Whole school has to change for one child.......

[johnnie]

I don't know if this was posted, but I heard this on the news this morning. I was curious as to other's opinions on this. I personally think that it is a bit much for the whole school to change, but maybe I am wrong.

School lunch menu goes nut-free to meet one student´s needs

snip:
BANGOR, Maine — There will be no more peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches or franks and beans for students at a school district in midcoast Maine. The district will soon have a nut-free lunch menu as part of a parent´s request.
Students at the Miller School in Waldoboro are being told not to send children to school with anything containing peanuts, sunflower seeds, poppy seeds, sesame seeds or legumes such as dried peas and beans.

snip:
The child, whose identity has not been released, could have a severe reaction simply by smelling the breath of someone who has eaten the banned foods.

snip:
Also banned next year are fresh peaches, apricots, avocados, plums, cherries or other pitted fruits.


http://news.mainetoday.com/apwire/D84MAI6G1-238.shtml

[Lavender Brown]

1. This happened at my nephew's school -there's a kid there w/ allergies

He brought in Nutter Butter cookies and the teacher took them away from him.

Sad that they have to ban fruits, though.

[johnnie]

7. Well, the P&J sandwiches is one thing

But almost all fruits will be banned. I guess the kids can eat some chocolate bars and Jolly Ranchers for dessert.

[Lavender Brown]

10. Maybe they will have to provide school lunches for everyone

That seems to be the only way that they could monitor what everyone eats. :shrug: Poor kids.

[johnnie]

15. They also mentioned

That the teacher's snack machine is being taken out of the school also. Not a big deal, but.....

[7th_Sephiroth]

120. they shouldent allow this kid in schools

he's just gonna die anyways, some bully will breathe in his face with a mouth full of peanuts and kill him, if not the daily beatings he takes from every member of his class will

[iconoclastic cat]

2. Wow! That's just awful all the way around.

However: I must assert that every child's right to a free and adequate education supercedes all else. (one of the reasons that I identify with the liberal movement)

[patcox2]

68. Thats insane to say "supersedes all else."

Why this presumption that we have to inconvenience 400 or 500 people because of this problem that one person has? I say teach him or her at home, this is reidiculous.

[iconoclastic cat]

Perhaps, as long as the district provides the support.

But they cannot just say, "You're on your own."

[patcox2]

Absolutely, of course the school district would provide

tutors, whatever else is required.

[iconoclastic cat]

92. That is not a forgone conclusion.

I have several friends who teach in Chicago public schools which have been in a state of perpetual litigation for not providing services to students with disabilities.

[timtom]

192. My wife just said

what you said. And I agree with her. (And you).

(On edit--Was supposed to have been a reply to Pat Cox).

[Ready4Change]

3. Really, can someone be THAT allergic?

I honestly don't know. It just sounds far fetched that smelling peanuts on another childs breath could bring on a severe reaction. Is this verified by the medical profession at large?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

4. If the child's that allergic, I'm surprised they're risking sending him

to school at all.

[johnnie]

6. Yeah

I mean, kids can be a little bit of a pain in the ass. Some kids might find it "funny" or a challenge to bring in the banned foods.

[shanti]

179. thank you

if it was my kid, he'd be homeschooled.

[MrSandman]

182. A former client of mine...

Was severely allergic to peanuts. Has to carry an epi-pen and all of that.

That student has a right to be in school.

Separate is unequal.

After we send the students with allergies home, let's send the ones with SLD's home so the other students aren't slowed down in their academics. Better yet, let's have separate schools for them and give them a fancy name like Enhanced School for Exceptional Students.

[cmkramer]

5. Yes they can

It's not that common but there are people who are that allergic.

[Ready4Change]

14. Hmmm! Ok.

Are there treatments to help them become less sensitive? I ask because, at some point, it will become impractical to make the entire world safe for all people with high sensitivities to everyday substances.

For example, some people are lactose intolerant, and substitute soy products for milk products. Since soy beans are legumes, their needs would be at odds with this childs problem with legumes. Who's special needs take precedence, and how is such a decision reached?

[Carolina]

162. Yes, sadly they can

Contact with the allergen even through smell can trigger a reaction. The offending agent does not have to be ingested or touched; smell can actually trigger the contraction of airway smooth muscle (brochospasm) that is part of anaphylaxis and causes the wheezing and shortness of breath.

