16 weeks

I am starting to think I might be a bit overextended. Things are pretty OK for now but it occurs to me that with the possibility of a new baby in July (yes I say "possibility" because I am a medical person and therefore justifiably paranoiac) I may have to cut back on certain things. For one, I've been having fun with the speaking engagements but travel is the worst and I find it guilt-inducing to be away from my children, even though they can largely toilet and dress themselves independently (so long as you don't need things to be on right-side out or require pants to be on bottom, shirts on top, that kind of thing). Anyway, I have some speaking engagements booked through early Spring, but I don't think I'm going to be accepting any more after that nor for any appreciable amount of time after the baby is born, unless they're relatively close by or, like, for the most noble cause in the world.  (Or if they're going to pay me a skrillion dollars, in which case ideology be damned! Not really. A little bit. Show me the skrillion dollars first.)  LIMITS. I HAS THEM.

Speaking of which, here's your 16 week picture, pervs.




In the interest of uniformity of variables I'm trying to take all such pics first thing in the morning, because due to the happy effects of progesterone (and smooth muscle relaxing properties thereof) the different between AM and PM is obviously not at all related to uterine distension but nonetheless enormous. Literally. The night bloats, am I right, ladies? It also does not help that I have only one pair of maternity pants left in my closet--unless you count scrubs, in which case I have a hundred pairs. Apologies, however, for that fact that this particular pair is weirdly baggy in the crotch and makes me look like I am sporting a monster dong. (They are from one of our outpatient orthopedic surgery centers, if that explains anything.)

Back to the subject of paranoia, my OB offered to take a look at gender parts tomorrow (they don't routinely do an ultrasound at 16 weeks but he is very nice and after exchanging the Secret Doctor Handshake he said that if we wanted he could do a quick peek as "a courtesy")

(There isn't really a secret doctor handshake)

(There is an encoded medallion that you hold up to the sun on the solstice, however, that shows you the location of the hidden tomb of Hippocrates)

...but really, I don't care if Thing 3 is a boy or a girl so long as s/he is healthy. I know everyone says that and it's true, but we all know that in medicine, especially those of us with a background in Pediatrics, have seen Very Bad Things and it seems like whenever you're trying not to worry about Bad Things, it's all you can think about. So here's to normal exams and good results, right? Of course the genitalia of the fetus is almost certainly one of the least important parts of an anatomic survey, but of course I am a good little monkey and always very CURIOUS.

Hope you had a good weekend and all that.

these are not the droids you're looking for

Hey, can I recommend something to you completely unsolicited?

If your kids like Star Wars but you like your walls/furniture/kids' skulls/wallet too much to get one of those stupid overpriced light-up light sabers from the toy store, might I suggest this thing?




I think it's actually a party favor, but it's essentially a white foam tube--the consistency is similar to those foam pool noodles, only smaller--wrapped around a series of different colored LED lights.  There are five settings, so you can have the light saber flash red (Darth Vader), blue (Obi Wan), green (Luke Skywalker circa "Return of the Jedi"), slow rainbow (in which it cycles through all the colors, including all the in-between colors like purple and pink and turquoise), and Cal's personal favorite, ULTRA-KINETIC RAINBOW STROBE (likely not recommended for epileptics--it is kind of intense).

They are cheap and they are blunt and they are foam so even if someone gets hit in the face with it...several times...no one will be the worse for wear.  Also probably a nice party favor for your next Star Wars-themed birthday party-slash-rave.






(I remember, back when Cal was wee, when I used to have this blanket rule that we wouldn't allow any kind of mock weaponry in the house on the basis that it would promote aggression or something. I WAS SO YOUNG THEN. Later I realized that basically everything could become a light saber, including the cardboard core of gift paper wrap. Not very sturdy, those, and oh, THE TEARS when they eventually bent and unravelled.)

(I still have a "no toy gun" rule, though. Not even water guns. Unless they are shaped like a non-gun, like, I don't know, a dolphin that squirts water. I don't like guns.)

(You heard me, Charlton Heston. Yes, yes, from your cold dead hands, I know.)

into thin air and back again



It's been a little bit of a hectic week.  On call Tuesday night, flew out to Sacramento Wednesday to give two talks at UC Davis on Thursday...

