Sometimes the most logical thing to do is to stop being logical


An issue came up today that probably needs some discussion.  A parent of a young child was worried about protecting the child's remaining kidney with a kidney guard.  The doctor was not interested in supporting the request for the kidney guard, mostly based on evidence that there is no reason to believe that they are effective and also based on the fact that kidney injuries are quite rare.  (Grinsell, et al, 2012).

One particular recommendation regarding kidney protection by Psooy, 2009 reads as follows:
Parents should try to keep things in perspective: If they are not going to restrict a child from an activity based on the child having only one “head,” then they should not restrict the child from that activity based on having only one kidney
Evidence – Level 3: Those activities most associated with high-grade renal trauma (bicycling, sledding, downhill skiing, snow boarding and equestrian), have more than a 5 × relative risk of head injury compared to renal injury

This is all very logical but perhaps it is a little too logical.  It might be so logical that it is in fact an insensitive perspective.

What is missing from the doctor's evidence-based recommendation is consideration of the journey that parents might be on relating to coping with a child's chronic illness.

Why would a child only have one functioning kidney?  There are many reasons.  The child could have renal agenesis.  The child could have renal scarring from undetected vesicoureteral reflux.  The child could have polycystic kidney disease.   The child could have had the other kidney removed because of cancer.  Any of these conditions are potentially frightening for a family.  Let's extrapolate some more.  Maybe the mother had preeclampsia and now has end stage renal disease.  Maybe a grandparent is on dialysis.  Maybe the parent is just frightened because it is their child and there is only one kidney left and it does not matter if the child also only has one brain and one spine and one heart.

The point is that not everything can be managed with logic.  I am just as fond of a Spock-like orientation as anyone, but I am not foolish enough to believe that you can present a logical piece of evidence to a parent who is frightened and expect a good outcome.

And what are parents to think anyway?  Prior to all this 'evidence' about the questionable value of avoiding contact sports it was relatively standard fare for doctors to tell parents that they needed to PROTECT THE REMAINING KIDNEY AT ALL COSTS!!!!1!  In fact, many doctors still tell this to their patients despite the evidence.

Anyone who has spent any time in a children's hospital understands the twisted perspective one gets by working in that environment.  That twisted perspective occurs because even if something tragic happens rarely, when it does finally happen they will show up at the children's hospital.  I assure you all that your mothers were correct.  You should not run with a lollipop in your mouth and you can put out your brother's eye by swinging around a toy golf club.  This stuff all really does happen.  Listen to your mother.

Despite the studies, despite the statistics, despite any evidence - the fact is that some child with one functioning kidney will in fact take a hockey or lacrosse stick to their remaining kidney and they will be hospitalized and there will be some level of medical disaster associated with the event.  Even though the odds of it happening to any single child are infinitesimally small, it is at this point of singularity that the recommendations of the AAP all go out the window because the event will achieve instant Internet fame as it is posted on Facebook and Twitter for everyone to see.  People all over the world will see the tragic story and they will all quietly think to themselves, "Wow, that person DID NOT listen to their mother."

I know, none of it is likely.  Even less of it is logical.  But there is nothing logical about a child receiving a traumatic injury.  In fact it is the most illogical thing in the world.  Kids are not supposed to be hurt.  Ever.  When they do it is illogical and tragic and horrendous.  Statistics be damned.

 Parents actually know how to deal with this.  There are two solutions.

Solution one is to be logical and follow the advice of the doctor.  If you have a logical orientation then it is all good.  Your logic might even be so good that even in the face of an unmitigated disaster that no one expected, you can still be saved by your logical analysis that you are the unfortunate recipient of an absolutely unlikely event.

Solution two is to tell the doctor to shove their logic, go on Amazon.com or some other site, and just order the relatively inexpensive kidney belt for yourself.  If you want you can go order a helmet and some bubble wrap too.  It is your child, and you can do whatever you want - even if someone else states that it is illogical.  In time you might come to change your mind.  Or you might not.  Either is OK.

In my experience, kids tend to survive either approach. Well, as long as nothing illogical happens.

So I say let parents order the kidney guard.  It really is not that big a deal.  It is not a surgery.  It is not a medication.  There is no damage caused by wearing a kidney guard in gym.  It is benign - and it might actually make a parent feel like they are doing something.  Or having some control.

In an illogical world where unexpected things happen at rates that are almost too small to measure it might even save a child's life.  Who knows?

In the long run parents can make choices about the risks they are willing to incur, but it is important to remember that families are on a journey when they are dealing with chronic illness.  Not everyone will be at the same point of logical understanding as everyone else at exactly the same time.  Or even ever.

If doctors spent more time listening to the real concerns of parents, no matter how "illogical" those concerns are, they might have better relationships and be better able to meet their needs.


 References:

Grinsell, et al (2012). Sport related kidney injury among high school athletes.  Pediatrics, 130(1), e40-e45.

Psooy, K. (2009). Sports and the solitary kidney: What parents of a young child with a solitary kidney should know. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 3(1), 67-8.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Deconstructing the myth of clothing sensitivity as a 'sensory processing disorder'

Please note first that there is no formally recognized clinical designation of  'sensory processing disorder.'   It is a term constructed by occupational therapists that has not been formally recognized by the larger medical community. In our clinic we receive many referrals from local pediatricians when parents have concerns about children being overly sensitive to their clothing.  Most often the children referred are from four to seven years old and the families are severely disrupted by the children's behaviors and responses to clothing issues.  Commonly, children will have severely constricted tolerance for certain outfits, want to wear the same clothes repeatedly, complain that clothing is itchy/scratch/bumpy/wiggly/ouchie, and this all leads to disruption of daily dressing routines.  There is no doubt that the behavioral concerns are very real. The pediatricians tend to be appropriately conservative and provide families with good behavioral management suggestions
Read more

On retained primitive reflexes

Each year I receive several emails from colleagues about 'retained primitive reflexes.'  I am also seeing an increased number of reports from local 'health care' providers who are documenting these alleged problems so I thought I would write a summary of my opinion on this topic.   Predatory 'health care' providers including some OTs, PTs, chiropractors, and behavioral optometrists are creating a new 'market' for treating this alleged 'problem.'  Parents should be very wary of these practitioners and other professionals should challenge these practices whenever they are seen. The following is the kind of information that causes concern and was provided to me by a colleague as a sample from a student's IEP: The student continues to demonstrate the following retained primitive reflexes that at times interfere with his ability to demonstrate appropriate adaptive responses: Fear Paralysis Reflex, Moro Reflex, Palmer Reflex, Tonic Labyri
Read more

Twenty years of SIPT - where do we go next?

Standardized tests are periodically discarded or updated because the normative group that the test was developed around may have changed characteristics. I am unaware of any 'industry standards' regarding the life expectancy of standardized tests; rather, professionals in a field tend to come to consensus about the relative usefulness of tests on their own. I would be interested in knowing what other therapists think about the Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests - which were published in 1989. I became certified in the administration of these tests seventeen years ago. At first I found them highly useful but the more I gave the tests the more I understood the limitations. Now it has gotten to a point where I do my best to discourage people when they ask for this test - not just because of the inherent weaknesses of the test construction but also because of how old the norms are. There have been some legitimate concerns with the tests including extremely poor test-retest re
Read more