That said this child and others like him are susceptible in many environments that can't be controlled (malls, theaters, sporting events, etc.), and I think someone with life-threatening special needs should be in alternative schooling. Banning food items (and what else, what next) is a slippery slope. What dire consequences befall the poor child or parent who forgets/slips up and packs a nut product with lunch?

Carolina, MD

[cmf]

8. the school is trying to protect itself from a lawsuit

The ban is obviously not fail-safe. If someone who doesn't know about the ban packs a nut-based lunch for a child (like a grandparent, for instance), the consequences could be very bad.

If I were the parent of this child, I would opt to home-school until he or she is older and possibly grows out of his/her sensitivity.

[redqueen]

9. Exactly

"If I were the parents of this child, I would opt to home-school until he or she is older and possibly grows out of his/her sensitivity."

Is it wrong of me to feel that the parents of this child are perhaps being a bit less considerate of others than they might be?

[johnnie]

12. To me

This is almost like saying "My child has sensitivity to light, so can we keep all the lights down in the school?"
There are 400 other student here who have to change their diet for one child's allergies.

[Pithlet]

11. It's not as though

Peanuts and pitted fruits are the be all and end all of a child's diet. There are plenty of alternatives. Every child is entitled to a public education, and an allergy should not be a barrier. As a parent, I would have no problem with such a ban.

[Xithras]

115. But it's incredibly dangerous for the child

The problem with these types of rules are that they allow the parents of the allergic child to let my guard down, by making them thing it's safe.

My son's school had a PB&J incident last year that displays this nicely. The school had banned peanut butter because they had THREE kids enrolled with serious peanut allergies. One day a first grader came to school with a PB&J sandwich, ate it over lunch, and got peanut butter all over himself and the drinking fountain when he got a drink. One of the allergic kids got a drink a minute later, and *wham* allergic reaction. The allergic kid went to the hospital (no epipens at the school), and the sandwich eater went home because his peanut butter stained hands were considered a "hazard" to other children.

What are you going to do? Expel a 6 year old for nearly killing another student with a sandwich? Mandate that teachers inspect all childrens lunches every day?

My kids are at a new school this year so I'm not sure if they're allowed to have peanut butter or not, but they make their own lunches in the morning and I'm fairly sure that my daughters selection today was a PB&J sandwich (she's a vegetarian). I'll be mighty flamed if she tells me after school that they took it away from her.

[Pithlet]

157. I don't agree

It doesn't make sense. I seriously doubt most parents of allergic children lets their guard down. And, I don't think the fact that some may break the rules, or forget, or unintentionally send something that forbidden is an effective argument against that rule.

Putting "hazard" in quotes is false. It really IS a hazard for those who have a peanut allergy. They aren't exaggerating.

I'm sorry that someone taking a sandwich away from your daughter would piss you off because it is a danger to others. But, if she has a classmate who is allergic to peanuts, that sandwich IS a hazard. I don't think that peanut butter sandwiches are the only alternatives to vegetarians. Believe me, I know. My son won't eat meat, and I'm forever trying to come up with alternatives. And you can bet I'll be happy to send him to school with the alternative if one of his classmates has an allergy, and the school has forbidden peanut butter.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

13. I actually think this could have been a GD post.

I wouldn't think it was too much of a hardship for the parents to forego peanut butter, however that's a pretty long list of foods to ban. When it's that complicated, I would have little faith that parents would be able to follow the guidelines, even if they tried. I guess it also depends on the size of the school. I've heard of some areas having nut-free schools for allergic students from all over. Nut allergies really are that severe, I've learned. They're not like other allergies.

[johnnie]

I wasn't quite sure where to put this...

I have also heard of nut-free school, but this is a bit more. The student's doctor is going to compile a complete list and submit it to the school.
I believe I hear it is 400 students.

[GoBlue]

16. The kid should wear a mask.

Else he might breathe the breath of some other kid who ate something forbidden at home.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

17. The whole thing is unsustainable.

Schools are not sterile, and you can't protect the kid from contagion.

[Pithlet]

19. It's not your ordinary average contagion.

Peanut allergies are absurdly reactive, much more so than most others. Peanuts aren't that hard to avoid. Seriously, I don't know why it's such a huge issue for some. Certainly not big enough to exclude a child from the public education system.

[ProfessorGAC]

21. Sorry Pithlet, But I Think They're Treading On Dangerous Ground

If some kid brings a PB&J anyway, what's the school going to do. Expel that child! Then a child is excluded from the public education system because he or she likes peanut butter.