(Which, while on the subject, thank you, UC Davis! You were lovely and gracious hosts and an impressively progressive school  to boot.  I have no doubt that you're producing some of the nations finest future doctors, and the administrative attention to the well-being of those future doctors is so admirable.  Bravo to you all.)

...and then hopped back on a red-eye back Thursday night which dropped me back off in Atlanta at 6:00am this morning, in time to take Cal to school.  Then I went home and slept in my bed, like a lot.  Well, four hours.  But it felt like a lot.  Now I'm all woozy and I don't know where I am or what time it is.  And it is to this that I attribute the fact that Cal totally creamed me in chess twice this afternoon.




Now GRANTED I haven't played chess in over ten years (like, I couldn't remember which side the queen went on the board relative to the king) and GRANTED I gave Cal a couple of do-overs ("Are you sure you want to do that?" is my usual warning for him to re-think his last move), but also, I fully admit that I am terrible at chess.  Also Cal has just started reading this new chess strategy book (the book says says its for kids but I tried to read it and I could not understand what they were talking about--it was like reading a deck of cards, or deciphering glyphs on some kind of Da Vinci Code-esque ancient rune) so now he's learning tactics and saying things like ROOK SACRIFICE KNIGHT FORK and I am still...not good at chess.  Like, at all.

Anyway, we ordered pizza for dinner and now we're all going to vegetate and play Lego Star Wars Wii and then I'm going to sleep some more and maybe obsess a little bit more about whether or not that fact that I'm more nauseous and more run-down with this pregnancy than with my first two means something.  My first instinct is just that I'm older now than I was the first two times around, and therefore infinitely more decrepit.  But then, of course, it could also possibly (possibly) mean this.

I have an appointment on Wednesday, at which point my OB offered an ultrasound to confirm the position and dangle (or lack thereof) of Thing 3's bits, so place your bets now.

continuity of care



Let's talk, for a moment, about childcare.

It's a topic that I've meant to discuss for a while, and certainly I addressed it a little bit in my book, but as a family with two parents who work long variable hours outside of the home full-time, our childcare issues fall into a specific subset.  That is to say, without putting too fine a point on it, that we are utterly, utterly dependent on full-time, reliable childcare in order to function day-to-day.  Neither Joe nor I work part-time or any kind of variable/abbreviated hours.  We both work in the OR, which means we invariably leave home before sunrise, before the kids wake up.  We both take overnight call on a rotating basis.  This is not to be self-congratulatory or masochistic, and does not make us better or worse parents (though I'm sure there are those that would argue each side), it's just the life we lead and we've found a solution that works best for us.

However, before I get into the specifics of childcare, let me say first that none of this could work without an equal, fully-invested partner in parenting.  Joe and I had Cal early on in our medical residencies.  We were both at a critical point in our training, and both of us had responsibilities to our jobs and our patients that were equivalent and inarguably important.  So we've always, always, always viewed the division on parenting responsibility 50-50.  There were some minor variances here and there (for example: more difficult rotations month-to-month, the fact that Joe never got post-call days off but occasionally would get to leave for work later than I did, etc.) but on the whole, from the moment we first became parents, it's been right down the line.  We make sure one of us is always home every single night--if we need to, we'll trade call or make pre-emptive schedule requests to ensure that this is the case.  If I'm going to be home late, Joe tries to get out earlier.  If Joe has a journal article that he's getting ready to submit, I watch the kids.  We both have demanding jobs but this obviously doesn't make parenthood itself any less so, therefore when it comes to childcare, we've always been of the philosophy that "if you can't do it, I'll try to do it" and vice versa.

However, the fact is that both of us work all day on most days, and as such, we need to have a childcare solution to cover those working hours.  What we have, and what we have always had, is a full-time nanny.  I know this is a bad word for some people, and I can almost hear the squelching sound from the pile of shit that I am stepping in by telling you that I choose to practice medicine full-time and employ a nanny, but there it is.  We pay someone to watch our kids during the day so that we can go to work.

