Modern Day Mowgli

In somewhat odd timing, given the content of my last post here, the story of a Russian "bird-boy" has come to light:

Authorities say the neglected child was found living in a tiny two-room apartment surrounded by cages containing dozens of birds, bird feed and droppings. The so-called “bird-boy” does not understand any human language and communicates instead by chirping and flapping his arms, Russian newspaper Pravda has reported.

Social worker Galina Volskaya, who was involved is rescuing the child from his home in Kirovsky, Volgograd, said he was treated like another pet by his 31-year-old mother who never spoke to him. Miss Volskaya said: “When you start talking to him, he chirps.”

Russian authorities say the child was not physically harmed but is suffering from “Mowgli syndrome”, named after the Jungle Book character raised by wild animals, and cannot engage in any normal human communication.

Neil Gaiman blogs about it and wonders what the boy is saying. I wonder - do the birds understand?
-Kelly (with thanks to Mr. Neil)

Primum Non Nocere

First, do no harm. I don't know anyone who practices any aspect of medicine who disagrees with this foundational concept of what medicine should be and do - do no harm. And on an intuitive level, harm seems so self-evident, and easy to avoid.

Except, of course, anyone who's spent more than an hour reading about the history of medical ethics knows that this isn't the case. Harm, unfortunately, is one of those words that is flexible, has a definition that changes depending on context, case, even attitude. Ultimately, what does it mean to cause harm?

I had a class last year where a student would argue that anything which caused someone to be "not normal" was harmful, and therefore doing no harm meant doing your best to make sure everyone was normal. Ignoring the more Harrison Bergeron aspects of that thought for a minute, what does it even mean to be normal? Again, it's one of those things that seems self-evident, until you stop and think for a minute. We're accustomed to this argument now (at least, I hope the folks who'll be reading this are) when it comes to think like Deafness or dwarfism - parents who are dwarfs or Deaf who want children sharing these same genetic and physical traits. It is, for them, what is normal - point being that normal itself is not a concrete concept, but flexible. You could argue that normal is normative.

There's been a lot of debate about whether or not, for example, Deaf parents should be "allowed" to have Deaf children - that is, should fertility doctors be trying to create embryos that are deaf, should couples be able to request eggs or sperm from Deaf donors to increase their chances of having a Deaf child. I've argued strongly for this in the past, and won't go into the reasons here, except to say that part of the reason for my arguing for this is based on the notion of preserving culture, and not making a judgment call on what is normal. There are, after all, many people for whom the experience of being Deaf is perfectly normal, and I'm simply not comfortable pointing a finger and saying "you are abnormal".

That's why this particular YouTube video has been so thought-provoking for me. I suppose, when it comes down to it, I do have a concept of normal that includes "being able to communicate with the world" - I don't assume that means everyone; after all, I don't speak the majority of the languages on this earth. But the idea that someone who has what we would consider severe autism is communicating with the world, and it's simply the world that has not yet figured out how to communicate in return, is a novel and I'll admit, somewhat difficult, concept for me to wrap my head around.


Amanda Baggs, the woman in the video, is featured this month in Wired, and has a blog here.

I won't suggest that Ms. Baggs doesn't bring up interesting - and disturbing - questions in her video (obviously there's something here to think about, or I wouldn't have anything to write). But I wonder - given what she describes as being her language, is it even possible that someone who is not autistic, or cognitively different, could learn to communicate in it? Or maybe even more to the point - in my general notion of a language, it is a device that allows me to communicate with you - we both have the ability to learn it and use it to exchange ideas. Is Ms. Baggs' language one that more than a single person knows, uses, inhabits? I'm not necessarily convinced that, if it is an individualistic thing, if she is the only person speaking this language, than it can rightfully be called a language. But I also don't want to swing so far to the other side as to say it's not possible - I simply don't know.

I have some other concerns that are still marinating, so I'll just leave it at this for now.
-Kelly

Obesity in the News (or, Why Language Matters)

Obesity research is all over the news today:

From the BBC, obesity is linked to birth defects and health risks: a large scale study in the journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine says that women who are obese when they conceive are more likely to have chronic diseases, fertility problems, miscarriages and complications during pregnancy, as well as birth defects including missing limbs and malformed hearts.

Then there's a study reported in Cell, which suggests that the skeleton is part of the endocrine system, specifically helping with the regulation of osteocalcin, which in addition to regulating mineralization appears to regulate glucose and deposits of body fat. This likely explains, at least in part, the connection between obesity and type two diabetes; researchers will move forward to look more closely at this link, next.

Following that, a study out of UPenn says that obese kids are more absent from school than others, and in fact suggests that obesity is more an indication for how much school a child will miss than any other factor, including race, gender, or socioeconomic status. The lead researcher is pretty succinct about why this is, too: the kids don't want to be teased or bullied over their weight.

According to a report at an American Physiological Society meeting, estrogen loss leads to weight gain, as well as hypertension, suggesting that estrogen treatment is beneficial for both the heart and the body.

And finally, it looks like people overeat due to another hormone-gone-wonky. People who don't manufacture leptin tend to overeat, becoming chronically obese. People who are deficient in leptin have the same areas of their brain react, at the sight of food, that react to rewarding emotions/desires.

So what's the point to all the fat talk? For some people, fatness, being overweight, obesity, is simply a medical issue. You are overweight for a reason, be it medical or psychological, it is bad for you, you should work on not being overweight, which is good for you. There are clear concepts of good and bad tied to this model of viewing weight, and it tends to be a part of the general medicalization of weight we see - to be thin (but not too thin) is healthy, to be fat is to be unhealthy. And within healthy/unhealthy there are specific moral and value-laden beliefs that tie into good and bad; to be healthy is to be good, to be fat is to be bad.

But there are people out there, often people who are overweight, that reject this sometimes value-laden, binary attitude towards weight. They are comfortable with their weight, and don't appreciate being "bullied" by society to adhere to an ideal they don't believe is accurate. These folks often espouse the motto "healthy regardless of weight", placing an emphasis on health outside of weight. After all, the reasoning goes, if someone is 65 lbs overweight, but perfectly healthy otherwise, what business is it of anyone just what that weight is? People come in all sizes, and as long as the individual is healthy, what that size is shouldn't matter to anyone. While this group, often known as fat activists, embrace the notion of being healthy, they reject the idea that healthy is thin is good, and unhealthy is fat is bad.

How news reports discussing obesity are received tends to depend on how they are written. If they are written, as most are, in the medicalized and moralized language of the first model, a group of people - perhaps the group of people most affected by the research being reported on - are alienated from the outset by the language, and judgment, being used. People are sensitive to the language being used to describe them, and very few people respond positively to being preached at.

A healthy body is a goal that is hard to argue with, and if we communicated consistently in such a manner, we might very well discover that many of the medicalized concerns about the overweight/obese would be addressed to everyone's satisfaction.