Pawprint...

It's been such a very long time since my paws last left an imprint on the web - nearly two months! But not to mind, I'm still here and OK, still in one piece, albeit mindful of the fact that the wheels of this world still turn just as well whether I'm here or not. Anyhow, I still choose to write - if not for the benefit of anyone apart from myself, and for shaping my own reflections.

The last couple of months have been at once very interesting and very taxing - working at Peter Mac, a specialist hospital for patients with cancer. My job is surgical oncology, and under this banner come seven separate units which I cover, four surgical and three radiation. It's quite different from mainstream jobs, where the resident is headed by a single registrar and perhaps a small network of consultants. Covering seven units means I work under at least four different registrars, each who answer to a plethora of consultants, and so it gets rather confusing! The resultant disorganisation, because of lack of cohesion between the units at higher levels, can leave my schedule very scattered and leads me to do more hours than I should - normally starting by 7am (surgical starts), and often ending around 6.30pm (radiation ward rounds, and sometimes surgical again). The work itself is not too difficult, however, and often quite rewarding. So, as a job, it's quite enjoyable.

One of the best things about doing this particular surgical rotation is the amount of time spent in theatre. It's quite a blessing - this is my second surgical term since graduation, and I've done probably an average of five or so theatre sessions per week, which is probably more in one week than I did in my entire surgical term last year! It means I've been able to do some surgical lists cutting out skin lesions (the senior doctors see these cases as tedium, so delegate them to me), as well as the usual assisting, closing wounds, and seeing a lot of anatomy, which is almost everyone's weak suit in medical school. From an interest viewpoint, I am definitely keen on continuing down the surgical path, but it does mean a fair bit of sacrifice.

Unfortunately, surgery is the archetypal family-unfriendly career choice. While interesting, the hours (especially the early starts) are exhausting, and there is a culture of career first, family second, quite widespread amongst the surgical community. I guess that it's almost a tacit expectation for most junior surgeons, and in general those who want to prioritise other things are frowned upon. I suppose this is one area where I definitely want to be counter-cultural - family is more important than career - but it's not always easy to demonstrate this. I have to admit that I have been poor at balancing work and life outside work for these past couple of months. In general, I return home exhausted, and all I want to do is flop on the bed and not wake up until late the next morning. Perhaps I'm not really cut out for the surgical lifestyle. But then again, I hope to be able to answer that question for myself, whether or not surgery is for me, within the next couple of years - then I can decide whether to continue, or to take a sidestep onto a different platform, perhaps to become a physician or general practitioner instead.

Thanks to God, I now have three weeks of annual leave! Even this has its own list of tasks to eat through - wedding planning being among the top of them, alongside househunting. It's nice thinking about these things, and being able to contemplate the future, and how our plans seem to be taking shape. At the moment, we're looking only a few months to a year ahead, but these form the gateway to the years beyond, for which I'm sure God has planned for us an exhilarating journey!

I want to mention a documentary Sal & I watched last night, called Jesus Camp. Centred on a preacher who organises annual camps for Christian children in USA, the documentary raises a lot of issues - not necessarily taking a standpoint on any of them, but allowing us to really think and decide for ourselves what is really right or wrong. The belief of the children in Jesus seemed genuine, and for their age (many of them around 10 or 11 years, no more) they held quite a sophisticated understanding of a lot of issues that many of their age might not ever have considered. The concept of sin as separation from God, and Jesus' death in our place is not easy to grasp - the depth of God's love in this act is unfathomable. Yet, they articulated God's reality, their occasional doubts, and their passion for Jesus' message, in a way that defied their age.

What I found disturbing, though, was the way that minds so malleable can be used in a sense - one thing to teach them about God, another to teach them about topical issues such as creation, abortion and which party to vote for. One guy, a Christian radio announcer, expressed his concern, calling it "indoctrination", and not just in the realm of faith, but also in the realm of politics. I have to say, from the glimpse into that world afforded by the documentary, that I share his concern. The children, despite displaying an outward maturity and level of eloquence beyond their years, still have insufficient grasp of the depth of complexity within each issue, and are being presented with very one-sided viewpoints. They are also being fairly actively sheltered against alternate viewpoints. In one scenario, a mother homeschooling her child was discussing the issue of creation. As they talked, her belief in literal six-day creation was obvious, and Darwin's evolution was dismissed as no more than an absurdity. In another scenario, a prominent pro-life speaker came to preach at the camp, and together everyone in the room was summoned to join in corporate prayer against abortion. In yet another, children all around the dinner table were talking about how they weren't allowed to see Harry Potter because of the witchcraft portrayed - indeed, just earlier, the central preacher in the documentary had opened her message by saying Harry Potter was evil, and would have been put to death in the time of the Old Testament. To the eyes of outsiders (I would add, especially non-Christian outsiders) these scenes can look a lot like indoctrination. There did not seem to be much in the way of encouraging the children to consider the alternatives and make up their mind for themselves.

One obvious danger in this is manipulation. Another danger is that it leaves the children in a position where they find it hard to understand where others are coming from. When a non-Christian comes along, they perceive them with a degree of suspicion. When someone poses an alternative viewpoint, they laugh. When a hot political topic becomes the subject of discussion, they fervently rush to regurgitate the arguments they have been exposed to all of their lives, oblivious to the complete picture and the alternative. Forgive me for generalising, but this is the picture that comes across when I see these scenes.

All in all, I think that the documentary was quite thought provoking. Yes, I would love for my children to be brought up with a very solid grounding in Christian character development and understanding the Bible. I would certainly be hoping, praying, indeed doing all in my power to make sure they understand the truth about Jesus. But I would also not want them to be ignorant of what others think. I would want them to grow to be thinkers, able to critically appraise arguments put forward by others, and carefully consider them. And indeed, be able to accept them, if they are right. I don't think that the style of moral mollycoddling depicted in the documentary is the right way to do this.

Anyhow - I think this has grown into quite a monster of a blog! Please comment if you have views on the documentary, or just want to say hi. God bless!