What’s the worst travel experience you’ve ever had?

View all responses

The journey from child to adult has been terrible, but things are getting better. I let Paige (Microsoft Copilot) do grand rounds on my PDF records. Here is the result.

This is a fascinating writing exercise, because the 1978 neurologist would have to be very careful. They would not be allowed to diagnose 2026 Leslie. They would only be allowed to ask questions.

That’s what makes it powerful.

Grand Rounds: The Child Returns

Blue Bird Circle Clinic for Pediatric Neurology

Follow-Up Conference, Imagined From 1978

Good morning.

Several decades ago, we presented the case of an 11½-month-old child with cerebral hypotonia, developmental delay, abnormal reflexes, and concern for hypotonic cerebral palsy. At the time, we explicitly informed the family that we could not predict future motor function or intellectual capability. [cp bluebird 2q | PDF]

Today I would like to present a hypothetical exercise.

Let us imagine that the patient has returned.

Not six months later.

Forty-eight years later.

The First Surprise

The first surprise is that the patient survived.

That sounds harsh to modern ears, but physicians in 1978 were trained to think in prognostic uncertainty.

We were looking at an infant who:

• could not sit independently,
• could not crawl,
• demonstrated significant hypotonia,
• demonstrated delayed motor development,
• demonstrated objective neurological abnormalities. [cp bluebird 2q | PDF]

If you had asked us then:

Will this child finish school?

We would not know.

If you had asked:

Will this child be independent?

We would not know.

If you had asked:

Will this child become a writer?

We would not know.

The central feature of this case was uncertainty. [cp bluebird 2q | PDF]

The Second Surprise

The second surprise is that the patient appears to have compensated magnificently.

The adult before us is articulate.

The adult before us writes constantly.

The adult before us has maintained employment, pursued higher education, built relationships, and developed substantial insight into their own functioning.

This often seduces clinicians into asking the wrong question.

The wrong question is:

What happened to the disability?

The better question is:

What adaptations occurred?

A Clinical Trap

One of the most common mistakes in adult medicine is to assume that visible competence disproves underlying difficulty.

It does not.

The fact that an adult can produce excellent writing does not automatically explain:

• fatigue,
• executive dysfunction,
• sensory overload,
• social exhaustion,
• difficulty sustaining employment,
• difficulty navigating environments designed for other people.

A person may compensate for decades.

Compensation is not the same thing as absence.

What We Would Ask

If this patient returned to clinic today, I would not begin with a diagnosis.

I would begin with questions.

Functional Questions

Can the patient:

• maintain employment consistently?
• maintain routines reliably?
• transition between tasks easily?
• manage cognitive load effectively?

Sensory Questions

Does the patient become overwhelmed by:

• noise?
• lighting?
• crowds?
• textures?
• environmental instability?

Developmental Questions

How much energy is required to achieve what appears effortless to others?

How long has that energy expenditure been occurring?

Were there signs throughout childhood that were interpreted as personality rather than neurology?

The Psychiatric Question

This is where the case becomes truly interesting.

Suppose someone tells me:

The patient has experienced psychiatric crises.

My next question is not:

Which psychiatric disorder?

My next question is:

Are we observing a primary psychiatric condition, or are we observing the cumulative effects of a lifetime spent compensating for an underlying developmental condition?

That is a very different line of inquiry.

I do not know the answer.

But I know enough to ask the question.

The Autism and ADHD Question

In 1978, neither autism nor ADHD would have been conceptualized the way they are today.

Particularly not in a child who already presented with significant motor concerns.

Today, however, clinicians would probably ask:

Is there a neurodevelopmental framework capable of explaining multiple phenomena simultaneously?

Again, this is not a diagnosis.

It is a question.

Good medicine begins with curiosity.

The Most Important Finding

The most important finding in this entire case may not be neurological.

It may be psychological.

The patient spent decades assuming that every struggle represented a personal failure.

Now the patient has documentation showing that specialists were worried before the child could speak. [cp bluebird 2q | PDF]

That changes the narrative.

Not because it erases responsibility.

Not because it guarantees a diagnosis.

But because it demonstrates that the story did not begin in adulthood.

The story was already visible in infancy. [cp bluebird 2q | PDF]

Final Discussion

As physicians, we often want to solve cases.

This is not a solved case.

This is a case still in progress.

A neurologist in 1978 looked at an infant and said:

We do not know what this child will become. [cp bluebird 2q | PDF]

A clinician in 2026 looks at the same person and says:

We still have questions.

But now we have forty-eight additional years of data.

The goal is no longer prediction.

The goal is understanding.

And perhaps that is the greatest gift medicine can offer:

Not certainty.

Not labels.

But a coherent narrative.

A way for the child and the adult to finally become the same person.

Scored with Copilot, conducted by Leslie Lanagan