ShadowIce
Well, she is disabled (learning disability) and she is receiving extra time for it. Now, I know this isn't what you meant, but I bring it up to point out that there is already precedent for giving this woman extra time because she needs it. Basically, if we allow people all kinds of accommodation (from maternity leave to extra time on tests due to learning disabilities) why not give extra time to express milk? If she takes the test while in pain, she will be at genuine disadvantage (as anyone who has tried to concentrate while in pain knows). It isn't like she's pissed off because she can't wear her lucky shoes; not allowing her to express milk will genuinely affect her in a way she can't control.

And as I've said before, learning disabilities are on par with medical conditions that are permanent most of the time, such as digestive/urinary problems, physically handicapped to the point of being wheelchair-bound, and being deaf. You cannot be cured from having dyslexia or ADHD, which are disabilities that may slow down the process of retaining and expressing information, but have no bearing on your overall intelligence. Now if she suffered from severe mental retardation, it'd be an entirely different story.

I don't consider it a genuine disadvantage if your condition allows you to simply come back when you feel better, unlike cases of permanent disability. If you give extra time for each and every examinee with a temporary injury, how can they properly measure their capabilities in accordance with the medical licensing guidelines? Why not save everyone the trouble and simply test those individuals when they come back able-bodied? It doesn't take a giant logical leap to realize that people who are healthy are more likely to do better on an exam than those who are in pain at the time, regardless of how much time they've been given. If "HALP IT HURTS" could be used as an all-out excuse to prolong an exam for a health issue that can be cured, there'd be no point to any form of standardized and regulated licensing procedures.

I reiterate: an earned workplace benefit (maternity leave, sick leave, vacation, whatever) and a competitive exam are also two different things. What has this woman done to receive privileges for a non-lasting health condition? The right to have a child affects only you and any other caretakers you choose to involve. This right does not encompass any other right to have a licensing exam tailored exclusively for your wants at the cost of skewing results for everyone else. They have invested the same amount of time, effort, and money to enter their medical profession of choice. Why should their work be placed at a disadvantage for one individual? The school is offering her the chance to express milk during the extra hours allotted, or the chance to retake the exam when she doesn't have to express milk. Perhaps this thought was lost on her, but she isn't the only person taking the test and there are limits to how much you can accomodate people at the expense of others who are looking to be fairly licensed. If that was the case, any permanently disabled person could take as long as they wanted instead of given an extra day.

This is required step in order to enter the medical field, not a pissing contest for how much pain you can withstand in 18 hours. When you reject the accomodations made so you can express milk on site and relieve your pain, and when you reject the perfectly feasible option to take the exam at a time where you can actually accept a full-time residency, then I honestly do not see any point in trying to make yourself out as a victim of the system.

Quote:
As far as I can tell, the only difference comes down to whether people think she deserves the extra time. It's like, "Well, she deserves extra time for her ADHD if her ADHD would prevent her from successfully completing the test because she didn't do anything wrong by having ADHD, but she doesn't deserve extra time to express milk because she chose to become a mother and now she needs to deal with what comes from that choice." I could be reading this wrong, but this is what people in general seem to be saying. If she didn't want to be in pain, if she didn't want to risk infection, then she shouldn't have had kids, she shouldn't have gotten pregnant, she shouldn't have tried to take the test during a time when either of the aforementioned was going to interfere with the test, etc etc. But I'm not on board with this assertion that she doesn't deserve the time. Yes, this was something she chose. So what? It doesn't automatically follow that she shouldn't be given extra time.

The following paragraphs apply both to ShadowIce and PhaedraMcSpiffy:

I personally don't recall saying anything about how her choices should follow a chain of punitive consequences. It doesn't matter how she got pregnant. If you could somehow make yourself have dyslexia and ADHD, it still wouldn't matter. Exercising your right to bodily domain is its own category. If her ADHD and dyslexia could be remedied in two months just as her milk production, I'd be arguing the same thing. The question is; if you can overcome your health issues in a short amount of time, and if you can't accept full-time work until you are able-bodied, then why do you deserve the same accomodations as someone who will be disabled for most, if not all of their life?

If she doesn't want to be in pain, then she should:

a) take time off and come back when she's feeling better as temporarily sick people are allowed under these conditions

b) express milk during the exam as she is allowed under these conditions

It has nothing to do with some perceived notion of maternal oppression. She doesn't deserve the extra time not because she chose to be a mother, but because she is interfering with a crucial qualification phase for everyone else. What she chooses to do with the contents of her uterus should not have nothing to do a room full of people who want to be tested and licensed on the same playing field. Respecting her choice to give birth has nothing to do with disrespecting the many years that everyone else put into their education, and the standards to which they are expected to adhere.

If questioning the logic and competence of someone who happens to be a parent is automatically seen as undermining their choice to reproduce, then what exactly is the point of parenting classes or child advocacy/protection groups in the first place? Instead of jumping to conclusions about who's punishing whom, perhaps people should remember that there is a clear distinction set between a temporary health condition and a permanent one, baby or not. You cannot make claims about upholding fairness and equality in the schools and workplace, only to turn around and say that having children should somehow change the way that people are evaluated as medical professionals.

Quote:
People also keep saying that if she can't compete she shouldn't be given an advantage to help her compete. But the simple fact is that if she tries to compete without help, she'll be facing challenges that the other participants aren't facing. So you aren't really judging her and her competitors equally; you're judging her with a handicap against her competitors without a handicap. We don't say, "Well, if she can't deal with the test because of her ADHD, then she couldn't handle the job with ADHD!" We make accommodations to help. And, unlike with her ADHD, this is a handicap that will eventually go away. Her breastfeeding will impact her job less over the long haul than a learning disability.
And I'm not saying she should get an advantage because I don't see how giving her a longer break with which she could express milk automatically gives her an advantage. Yes, maybe the time she was actually given gives her an advantage, but I'm not talking about the time she was actually given. I'm talking about giving her extra time period.

Exactly my point. Breastmilk production ceases eventually, which is a two-month waiting period for her. Until she stops lactating, she cannot take on a full-time residency because the work simply does not accomodate those who have to take 20+ minute breaks every two hours. Therefore, there isn't even an immediate need for her to be tested at this moment.

Yes, she's receiving help for handicaps that cannot be fixed. Now, what does that have anything to do with temporary milk production, and why should a person with a temporary handicap receive the same help as someone with a permanent handicap? How her learning disability will affect her job is up to her and her employers. How she is to be tested and licensed along with the other students on equal ground is up to the school officials. If she wants her lactating to be recognized as an actual temporary disability (because it isn't, in actuality), then she should start following the school rules set in place for said temporary disabilities. Meaning, use the extra time given, or rest until you are fit to come back. Why should the conditions of her accomodations change for something completely unrelated to a lifelong problem? If her entire reasoning does in fact come down to getting a standardized exam "just over and done with," it is a poorly constructed one (rejected even at the elementary school level), and should not be an excuse for jumping ahead in a strictly organized licensing process.