Anyway, this is a very common phenomenon amongst pediatricians and I think it's dreadful. I don't understand why our society has assigned assessment and monitoring of little ones' early childhood development to a group of (albeit well-meaning and otherwise quite knowledgeable) professionals whose training simply does not devote any meaningful time or attention to either milestone quality or timing, or to what achievements are possible when interventions begin as soon as delays are identified, ideally under 12 months. I'm sincerely bewildered by the "wait and see if it fixes itself" attitude. I asked the provider why she doesn't refer sooner and whether she fears any sort of harm if referrals are made more promptly and she answered, "no, I certainly don't think any harm can come from it. Extra stimulation is never a bad thing. I just don't think it's really necessary."
Professionals who obtain licenses to practice medicine ought to be able to think logically, and ordinarily medical providers are quite linear and logical. I appreciate this about them. This position, so typical amongst pediatricians, is just not logical. The thought seems to go that "a serious problem might be developing which could be completely averted with intervention now, but since maybe there isn't, let's just ignore it and let the problem grow bigger and bigger until it reaches a severity and level of entrenchment that it might require many more years of therapies and treatment or even never be correctable." Yeah... No. Not when it's my baby's future on the line.
This is not an apathy issue. This provider is extremely hard working; sometimes researching issues and tracking down journal articles, sending them to me after appointments. This is not an intelligence issue. She is quick, insightful, and highly observant. And as I noted above, this is not just this particular doctor. We went through 7 pediatricians in 3.5 years with my older son before one of them looked at the massive number of skill deficits and unachieved or poorly achieved developmental milestones and muttered under her breath, "Maybe Aspergers? But probably not. You could get an evaluation of you really want to."
This is an issue of assigning the wrong job to the wrong person. We do not ask our accountants to diagnose/treat our cars and we should not ask our doctors to diagnose/treat developmental differences.
There is a reason that there are billions of federal dollars allocated each year for developmental interventions with kids under two. It's because those interventions work. Those dollars stop at age three because by three efforts shift from fixing the problem to coping with it. It is very, very, very troubling to me that we have entrusted the medical profession with oversight of infant and toddler development, yet have either seriously miseducated or failed to educate them about what angst can be averted with interventions in the first three years of life.
Now, while my son's pediatrician didn't say this, I suspect that other than not realizing what is possible with early intervention, the reason providers don't advise interventions when delays first present is that they don't want to worry parents. God knows parents worry enough as it is. But parents worry a lot more about what pediatricians don't say than what they do, and there is absolutely no need for an intervention referral to cause anxiety. To the extent that it does, it's only because our society makes such "a thing" about it. It's not a thing; it's not a big deal at all. Is the kid perfectly fine? Probably. Would the kid have caught up at some point? Likely. Will life be easier and more pleasant for everyone if little things get corrected while they're little? Absolutely. This is not different than a vaccine. Prevent problems. Just prevent them.
Our family is committed to normalizing early intervention to the extent that we are able. In fact, we decided before we started trying for Matthew that we would have any future children's development evaluated periodically by experts in that field, and that we would welcome any interventions offered with joyful hearts. It's not dramatic or shameful or scary or even all that interesting. It's just proactive parenting.
Since we met our then only hoped-for baby, we find that we have a gross motor baby. He loves exploring the world and is busy doing that. I really think his energy is just devoted to that exploration and that he's less interested in learning to talk or practice fine motor tasks. He is bright eyed and happy, socially engaged, advanced in social and emotional milestones. I'm 1000% certain he's not on the spectrum (though it would be fine it he were) and I'm entirely certain he'll talk and do fine motor stuff when he feels like it. At the moment he just doesn't. That said, because he's interested in gross motor exploration and isn't doing some things that most babies his age are, he qualifies for some playtime sessions with some really fun grown ups that he loves and love him back. That's all it feels like to him, anyway. So why would anyone not embrace that for a child? I really don't know. After all, "extra stimulation is never a bad thing," and isn't it better to fix little stuff while it's little?
