have to provide everything themselves.  In a country where even bumper stickers remind you that that little person was your choice, and therefore your responsibility (It's a child, not a choice) is it any wonder that some choose to hunker down and snarl at anyone who tries to come near?

Of course, this lack of support continues throughout the child's life.  Parents are told over and over again that they are responsible for their child's education.  They have to take the time to help with homework and ask questions and bring in snacks for class parties.  And then we expect them to switch it off just because the child turns 18?  Really, is it any surprise that the oversight continues? 

I agree that parents need to support their children in their education--but they need to support it, not manage it.  If parents felt as if someone else, such as our country's educational system, was managing the education of today's children, they could just provide sideline support.  But that's not what happens.  From cradle to graduation cap, parents are told they are going it alone, or at least with minimal assistance.

If we want a nation of self-sufficient, mature workers, we need to give parents the ability to raise them.  We need to provide safe, affordable daycare and preschool where learning skills can be acquired at an early age.  We need to provide safe, affordable extra-curriculars for our children.  We need to provide support for those in charge of the largest part of our GNP--our children.

November 14, 2010