In residency, it was unavoidable.  We were in New York at the time, but having family members take care of the baby was not an option (both of my parents are also physicians that work full-time, and besides, they did not want nor should they have felt obligated to drop their practices in order to take care of their grandchild--they worked full time even while raising their own kids, after all; and Joe's parents, while both retired, live in Ohio).  We also had the kinds of jobs that were not amenable to a daycare-type solution.  I know that some dual-resident families make daycare work for them, but like I mentioned before, Joe and I both have OR-based specialties, and as such, we were both expected to be at work well before most daycare centers opened--and yes, this includes the hospital-based daycare at Columbia.  So we hired someone to come to our house, take care of the baby, and stay with him until one of us got home in the evenings.

As I've undoubtedly pointed out many times in the past for those in similar situations, finding a nanny, particularly as a medical trainee, is not simple.  First of all is the matter of the hours--it is difficult to say the least to find someone willing to show up at 5:45 every single morning, and for most nannies it's a dealbreaker.  The variability of the hours is also a problem--you have to understand that most nannies in New York (and certainly elsewhere) can find much more agreeable hours in basically in basically any other household.  A third issue is, obviously, the cost.  Childcare to this day is our number one largest household expense, but that's probably as it should be.  There was a period of time (before we finished residency) where our nanny was getting paid more than either Joe or I was for working at the hospital.  But this is the solution that has worked best for us--the only tenable solution really--and over the past six years, we've always had a full-time nanny.  Our current nanny has been with us for the past three and a half years, since we first moved to Atlanta.  She loves the kids, and they love her.  She's family.

Even now, that both of our kids are in school (Mack goes to preschool all day, three days a week), we still employ our nanny full-time, because Joe and I leave for work too early to drop off, and for the most part work too late to pick up from school.  And there are all the school holidays that are not hospital holidays.  Presidents Day and MLK Day and Teacher Planning Day (SO MANY DAYS FOR PLANNING) that we need someone to stay with the kids, to say nothing for the unexpected off days--snow days, ice days, sick days.  I know in the eyes of many Joe and I must be monsters for not taking off days from work when the kids are home sick from school, and who knows, maybe we are, especially since we are leaving our sick kids in order to go take care of sick strangers.  But the fact of it is that school aged kids get minor stay-home-from-school illnesses, like, all the time, and as long as I assess that they are OK--and by that I mean able to take and keep down fluids, making good urine, not stuporous--I make them chicken noodle soup the night before and stock up on juice and Motrin and keep in touch with our nanny throughout the day.  And then in the evenings, either Joe or I gets home--occasionally even both of us--and we'll take it from there.

In many ways, our childcare model is much like the practice of medicine.  It's about continuity of care.  The way our household works, no one can be with the kids all the time, around the clock every single day--but we have a team, and we have a system, and we make sure that handoffs are careful and that the time each of us does spend with the children is of the highest quality.  One could argue that abbreviating the work schedule of one or both parents might be better for our kids (oh, who am I kidding--no one ever thinks that of Joe, mostly people ask me, "So, do you think you'll eventually go part time?") and I think that, for each individual household, that can be difficult to say.  But I choose--choose--to work full-time.  I don't speak for anyone else, I'm certainly not telling anyone else what to do, but this is what works best for our family.

I'll tell you something that I've noticed in particular.  Whenever the discussion comes up about work-life balance and the choices that we (mostly women) make, the discussion essentially gets boiled down an issue of financial burden versus parental responsibility, and it invariably seems that the sentiment is that if parents (mothers) have the option to work part-time or opt out of working outside the home, they should, for the good of the children.  That choosing to work outside the home full-time is either born of financial necessity ("we can't afford to get by on less than two full incomes") or selfishness, abdicating the responsibility of caring for ones own children in favor of escaping the drudgery of the homestead and having more disposable income for your minks and Rolexes and Lego Star Wars sets or what have you.  To this, I would like to present a third viewpoint.  The fact of it is: I like working.  Not because I feel indebted to the medical machine, not because I have to, I just like what I do.  I like being a doctor, I like practicing anesthesia.  I trained for almost a decade to take care of patients, I want to do it more than part-time, and I want to do it well.  This does not mean that doctors who work part-time (men or women) don't like medicine, or are worse/lesser doctors, or cheating the system.  It also does not mean those who choose to spend the working day apart from their children care any less about the well-being or upbringing of those children.  I can only speak for myself, but I honestly enjoy my responsibilities outside the home too, and my choice is to work full-time.