I understand where you're going, but the argument is circular, vis a vis the other 400 kids, too.

I think this is dangerous territory for the school to be on. They are putting themselves in a position where they are assuming total responsibility for every possible contingency. This is a lawsuit farm waiting to happen.
The Professor

[Pithlet]

24. Isn't it also

treading on dangerous ground to never make concessions? Is public school only for "normal" healthy children with no health issues?

[ProfessorGAC]

27. If You're The School's Lawyer, I'd Say Good Luck

A concession this large would seem to me to be a tacit admission that the school is responsible for every aspect of a child's well-being. That doesn't seem like a good legal position. The next time a kid gets sick at school, they're now on the hook. Never mind that the kid got it from the 100 incubating flu carriers that were there last week. The school is supposed to take that on. They've already done it. The precedent is set.

Look, there have been kids with immunodeficiency problems that have to be educated remotely for many years. That's the concession. Telling 400 children and their parents what they can eat is authoritarianism.

When they require a mall to put in a certain number of parking spots for handicapped folks, they are making a concession. This is tantamount to telling ALL the other shoppers that they must take the bus because ALL the parking spaces must be reserved for potentially handicapped users.

Sorry, i can't support such an overextension of accommodation.
The Professor

[Pithlet]

31. Sorry

I can't accept that a person's God given right to eat peanuts trumps another's right to an education. But, to each their own.

[ProfessorGAC]

42. Where Did I Say That?

Besides, did you read the article? They're not just banning peanuts. They're banning fruits and vegetables, all nuts and all seed foods!

You're acting like a conservative here. Oversimplifying to strengthen your point. The school is putting itself in a dangerous legal position here. I think they'll be sorry.

I'm all for the needs of the one trumping the needs of the many, but i think it's ridiculous to suggest that there are no limits to the concessions the many should make. For one thing, i think it should stop at the point of "reasonableness" and the point at which the benefit no longer outweighs the risk.
The Professor

[Pithlet]

47. I did read the article

And I don't think the food list is all that limiting. Sorry. And no, they do not ban all fruits and vegetables. It said that nowhere in the article.

I think if anything, a position that excluded a child from a public education would be more conservative. Not that I'm asserting that, mind you. I just think it's absurd to ascribe my position to a conservative one.

[ProfessorGAC]

61. Once Again, You Stated Something I Didn't Say

I said that were banning fruits and vegetables, not ALL. They are banning all seed foods and nuts, however. It says that explicitly.

Once again, you're strengthening your position by putting words in my mouth. I didn't say your position is conservative. I said your approach to supporting your contention was similar to what conservatives do. Oversimplify. Hammer on single point. Put words in the other person's mouth and then refute what they didn't even say. That's what conservatives do!

Neither of our positions is conservative in any way. Because while you are focusing on that one child in a very kind way, i'm thinking about the other kids, the teachers, and the taxpayers with the same consideration.

Let me pose a hypothetical:
You have a child that is absolutely, certifiably brilliant. Say IQ > 200! Should a public school be forced to increase the pace of academic progress, curricular difficulty, and grading standards because your genius child is going to that school?

I don't see the difference. If a child has a 1 in 10 million malady, we must accommodate completely, but if a child has a 1 in 10 million talent, we shouldn't. We punish your genius child because of the talent? That's where the logic of unlimited accommodation fails me.
The Professor

[chiburb]

65. Prof, I know better than to argue with you, but...

According to the article, it's a 1 in 10 malady, not 1 in 10,000,000.

The article mentions that this will benefit several children, not only the one at issue.

See ya Sep. 5 !!!!

[Pithlet]

66. You were not clear.

Your exact words: They're banning fruits and vegetables.

I'm not focusing on one child. I'm focusing on everyone. And I do think it is selfish if a parent insists "I don't care if it could kill your kid. I'm packing a peanut butter sandwich for my kid, dammit".

Indeed, I'm not focusing on only one child. In fact, I think it can be a great lesson for kids to learn that their needs and wants are not always the most important. It would not have been too tough of a lesson for me to give up certain foods so my classmate could come to school with me without risking their life.

Now who's putting words into mouths? I never said unlimited accommodation. I've never argued that. Certainly, there are limits to the accommodations that we can make. I just don't see banning certain foods as unreasonable.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

116. A lawyer doesn't need to imply that, it's already a fact

Schools ARE responsible for the well being of children in their charge during that time of the day where they have custody..this isn't precedent setting, it's simply a reaffirmation.

