Parental convenience?

[velvetpage]

What role should convenience play in parenting decisions?

Context: I found myself involved in a discussion on a friend's journal, in which the desire to cure her child of PDD (autism) was disparaged as being mostly about the parent's convenience. This was said like it was a horrible thing.

Now, I can see how convenience could be a very bad thing. For example, putting your child into daycare full-time when you yourself are at home full-time and not working an at-home job, might not be the greatest of parenting decisions. But it seems to me that convenience has a role to play in family decisions.

For example: if the only baseball program for four-year-olds was at the other end of the city, while there was a soccer program at the park down the street, I'd probably encourage Elizabeth to take up soccer. The primary reason would be convenience, for everyone in the family, and the knowledge that we'd be a lot more likely to actually make it to the one down the street. Assuming she's not dead set against soccer, is this a bad parenting decision? Another example: I made a conscious decision not to pursue a Francophone education for my girls. The Francophone school is not too far away and I probably could have gotten them in. But the school is much further away than the local French Immersion school, which happens to be across the street from Oma's house. For her convenience and ours, the girls will be going there. Was this a bad parenting decision?

I suppose the real question is: at what point is it reasonable for the child's well-being to accept equal billing to the well-being and, yes, convenience, of the rest of the family? I wouldn't dream of denying my child all access to a musical education, but is it reasonable to bankrupt myself letting her learn half a dozen instruments at once, when that leaves no time for other pursuits and no money, either? I will put Elizabeth into piano lessons, because we have a piano and I want her to learn to play it. If she wishes to learn another instrument, we'll find the time somehow, though I'll be steering her towards brass because she could learn that at church or from my father at practically no cost. Beyond that - her wishes are going to take a back seat to family convenience. Is that a bad parenting decision?

I think the people who downplay the role of convenience in family life are those who have a lot of time on their hands - and not a lot of children.

Comments

[forthright.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, of course it is silly to think that parental convenience should have nothing to do with parental decisions. 'Convenience' means, potentially, a little more free time, which may be used to a) retain your sanity; b) spend time on your kids in other regards (cooking more nutritious meals, whatever); or c) God forbid, actually enjoy yourself.

What I really don't understand about your post is how efforts to 'cure' (I presume actually something like 'obtain therapy for') autism could possibly be perceived as being primarily about parental convenience. But that is really a separate question.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

The questions was hypothetical: if a real cure could be found, would this parent go for it? She said yes, and several people decried that "decision" (I put that in quotes because until it's possible, it's not a firm decision) because it meant ignoring what her children wanted in favour of what she wanted for them. My point was that, when you're talking about a non-verbal child, there is no good way to determine what the child wants, and even if there were, what the child wanted might not be the best thing for him. Another example: most kids don't like getting their shots, but most parents realize that it's important that they do so.

[forthright.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Of course parents can make bad decisions on behalf of their kids. And of course it is tricky, and whether your kid is 6 or 16 makes a lot of difference to the extent to which they can reasonably be expected to make fully informed decisions. But the notion that any parent who makes a decision that overrides their kid's wishes is somehow selfish or self-oriented is quite bizarre.

Oh, the inhumanity!

[neosis.livejournal.com]

Oh my god, I agree that's monumentally stupid.

Really. That's the parent's freaking job. You make the decisions for your children that they aren't qualified to make for themselves. It's what your supposed to do. Like preventing them from enduring a lifetime of mental handicap simply because you can. The kid's what four years old? How the does any reasonable adult figure that a normal 4 year old has the mental capacity to choose to be mentally handicapped for the rest of their life, let alone one with an actual mental handicap.

Ignoring for the fact that this child is, in fact, a child there are are extremely thorny issues on mental capacity of someone with a mental handicap. Really, how many of us would volentarily choose to be mentally handicapped? For a reasonable example we could start with Schizophrenia, many schizophrenics refuse to take medication while they are off their medication, but once they are on it, they become quite happy with the effects. The problem is, of course, to somone who is suffering from paranoia the cure for paranoia seems the most insiduous of all, because you're sure that the threats are real, and a drug which makes them appear not real must therefore be a trick and not a cure. The point? Someone with a mental handicap may not even be capable of making a reasonable choice about having their handicap until after it was cured, despite what sentimental movies (or that episode of the Simpsons where Homer shoves a crayon up his nose) might have you believe.

