Sophie Currier's legal victory to win extra time to pump milk while sitting for her medical boards has very little to do with the collateral facts of her case. Cases in which plaintiffs litigate big public policy issues are rarely people with whom we would want to spend time. How many of us would want to have lunch with Michael Newdow, the non-custodial father who brought the case challenging the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or Barbara Grutter, the white applicant to the University of Michigan law school who successfully challenged that school's affirmative action policy?

The important question arising from this case is what accomodations should we make to allow women to participate in the workforce as the same footing as men. Many commentors on this forum have mentioned that Currier should have waited to have a child until a different point in her life. It seems strange to argue that a woman (and in this case, presumably her husband) should alter her child-bearing plans because of a test conducted on a single day, but I suppose each person is entitled to his or her own opinion. I simply would ask these commentators if they would ask the same of Currier's male colleagues if some circumstances arose in which their family planning choices interfered on test day. Whether we personally chose to have children or not, biologically, only women can have children and only women can breastfeed. If we want to address the twin goals of perpetuating the species and increasing the number of women in various professions that require long licensing exams, we will have to address these questions from time to time. And while it may feel like "special treatment," there is just simply not a comparable situation men experience (other than perhaps some medical situations).

Am I, no obviously not. Are you, well you seemed to have glossed over the portion where they offered to give her the test on another day - as they do with everyone else. Something which would readily answer your last point, the about male students and accomodations.

As for pregnancy, it is ludicris to believe that this one test is the reason for delaying your conception. Its not like its all over once she passes (she had failed before mind you), she has her residency, her orals. This isn't some one day event, its a multi-year devotion of time incompatible with child-rearing in many people's mind. Can her husband do the work - sure, except he can't lactate for her, nor can he breastfeed for her. This is something that only she can accomplish.

and dyslexia and pumping.

Bleeding heart liberals created the idea that all people are created equal.

WRONG!

Ask any obstetrician and they will tell you such is not the case. Our constitution guarantees equal opportunity but not equal success. As a result of the liberal concept of equality we now have to make equal every inequality that comes with life. As a result we have a list of ways people are made equal ironically by not having the same opportunities. In a twisted logic libs call accomodations leveling the playing field, yet the field is anything but level when it comes to having the same standards applied to everyone. Racial discrimination is based on not having the same opportunities; in housing, education, and jobs. The playing field was slanted. Now in other areas throught this twisted logic we are trying to make equal what is not. Blacks are equal to Whites; given equal access to education blacks can achieve. However, areas of physical disablement and mental disablement works differently.

Example:

Special Ed students in most if not all states cannot fail if they have an IEP. When they graduate, their transcript is marked in some obtuse way that the degree is special. However, after 10 years that distinction is removed. I have to ask the question, "Did they go back and actually pass those courses?" No, of course not. However, in the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, all students must achieve satisfactory or better. If a student with an IQ of 80 can pass the test, then what does that say about the defintion of satisfactory. Aggravating that is that qualified sub-groups of which special ed is one must as a group achieve satisfactory.

How is this possible?

Relating back to Currier's condition of ADD and dyslexia; it is fine to give her accomodations in college and med school. But when it comes to the privilege of making life and death decisions and actions on other people, where is the level playing field for the patient?

The symptoms of ADD include inattentiveness and impulsesiveness. The treatment is a drug like Ritalin for which the major side effect is nervousness. So is the doctor nervous or inattentive today?

Dyslexia is a condition where the person sees and writes letters and numbers reversed. So did the doctor mean 19 when she wrote 91?

So if she didn't take her Ritalin what are the chances she was inattentive and didn't notice when she wrote 91?

Two rebuttals:

1) Delaying the test as an option--If someone delays taking the test because she is not given adequate time to pump, she will have to delay her graduation from medical school and her post-graduate internships. It is my understanding that this process is highly competitive and it is very possible that a delay would cause her to lose out on internships that would be desirable. Remember-- the question is not whether you think Currier would be a good doctor or good parent, but whether women who are breast-feeding should be given some (presumably limited) amount of extra time to pump during the exams so they are not put at a disadvantage compared to their non-breastfeeding colleagues.

2) ADHD or Dyslexia as a consideration--Neither the lower court nor Judge Katzmann of the Massachusetts Appeals court considered Currier's accommodations for ADHD or dyslexia in deciding this case. This case was simply about whether she should be provided extra time to pump. While we may have gut feelings about whether someone with what we might consider significant impairments should be allowed to become doctors, most of us are not experts on these conditions. Even if we were experts, we do not know the specifics of Currier's case. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers and schools to make reasonable accommodations where they are possible. It doesn't require that anyone with any condition be accommodated in any way. For example, the ADA does not require a person in a wheelchair be allowed to be a firefighter.

Medical doctors serve a surprising number of functions each day and not all doctors are constantly making split second life or death decisions. Many doctors, for example, work in labs researching diseases or developing drugs. Finally, people with impairments are often able to function remarkably well. Oliver Sachs gives an account of a surgeon with Tourettes syndrome (which causes uncontrollable twitching in addition to the more recognizable uncontrollable outbursts) in his book "An Anthropologist on Mars."

"Many doctors, for example, work in labs researching diseases or developing drugs."

But the medical license allows the holder to practice on people. If Currier can't find a job in research, there is NOTHING stopping her from being an ER physician. THAT IS THE POINT. Remember Terri Schiavo's husband? He testified during the malpractice case that he would use the money to take care of Terri for the rest of her life just the way she was. He didn't do that but such testimony of future plans even in court is not binding.

The real issue here is not the pumping which is actually minor, but the doubling of time because of the dyslexia and ADD. By law they had to make that accomodation if it was deemed reasonable. The med school probably wanted to avoid conflict over them. As you observed, a wheelchair bound fireman does not make sense, but does an inattentive physician or a shaky surgeon? Since there is no liability to the licensing board, why should they fight the court battle to define "reasonable"? Further if the MD kills someone, the appeal to bleeding heart libs that it was because of a disability resonates. Condolences to the family and not much in compensation.