BTW, Prof, your analogy is flawed since one matter is a life threatening one and the other is a convenience accomodation.

[Carolina]

164. a child with that severe a nut allergy

is more than I think was intended by the Disabilities Act. Public schools make considerable concessions for many students as is only fair and necessary. But systemic anaphylaxis to nuts and legumes puts this child in a very special category and trying to accommodate such special need(s) heralds a very dangerous slippery slope... for the school, for other children, for parents, for all public spaces/events.

[Carolina]

161. I agree

This is a slippery slope. Anaphylaxis is very serious but this child is at risk EVERYWHERE and anywhere nuts/nut products may be sold or consumed (malls, theaters, ball games or other sports events ...). Yes, the child has a right to an education but at what cost to all the other children? And what happens to the child or parent of the child who slips up and brings a nut product to school?

I don't know what the answer is but banning things (food first, then what?) is truly dangerous territory.

[arwalden]

18. The Onus Is On The Parents... Not The School...

and not on the parents of the other children who attend the school. At what point does this end? Where does one draw the line for special needs children?

How do they propose to prevent parents from serving their children breakfasts that contain "banned fruit"? And what's the penalty?

What's next? "My child is deathly allergic to cat dander... so all you cat owners must get rid of your cats before sending your child with their "infected" clothing to the same school as my child."

[johnnie]

20. Bingo

"What's next? "My child is deathly allergic to cat dander... so all you cat owners must get rid of your cats before sending your child with their "infected" clothing to the same school as my child.""

I think that is what gets me on this story. I usually don't post any articles like this, but I was curious if I was being a dick by thinking that this is just a bit much and when will it end.

[name not needed]

25. That is next.

I don't get some parents. Specifically the ones who view their child as perfect, obedient, the second coming of Christ, whatever. For them, it's just "Timmy first, fuck everyone else". One of my friends, happens to have an anyphylactic allergic reaction to any dairy products. He's always carried an epi pen with him and the schools never have had to ban milk. Some parents realize other children exist too, while others just don't give a shit about anyone else.

[Pithlet]

28. It's life or death

Those other examples are not next, even if some people try to push the issue, because they aren't life or death.

This isn't about people viewing their own children as perfect, or more important. It is about esuring their child gets an education without dying.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

32. In which case, it's too risky to have the kid at a public school.

If it is life-or-death, I would not take such a gamble.

[Pithlet]

38. What about the ones

who's parents can't afford alternative schooling?

I'm really surprised at how some people react to threatening someone's choice of food. There wouldn't be this reaction over other concessions for other types of disabilities, as there shouldn't be. But, man, mess with people's food, and watch out.

[johnnie]

45. A good diet is also important

I know you keep talking about peanuts, but once again this goes well beyond that.
Should all the parents pack their children hunks of beef and a box of Good and Plenty everyday?
As I said, I respect your opinion on this, but I still believe a decent diet is very important to young children. And in my opinion, many of the foods that are being banned are nutritious and healthy.

[Pithlet]

49. Yes, a healthy diet is important

The diet in the article does not ban all healthy foods, or indeed most of them.

[Missy Vixen]

54. It's not just food

>But, man, mess with people's food, and watch out.<

I'm deathly allergic to bee stings and carry an Epi-pen at all times. It has been up to me to curtail my outdoor activities during the summertime, make sure that our home and my workplace have screens on all windows, etcetera. It's not everyone else's job to babysit my allergy.

This child needs to be homeschooled. Period. If he is truly that allergic, he shouldn't be out of the home due to liability issues. It's too bad that the parents believe their child has the right to inconvenience an entire school full of others.

Julie

[Pithlet]

166. I missed this post before

I just don't get why peanut products are so important that we would have to isolate a child, particularly since most people don't have the option to home school. If home school were simply a choice that everyone could make, then I would agree with you.

It isn't every one else's job to babysit your allergy, but kids didn't constantly bring bees to school and sit next to you and release them every day, either. Bees aren't a common, every day tool in education. No one requires bees every day. In cases like yours, I think if bees were a common tool in education, and there were alternatives, then the school should ban bees and use those alternatives, instead of isolating the poor kid and making them stay home. If a parent chooses that for their child, then that is fine. But, I don't think the school should stick to bees on principle because it "inconveniences" everyone else if they could just as easily use something else, or if kids could just as easily bring a bee substitute. If a kid accidently brings a bee to school, then tha can be delt with. No one says they have to be punished. But, I don't think you just give up and and tell the kid "Screw it. Stay home.". This is public education we're talking about.