In fact there's an interesting anecdote from the CBC, Alberta (I think) is passing a law that allows for Paranoid Schizophrenics to be legally forced to take medication in the case where they pose a threat to themselves or their community. This legislation has been hailed as long-overdue by Schizophrenic rights organization and been hailed as a travesty of justice by lawyers associations. The moral appears to me, that the people who say "oh they're happier like that" frequently have their own hidden reasons for saying it. You can't get away with saying Black people are happier living in abject poverty anymore, but it's hard for the mentally handicapped to argue with you. What's next? Will they try to argue that people living in a persistent vegitative state are actually happier that way and we shouldn't impose our neo-fascists will on them by waking them from their dreamless comas because, obviously, that's how they choose to be?

On the topic of your main post, a parent has the right to make choices for the sake of covenience up to the point where those choices could reasonable be considered to be "harming" the child. For example, if your girl really wanted to play baseball and wasn't interested in soccer at all, and then you refused to allow her to play baseball (whether directly or effectively) because it was incovenient, then you're crossing the line.

Choosing to cure a child of a disability that would likely make it exceptionally difficult for them to live on their own merits, interact with others, and enjoy all that life has to offer, is not a lazy decision.

Re: Oh, the inhumanity!

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I agree on pretty much all points.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Well there is a subset of the autistic community that the closest I can relate it to is those who feel that kids shouldn't get implants to hear -- that it will change them fundamentally to cure deafness. And I can understand that, but we are also talking about a condition where you can live independently either way.

So the autistics feel that no one with autism should be cured, if they ever found a cure. Anyone who wants a cure is a 'curebie' and does not love their child. And the phrase the guy used in my LJ was I looked at my kid like an appliance I wanted to customize.

So this goes on, and I feel the HFA's don't understand the severity of the disabilities of some other people on the spectrum, like my son. They think I just want to make my life easier, not improve his. But that's all hypothetical, because there is no cure.

HOWEVER, in the case of these two particular people posting in my LJ, even THERAPY is not fair, if my child can't tell me if they want the therapy or not. Most people who are anti 'curbie' are still quite into kids getting humane therapy (some of the therapies are cruel or innefective, or deadly, like chelation). They are ok with autistic kids to learn coping and communication strategies. But not this one person in particular who was posting in my journal. Thankfully this person does not seem to represent the views of many of the adult autistics I know, even the ones who are against a cure. And to be honest, the ones I do know? Don't need a cure, and are fantastic the way they are.

My son would need one, if they ever found one.

[forthright.livejournal.com]

I'm aware of the debate, at least minimally, but it strikes me as profoundly odd that anyone would take such a negative attitude even to sensible coping-related therapies for their kids, no matter how high-functioning. I mean, come on: *everyone* could use a little coping-related therapy to help them deal with certain situations.

I can certainly empathize with those who feel that in the hypothetical case of a cure, they would be reluctant to choose that for their kids on the basis that it might alter other aspects of their personality, etc. And in particular, for older kids who are particularly high-functioning, I can definitely see the case that parents simply choosing what they think is best without taking the kid's wishes into account, sure, that might be a little selfish.

But the notion that a kid under the age of 10, or a kid with more profound difficulties, can make a meaningful, informed decision about such things (not to mention communicating those decisions), and can weigh all the future consequences of that decision, well, that seems preposterous to me that indulging the child's wish is inherently selfish. As parents, we are called upon to make decisions for our kids, on the basis of what we think is best for them ... aren't we?

[gracevlikevrain.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't call decisions that save your family a little (or a lot) time and money "bad" ones, necessarily. It's using your resources wisely and saving your family stress constantly from running all over the place. Our culture gets so caught up in being busy to get the "best" and completely miss the beauty in simplicity and the importance of downtime and not running yourself ragged. What good is seeking out all these great things for your kids if you're all too exhausted to enjoy them?