Are there weeks that I spend a little too much time at work and miss my kids?  Certainly.  Are there weeks that I wish I had an extra day or two outside of the hospital to just catch up with them, with myself, with anything?  No doubt.  Are there things that I miss for work that I wish I didn't have to--performances, class parties, sports days?  Oh lord, almost every month.  But no one said adulthood was easy, and parenthood is almost certainly less so.  One thing it is about is adaptation and compromise, and finding your niche in balancing parenthood and career, perhaps in some cases deciding to choose one over the other entirely.  And I feel fortunate in many respects to be in a profession fulfilling enough that the decision of how I want to divide my time between work and home is, indeed, a difficult one.

Thanks to the commenter in the last entry for bringing up the topic, and reminding me that it's one I've long wanted to talk about.  There are lots of niches, lots of solutions, we found the one that, for now, works best for us.  What about you?  Other working parents, what's your niche, and what adaptations and compromises have you found that work best for you?  (Everyone be nice please.)

*          *          *

Oh, and here's one for you, pregnancy enthusiasts/perverts.  Me and Thing 3 at 15 weeks.  Unlike with Cal, I didn't take many expanding midsection pictures the last time around (until it got, like, crazy), but this time I am acutely aware that this is almost certainly the last time I will go through this particular fascinating biological process so I'm trying to savor it in all its bloaty, body-snatcher-y glory.  I took this picture inside my closet but cropped out the edges because no one needs to see that many pairs of scrubs and long sleeved T-shirts, NO ONE.




(If you work with me, I apologize--please try to unsee these pictures by the time we run into each other in OR or in the doctor's lounge while pretend not to be fighting over who gets to the coffee machine first.)

hopefully it will be more like a "Toy Story 3" than a "Godfather 3"

It's different your third time around, certainly.

Having your first baby is exciting. It's new and it's amazing and the change from being childless to parenthood is probably the biggest transition of many people's lives. Also you buy a lot of stupid crap that you don't need, like weird baby swings and matching crib linens and tons and tons of size 0-3 month onesies that get worn approximately one and a half times before being outgrown or irreparably soiled.

Your second baby is exciting too, in a different way. It's the idea of having kids, plural. The prospect of giving your first child a sibling. Most of the hand-me-downs are still around and none the worse for wear yet, and there's the newness and challenge of having not one, but two kids to divide your attention and time. I remember right before Mack was born, and dealing with Cal, who as we all know is a lovely boy but at three years old he was THE WORST--thinking, "I can barely deal with raising one, how can I possibly handle having two of these monstrosities around?"

When you get pregnant with your third kid, it's a little different. It feels like eyeing a big building project, analyzing the time and cost and supplies and labor (ho ho), frowning, making notes, then nodding and mentally slapping your cheeks with your hands, saying, "OK, I guess we can do this again." And this is not to take any of the happiness or romance out of the equation--certainly it doesn't need to be said that we love our children and baby children are a particular brand of adorable, like sweet, smushy little pillows that don't know how to argue with you yet--but it's all a little more grounded in reality this time around. Here's what we need to do. Here's what we need to get. Here's what we need to worry about now, and here's what we need to think about later. The fact that we'd already given away all (and I mean ALL) of the boy's baby stuff to Goodwill this spring certainly sets the stage for our mindset a little bit when we found out that we were in for Thing 3, but I can't say it's been a terribly difficult adjustment once we settled into the idea. What? We're what? So we're going to do this now? AGAIN? Fine. I mean, good.  That's cool, let's do this. OK. OK.

Besides, we like babies.






* * *


We told the kids last weekend. We debated back and forth about the perfect time, and decided that we'd wait until the results of the nuchal lucency and first trimester sequential screening (is that what it's called? OB-types, help me out here) came back clean before burdening their little heads with the foreknowledge of impending competition for the throne. That night, we bought a bottle of sparkling grape juice, poured out some for everyone, and told the boys that we were having a little celebration.

"For MLK's birthday?" asked Cal.

Well, no, not exactly, we explained. And after talking a little bit about FAMILY and FEELINGS and how LUCKY WE ALL ARE to have each other, we showed Cal the ultrasound photo and asked him what he thought it looked like.



He held the picture up, cocked his head, squinted a little bit.

"A rock?" he suggested.