[AngryAmish]

144. Many special needs kids are home schooled

I know of one kid who had a trach tube who could not be put in school for years at a time. The Chicago Public Schools would send teachers and tutors to his home to teach the kid. But it is also very expensive.

However, the kid ended up without any friends because of his condition, even when he was able to return top school. There is an isolation issue that certain medical conditions and this may be one of those unfortunate conditions.

This is a really hard issue and I do not know where I stand on the issue.

Oh, if they are allergic some jerky kid will try to hurt him or her. That is the nature of kids.

[arwalden]

36. Then The Needs Of That Child Are Beyond The Scope Of Public Education

and beyond what one can REASONABLY expect from a public instituation and the public itself.

There are also children who will die if exposed to sunlight. True. Shall we change school hours to nighttime only so that THAT CHILD can have a decent education and acquire the social interaction skills as well?

These parents do have a burden... but it's THEIR burden, not the school's and not the other parent's of the other children who attend the same school.

-- Allen

[Pithlet]

40. Because of food?

It is a much bigger imposition to switch school from day to night, then it is to say a kid can't have a peanut butter sandwich.

[arwalden]

52. You're Confusing The Childs "Needs" With "Rights"

[Pithlet]

53. I understand the difference

But, we make accommodations for different people with needs all the time in public education. I do not think that public education is only for those kids who don't have special needs. And, I do not think that a no peanut rule is restrictive enough to outweigh a peanut allergic child's right to an education.

[arwalden]

64. Our Ability To Abide By Unfair Restrictions Doesn't Make Them Fair

The fact still remains that it's not MY problem. It's the problem of the parents of the allergic child... they simply need to make other arrangements.

Yes... you're correct, "accommodations" are frequently made... but those are not impositions that EXTEND to the PRIVATE and LEGAL snacks and food choices in the HOMES of the other students.

Accommodations are made for the handicapped and the mentally challenged... but at SOME POINT there is a dividing line between what the public school system can do for the handicapped and what they cannot do. There is a dividing line between what the public school system can do for the severely mentally handicapped children and the things that are simply BEYOND what we can reasonably expect. -- For those extreme cases, there are other options.

This poor allergic child is an extreme case. Clearly the needs of this child are beyond the scope of what a public school system is reasonably capable of providing. The school system's only (and incorrect) solution is to PASS OFF the responsibility to others.

The parent's need to take some responsibility on their own. Find another solution to his or her problem... they do NOT have the right to FORCE their NEEDS into the homes and private lives of others.

-- Allen

[Pithlet]

67. It is not as extreme as you suggest.

In fact, it is common enough that many schools are facing this situation.

This isn't homes and private lives. This is public school.

[johnnie]

73. No

This is an extreme case, that is why it is making national news.
As I posted down below, a person here in the office had children that went to a peanut free school, but when he heard this article he said it is nothing like what they had to do.

[Pithlet]

76. Peanut allergies are not as extreme

as some in this thread are alluding. I've been arguing that schools should have the right to restrict food items that can endanger one or more of their students.

I may have missed it in the article, and I'm going to go read it again, but the restrictions only state what is allowed in the school.

[chiburb]

79. See #72...

[Pithlet]

83. I did

It still doesn't change my argument :) I think a school has every right to ban substances that may be deadly to one or more of their students from their building, including certain types of food. And peanut allergies aren't as rare as some think, and are becoming more and more common.

[chiburb]

86. I'm agreeing with you, that's why I pointed it out...

;-)

[Pithlet]

88. Oh. Never mind.

:)

[arwalden]

75. It's Not As Benign As You'd Have Us Believe Either

Parents are being instructed which foods are BANNED. That's wrong. It's not merely the school cafeteria not serving "offensive" foods... but they are extending their needs by forcing their requirements into the lives of others.

This poor child needs more than what one can reasonably expect. No matter how hard you try, you just can't be every-thing to every-body.

At some point, logic must kick in and the parents of this child will have to face the hard fact of life that it's THEY who must make the adjustment and not the WORLD.

This is their burden. It's unfortunate... but that's they way it is. They simply cannot FORCE others by way of policy or legislation to make these changes. It's unfair.

THIS is an example of "special" rights that actually interfere with the rights of others.

