I understand the liability part completely. It's the reason why my matriculation is scheduled for 2019 instead of earlier, since they will both be 18 at that point. I have set aside sufficient funds for their full time care for the next decade while I do my training just in case one or both is unable to function independently. There is actually a very nice community in the Austin area for adults with Asperger's that I've just about got my son sold on and I think it would be the best path for him.
As far as adcoms being the illuminati, I think more that the entire medical establishment is just slow to change. From my medical service in the military, fresh ideas were generally met with scorn rather than encouragement. I've actually pondered this whole idea for the last couple of days and would be interested in someday putting forth a caregiver hypothesis and testing it. Do caregivers practice medicine differently? I think you could assign some metrics to it and find out. Patient satisfaction surveys, empathy scores, and numerous other variables could be tallied and perhaps provide some insight. Maybe there is no difference. Maybe parents are worse or perhaps they are better but only to an insignificant degree.
How would it change your view of applicants if some reputable researcher published a fairly bulletproof study demonstrating that those who had directly participated in child care turned out some significantly better medical outcomes for their patients? What if they turned out to instead have twice the mortality rate in procedural specialties but better outcomes in the intellectual specialties? Do you deny the applicant who wants to be a surgeon unless they agree to switch to path?
I keep hearing murmurs about the "machine" trying to create more human/relatable/empathetic/etc physicians (the new MCAT comes to mind as the most appreciable example), so my thought process then wants to ask the question: aren't there some experiences that might be predictive of such a physician? For example, it seems adcoms in general tend to "like" military members. Why is that? Does it say something about our work ethic? Our altruism? Our mental endurance? It seems that at least "some" experiences are indeed considered valuable in evaluating applicants. While it may be anectdotal, as someone who had done both, it seems unthinkable that what I did in the military somehow makes me super doctor while the decades of sleepless nights, of racing to a child's room to find them in the throws of a grand mal seizure and feeling paralyzed to help them despite having handled gross trauma in the field a hundred times before would be not relevant.
Don't get me wrong, I've gotten the take-home message more than once here from adcoms members who are gracious enough to share advice on what makes a good application/interview and what doesn't. I've settled on the idea that I likely won't even mention it. None the less, it still perplexes me that my ability to divine Sn1/E1/E2/Sn2 reactions based on esoteric parameters (which I'm pretty good at actually) trumps my ability to empathize with a parent who feels that someone has literally stolen the moon from their sky (and to reassure them that they possess the gear to go forward and do what must be done).