"ROCKS!" said Mack agreeably, downing the rest of his sparkling grape juice and then reaching for the rest of the bottle.






* * *


Thanks for all your input about Cal and school, by the way. I can't say it makes the decision any easier, but more perspective is always good, I think. As for some of the clarifying particulars, I'll go into them here: we really like the school he's at. He's at a public school now, but it's an excellent public school in a fantastic school district (it is, indeed, the reason we moved to this neighborhood in the first place) and we actually like it quite a bit better than the private school he'd been attending the the three years prior. The teachers are excellent and the resources are very good, and we are not looking at changing schools at this moment. They do have a "gifted" program that Cal has already tested for--this discussion about what grade he's going into next year is actually distinct from that program, which I believe is offered as an "enrichment" curriculum for those kids who test into it, not an entirely separate, self-enclosed class.

We had floated the idea in the fall of Cal doing at least his math, and possibly also his reading curriculum with the class above his own, but this was problematic for several reasons. First of all, it seemed disruptive. Cal really bonded with his first grade teacher, and we really wanted him to make some friends in his class--he's never been the kind of kid that easily and immediately has five best friends wherever he goes. Pulling him out of his class once or twice a day not only seemed counterproductive to some of the social aspects of schooling, but also would have undoubtedly made Cal extremely self-conscious--he's not the kind of kid that likes a lot of attention being drawn to him. The other thing that would make this kind of "partial advancement" difficult is that ours is a very big school district--big enough that, a few years ago, they split up the elementary school into two separate campuses. Kindergarden, 1st and 2nd grade are all on the "primary" campus, where Cal is now, whereas 3rd, 4th and 5th grade are at the "intermediate" campus about half a mile away. "What's going to happen to Cal after first grade if he's already done with second grade math?" one of the school administrators brought up. "When he's in second grade, he can't very well get on the bus to go to the intermediate campus for third grade math every day." So there's a logistic, geographic issue there as well.

I think there are arguments for both sides, and I also don't think that what held true for me or Joe or other people will necessarily hold true for Cal, so it's really quite a difficult decision, as a parent, to make. Joe and I have gone back and forth whether we should involve Cal himself in this process, but the fact of it is that Cal doesn't like the idea of change, any kind of change, at all, and will stress about it incessantly, whereas once the decision has already been made and presented to him as a matter of course, he often will adapt to the situation seamlessly. (Par exemple: we wanted Cal to have an afterschool activity, and we figured he would like karate class. "Why do I have to do that?" he wailed, teary-eyed, when we told him. And every night for weeks, up until the start of karate class, "I'm not going to like that, why do you have to make me go there?" as though we were sending him to the salt mines. After his first class, he loved karate, and we just signed up for the second semester on his insistence.) Anyway, it sounds a little paternalistic (because, uh, we're his parents), but sometimes...sometimes Cal doesn't always make the best decisions for himself, rather the easier decision. Which, I guess, is as it should be.  He's six.  That's our job, and he leaves the hard stuff to us.

Anyway, we're going to have a meeting with his teacher on Thursday, and then we'll talk about it, and talk about it, and talk about it some more. And then, hopefully sometime before May, we'll figure it all out. Or not.

the rule of threes

It's been a bit of a hiatus, one not deliberately planned--certainly if I had planned it I would have left a less humiliating entry at the top of the page--but after a period of time the interntia became sticky, and for that prolonged silence, I apologize.  Obviously plenty has happened in these past few months (see: the entire holiday season Halloween through New Year's--HAPPY EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE), but as for the highlights, allow me to present them in triptych.

THREE



Mack turned three about a week ago, and although I could go into the same hackneyed parental lament about how it seems like he was just born yesterday, how I remember when he was just a wee infant and look at him now--in other, more concrete ways, it is utterly plausible that three years has gone by.  I got pregnant with Mack at the end of my residency, and he was born about five months after we moved to Atlanta.  Three years ago?  Seems about right.

But don't let me hog all the commentary, marvel yourself at how three years can somehow transform this:


...into something as adorably wacky as this (and please excuse the background shambles that is our home office, a.k.a. the room where all the world's paperwork and power cords go to die):



I love you, little man.