[firesign10.livejournal.com]

I think it's only realistic to take a certain amount of convenience into account in family decisions. One can have the loftiest goals but if they can't fit in with everything else and thus are not likely to be met, then that's not realistic. I think you always have to think about what's a truly viable plan to then be able to follow through on it. A certain amount of inconvenience can be doable - for instance Furuba9's dance class is not the closest one around, but it's the one she likes, the one she's been to for years, and it's one night a week and we can deal with that. If she were doing it more nights a week, well then we might have to think about it. Part of this is always that we're ALL in the family and ALL our needs/wants have to be considered, so part of the "convenience" factor is the compromise element. I think choosing the school near Oma makes a lot of sense. I am putting Mr Bear into preschool part-time this spring and then full-time in the fall so he's all ready for kindergarten. I haven't resolved yet about what I will do regarding returning to work yet, it was enough of a project getting to that point ;-) BUT it's a decision less about my convenience than about his school-readiness. I really debated skipping that whole step, but I really feel like I'd be short-changing him. So yeah, you HAVE to look at the whole picture, and it's not realistic to say "I'm going to sacrifice the rest of the family's well-being for this one thing".

I can't think the desire to free one's child from the confines of autism could be considered anything less than wanting to give them the best life and opportunity for happiness possible. I'm not sure how someone could label that as merely being for the parent's convenience and not that the child could have a shot at being happier & more involved in life and less subject to the strictures imposed by the autistic condition. Sure it WOULD be more convenient for the parent. but I'm sure that parent is looking at that bigger picture of "what will improve my child's lot in life"?

[failstoexist.livejournal.com]

I think the examples you provided are really not HARMING the kids, you know? you're just saying "these are the options that are going to make things better, and the programs are equal, and it's not going to be much much better for elizabeth to play baseball than soccer, unless she has some burning desire for baseball" so...if she DOES have that burning desire, and you can find a way to satisfy that, then awesome. but if not? it's not terrible. she can wait until she's a bit older and settle for playing catch right now(if there are other programs closer by for older kids) or she can play soccer in the meantime and maybe develop an enjoyment of that as well.


However, in the case of PDD, there are other factors at work. What is the parent willing to DO to cure the child? Do they want to do it because they want their child's life to be better, or because they don't want to put in the work to do the therapies that will make their life truly better? Or are they doing everything they can and just want there to be something more they can do?

I wouldn't be shocked if a few of our students' parents were dying for a cure, because their kids have pretty severe communication defecits that can lead to BIG tantrums, problems, etc. because the kid can't communicate his needs or desires. I wouldn't blame my student's parents for wanting him to be able to tell them what part of his body is hurting instead of just acting like a little punk and refusing to do just about anything because he's not feeling well, but can't tell you.
However, my other student is a pleasant, aware little boy, who can communicate well, and has a quirky personality made even more charming by his PDD...he's a sweet kid, and I think there's very little about him that would be improved by a cure for PDD. he has responded amazingly to therapies of various sorts. If his parents wanted a cure, it would seem odd to me, since the kid is SO happy and so clearly involved with his family, friends, teachers, etc. that despite a few behavior problems, he really is close to a typical kid...and yeah, some of the stuff they have to do can be hard to deal with. but honestly? it's helping him enough that it's hard to imagine not just being thankful for it, and viewing it as an inconvenience. Plus he can dress himself, eat on his own, go to the bathroom independently, do his work without much distraction, follow a schedule...he's right on track with a lot of his learning for his age group, and he's doing awesome socially. so...his life isn't being held back too much by his PDD.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

In this case, the child is pretty severe, non-verbal, operating at less than 24 months developmentally. They're doing all kinds of therapy, and were talking about a hypothetical real cure.

I wouldn't force a cure on any child self-aware enough to decide they really didn't want it, as would be the case with many high-functioning autistics. But to say that all cures are bad because they wouldn't be right for this particular group is naive and unreasonable.

[failstoexist.livejournal.com]

just trying to provide contrasting examples. Even if someone couldn't speak but could type or communicate somehow some more complex ideas(sign language, or something) then sure! let them make that choice, if they can. But if the effect of the PDD is so great as to decrease their quality of life and make it impossible for them to care for themselves, to communicate, and/or to include severe self-injurious behavior....it would be silly not to want a cure.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

The child can't communicate, (not just speak, but communicate), can't keep clothes on, is sensory seeking to such an extreme that he's been injured, bites nails until bleeding, and can pace for hours on end.

What we do is use PECS, ASL, spoken English, occupational therapy privately for an hour a week (going up to two), speech for the same, community supported living 'education' 4 hours a week, special education classes with OT/PT/ST and lots of sensory help, supervision of a good developmental and disabilities clinic, a pressure vest, a trampoline, vestibular habilitation, brushing/join therapy, including oral component, and melatonin on the advice of the neurologist for his sleep issues. That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

I would go for a cure if it would increase the quality of his life, and yes of course ours. It's not easy on his siblings either!

