My daughter got pneumonia the same week that I was editing this month's story on kids and television. She recovered quickly and, now just 18 months old, is unlikely ever to remember those few days of discomfort. For me, though, the link between these two seemingly unrelated events--her illness and my blitzkrieg education on the impact of television on children--has triggered a knotty set of questions about parenting and morality.
When Maya was a newborn and we still lived in Washington, D.C., my wife and I discovered we could soothe her by letting her watch C-SPAN. (I still expect that her first complete sentence will concern the folly of tying Medicare increases to the consumer price index.) At 12 months, she would pick up the remote control, aim it at the set and push all the buttons. She became a regular viewer of Sesame Street and other PBS fare, and, inevitably, we began checking out videos for her from the library. We would laugh (nervously) when she stood impatiently in front of the dark TV, clutching her "Spot the Dog" tape and stomping her feet. But we had rules--no more than an hour of videos per day--and it was easy to distract her with books and toys.
Until she got sick. While she had pneumonia, we found the only way to get her to eat or take her medicine was to park her in front of the TV. So that's what we did.
I might not have given all this much thought if I hadn't been reading Milton Chen's book, The Smart Parent's Guide to Kids' TV, at the same time. After all, I grew up watching hour after hour of mindless sitcoms. But Chen, MA '83, PhD '86, an expert on children and the media, argues convincingly that prolonged exposure to television sex and violence (and commercials) has a discernibly negative impact on young minds.
So I worry: By allowing my daughter to watch innocuous, even educational programs now, am I creating a TV habit that will stay with her? How soon before she switches from Barney & Friends to just Friends? (And if I ban the TV, will she grow up with a V-chip on her shoulder?) Faced with these concerns, we asked Milton to produce a list of 10 TV tips for parents.
While some of us are caring for young kids, others are looking after ailing spouses, parents and grandparents. And if the moral and ethical decisions involved in child-rearing can be vexing, the dilemma of caring for the terminally ill may be considerably more difficult.
Again, I think of my own family. In 1990, my mother was dying of cancer. We resolved to make her final days as comfortable as possible. The time came when she couldn't breathe without the aid of a ventilator. Anguished, we consulted her doctor and, following her wishes, concluded she had suffered long enough. He agreed to disconnect the tube.
Thankfully, we had a choice. Courts have ruled that terminally ill patients may direct doctors to disconnect life-support machines. But not everyone has that option. What about the terminally ill who do not happen to be hooked up to life support? In most states, doctors are prohibited from prescribing medication that will hasten the deaths of these patients.
That inequity angered Carla Kerr, a 35-year-old New York lawyer with two degrees from Stanford whose father died of brain cancer when she was 9. On behalf of three terminally ill patients, Kerr filed a suit challenging the New York law barring physician-assisted suicide. Her case, which went before the U.S. Supreme Court in January, has spurred a national dialogue about dying with dignity.
We asked Charlie Gofen, '87, to talk with Kerr and to explore the legal, ethical and philosophical dimensions of an issue that, one way or another, affects all of us. His article shows how Kerr's strategy hinges on unmasking the different--and, she says, unequal--treatment of terminally ill patients who are on life-support machines versus those who happen not to be. His story also raises questions about the proper role of doctors. Naturally, we think of them first as healers. But do they also have a duty to help a patient end her suffering when it's too late for healing?
Both Milton and Charlie write about protecting those most vulnerable. As parents, we try to protect our kids from negative influences. Carla Kerr is addressing a related issue: Shouldn't we also seek to protect the rights of the terminally ill during a time when they cannot carry out their wishes themselves?