THIRD



For a couple of months now, Cal's teacher has been floating the idea that we might want to consider skipping Cal ahead into third grade for the next school year.  It's not something Joe and I have pushed (or indeed, even brought up initially) because the memory of this is still pretty fresh in our minds, but after Cal's teacher brought it up the third or fourth time, Joe and I are starting to realize that we might have to make a decision one way or the other.  

The main sticking point is this: if academics was the only thing we cared about, yes, absolutely, we would be for skipping Cal a year ahead.  School is too easy for him, and he's getting bored.  However (and this is a relatively big however), Cal has a couple of problems that don't necessarily translate into academic achievement, though it can (and may) color his experience at school.  The main issue in our mind is that Cal is already young for his grade.  His birthday is at the end of July, which usually makes him one of the youngest kids in his grade, and in this era of red-shirting kids in kindergarten, he's already up to a year younger than some of the kids in his own class, even before shuffling around.  Now, this may or may not be a big deal (I myself was skipped ahead a year in school so I at least have some personal perspective--and my birthday is at the end of June) but I also have to take into account that I was a small Chinese girl going to school in Manhattan, in settings where (and excuse me for generalizing) issues of physicality or athleticism or physical development were not a real big issue, at least not that I could perceive.  

However, Cal will be a small-ish boy growing up in Georgia, where, insofar as I can ascertain from my proximity (if not direct involvement) in youth culture, physicality is kind of a big deal.  Everyone talks about football.  Everyone plays sports.  I see some of the kids in Cal's class now, and lord, they are massive.  They are good kids, I have not seen or heard any word of bullying or rough-housing or even so much as a double-dog-dare, but remember, this is just first grade--these things may change.  And to say nothing about the cesspool that is middle school, what with puberty and hormones all coming into play.  Do I want to put Cal in a situation where he's ten years old and in a locker room full of classmates flaunting their fistfuls of chest hair?  Is it going to matter?  Like I said, maybe it doesn't, and I'd reiterate that I skipped a year and had a perfectly well-adjusted and un-traumatic adolescence--that said, I went to a very academically-oriented high school so it's possible that such things didn't matter as much there as they might in the real world.  

But.  Cal is bored, and I think we're beginning to see it.  In some ways, I guess he kind of likes that school is so easy--all the less effort to expend, my dear--but is this how I want him to grow up, floating along with minimal effort because he knows he doesn't have to do anything more to do "well"?  (However, Joe would like me to point out that, indeed, this is just how he went through life basically up until grad school, and LO, LOOK AT HIM NOW.  Both sides of the coin, we are.)  It's beginning to show in Cal's motivation at school.  He just isn't interested in doing things.  He'll do the work that is put in front of him, of course, but in the past few months, his participation has taken a subtle turn from compliant to grudging.  Is it just because he's bored?  Is it a developmental thing?  Is he just (and I would be perfectly happy if this were the reason, honestly--Cal's never been known for his extroversion) starting to have more fun with his friends and starting to act more like a goof-off first-grade boy?  Would stepping up his curriculum even affect this?  I don't know.  

Which brings up the broader issue: what is our goal here?  What do we want for Cal?  What's going to help him succeed the best?  Our goal has never been to hustle Cal through school as quick as possible (in fact, now that we're in public school, the idea of giving up a whole year of not paying tuition smarts quite a bit, though less than the idea of MY BABY ultimately leaving us to go to college a year earlier than we anticipated) but given that this option is being presented to us by Cal's own teacher makes us wonder if, for all our hand-wringing, we're holding him back.  But what makes someone successful in life ultimately?  Having a good experience in school certainly helps, but what defines that good experience?  Finding and being pushed to your limits academically?  (Not that we think third grade math is "the limit," of course, but certainly having to use a few more neurons isn't a bad thing.)  Or having the space and room to grow socially without the stressors of being smaller and slower and younger than everyone else?  What is our goal?  What's going to be best for Cal?  Or, at least, less worse?


TRIO

Well, in the event that we screw up those first two kids, at least now we know that we'll have an extra in reserve.  And if I may observe (despite the blurriness of this photo, which was taken with my cell phone camera because our scanner isn't working for some reason), real-time 3D ultrasound technology really is amazing.



(Coming July 2012.  Check local listings for details.)

Thanks for sticking around, everyone.  It's good to be back.