Oh and his brother may have aspergers or something similar but I'm not in a rush to 'cure' him although we have therapy for him too. He is 'high functioning' and will live fine on his own. My other one, if he doesnt improve, WILL have to be institutionalized if we're unable to and his siblings can't pr won't and honestly that's not fair to them but knowing my kids they will take care of their brother.

Hope I don't come off as defensive, I'm just trying to explain it as best I can. :)

And I think what also matters is if my son doesn't develop even a little bit more than he does now (sitting naked on my monitor btw) I will still love him as much as I do now. My heart is full of joy having him in my life, and he makes me happy every day. Except when I get only 2 hours of sleep but then I'm crabby, not devastated. ;)

[failstoexist.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine how frustrating that must be for you...I know that one of my students is mostly nonverbal, but does use some vocal approximations(and has PECS) and it's so frustrating for HIM not to be able to find the word or the picture to say what he wants(if he's really upset or something and can't tell me)...but that's a whole other level of frustration.

But I think that in a case like that, you would like a cure to help your son. if he were simply a kid with Aspergers or PDD-NOS who throws a tantrum every now and again because you hadn't bothered to work on transitions with him, it would be laziness and parental convenience speaking. But you truly want to make your son's life better...and that's good damn parenting right there.

The absolute best of luck to you. I hope he's able to communicate in some form, for all of your sakes, and the therapies help him with his sensory needs. :)

[hillarygayle.livejournal.com]

In some cases, such as what kibbles is describing, I don't even really see that as convenience. If a child were so high-functioning (say, Aspie perhaps) as to be able to live on his own someday, fine. He can decide whether he wants to be cured or not. That's like kids with ADD--do the medicines drug them out of their own personalities, or help them? They can make that call. Severely autistic children cannot. It's insensitive of this person to call it "for the sake of convenience" when all kibbles can do in that situation is make what (he/she?) believes to be the decision in the best interests of the child!

As for the actual question, sure, I think convenience has its place. Moderation is the key there. Don't plop your kid in front of the television for 5 hours per day so you can get things done--plop them in front of an educational program for half an hour (hey, I can clean my kitchen in half an hour). Would it be better for your kids if you played with them instead? Yes, probably. But the kitchen has to be cleaned too, and priorities have to be set sometimes. You can play with them after.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I've known some kids who CAN'T make the call about ADD. They really, truly can't function without it, including making decisions they would otherwise be able to make. As they grow up, though, they do make that call, whether officially or clandestinely (by selling their meds on the school playground, for example.) But early on, it's one possible decision a parent can try to see if it helps, and it has to be the parent's decision based on the advice and recommendation of a doctor.

[merlyn4401.livejournal.com]

I guess the way I look at it is a child is a member of a family, which is a larger social structure. The needs of one member of the family should not outweigh the needs of all the other members - everyone's needs to be taken into consideration.

[rallymama.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Life is a balancing act, and every factor has to be weighed against every other. When one activity is selected it means that another can't be done - are all members of the family willing to pay that price?

For a long while, parent-votes weigh more than kid-votes. That's just a fact of life.

[blue-comet.livejournal.com]

Potty-training is bad. It's all about the parent's convenience.

[firesign10.livejournal.com]

LOL!!!

[melstra.livejournal.com]

I basically agree with everyone else so I'll TRY to keep the post short. I feel that ANY decision, parenting or not, has to take into account lots of factors, pros and cons, and convenience is just one of those. (Maybe you can tell why I have a horrible time making just about any decision). As for parenting decisions, convenience goes both ways-- we have to think of how convenient something is for the child, for the parent, for the other siblings, for the child's teacher, etc. I don't think any of the examples you mentioned are bad parenting, they're simply making the best choice you can given all factors.

Now if Elizabeth TRULY longs to play the flute once she's older and you force her to play trumpet because you can get it cheaper, that's a little different. But I doubt that will happen. Note I also said "once she's older" -- at her age, there's no sense catering solely to HER interests because they're very likely to change. Why inconvenience everyone when it probably doesn't really matter that much? When interests are firmly established, she can be part of the dialog that determines what kinds of compromises are best for the whole family.