-- Allen

[Pithlet]

80. I'm not trying to be everything to everybody

I realize that there are limits to what can be reasonably done. I just don't see how you or anyone else has made the case that a school cannot ban certain food substances from their building that can be deadly to one or more of their students.

[arwalden]

90. That's An Unfair And Heavy Burden To Pass Along

to the parents of everyone else. Who's going to FORCE these parents to read the labels to make certain their child's breakfasts and bag-lunches contain no offending peanut products?

Shall we ban lactose intolerant kids from drinking SOY milk? What if a parent refuses? What if a child sneaks a candy bar? What if a parent makes a mistake? What if a babysitter packs the wrong item?

WHO WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE? The child? The parent? The babysitter? The teacher? The principal? The school board?

This is just too silly and too complex to even IMAGINE the possibilities. These parents need to find a solution that puts more of the burden and RESPONSIBILITY back on themselves for the safety and health of their OWN child.

[Pithlet]

93. I'm not arguing against any of those points

What I'm arguing is the school is acknowledging that one of its students has a deadly aversion to certain food products, and the school is doing what it can to make sure that the school environment is safe for that student. Doing so does not mean that anyone who accidently sends their kid to school with a peanut product makes them liable. But, it does make the parents of all the other students aware of the problem. I do think that a majority of parents would be willing to at least make the attempt to not send their kid to school with something that might kill another. I don't think the school is being all that unreasonable in acknowleding this problem and taking steps to at least try to make things safer for that kid. Ignoring him/her and saying "well it's just too hard, and it's unfair", particularly since this is a life and death situation, is not the answer.

[arwalden]

97. The School Is Not Asking For Cooperation... They Are DEMANDING IT

That is wrong.

The school caved in. The parents are being selfish. The poor child is at risk no matter what.

The school will never get 100% compliance. And the parents are willing to risk the life of their child? They are living in a fool's paradise if they think they are doing their child any favors.

Again... how can such rules be uniformly and fairly and consistently enforced? Are there exceptions to the rules? Who has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the rules are not broken?

What are the punishments for breaking the rules? Detention? Fines? Juvenile hall? Expulsion? Demerits? Jail?

If there can be no enforcement of the rules, and no motivation to comply... then how can the parents of this allergic child justify the risk of sending their child into such a dangerous environment?

-- Allen

[Pithlet]

99. Oh, Allen

I can't believe you would insist that parents who want their children to get a decent education despite their physical limitations is being selfish.

Schools ban items and substances all the time. Sometimes for foolish reasons and sometimes for necessary ones. The article doesn't even address punishment, but if it is like any other school rule, it is probably an issue of sending a child home at worst. Maybe a note of reminder to the parents. I don't think fines or jail are an issue, here.

[arwalden]

111. Without The Ability To Enforce Them... The Rules Are Hollow

and if they rules are unenforcable, then the allergic child is in mortal danger. This is a no-win situation.

[Pithlet]

117. The allergic child is even more in danger

if nothing is done at all. If those items are forbidden, then it decreases his/her chances of coming into contact. You don't throw up your hands in the air and do nothing because it isn't completely and 100% enforceable.

I'm not saying it is the perfect solution. I'm saying that it isn't unreasonable. And banning those food items isn't 100% ineffective, either. If there is no other choice but for the kid to go to pubic school (I refuse to allow for rejecting this child entirely) then the best solution is to make the environment as safe as possible, even if that isn't 100%. I don't think that peanut allergies make a child any less entitled to the same public education system that everyone else is, and the concessions to be made for this do not put undue burden on others.

[arwalden]

122. The Danger Level Is Not The Issue

The issue is whether or not the school board has the right to make these rules that infringe on the rights of others. And they don't have that right.

>> The allergic child is even more in danger...if nothing is done at all. <<

Nobody is suggesting that "nothing" be done at all. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the school board has the right to infringe on the rights of others.

>>If those items are forbidden, then it decreases his/her chances of coming into contact.<<

By the same token, if the child stays home he's even safer and his chances of being exposed are even less! WOW!

This family has a difficult life ahead of them. They must make sacrifices. They are not entitled to restrict the rights of others and force others to make sacrifices for their benefit.

>>You don't throw up your hands in the air and do nothing because it isn't completely and 100% enforceable.<<

NOT the issue. And you also don't trample the rights of the majority for the needs of one.

>>If there is no other choice but for the kid to go to pubic school (I refuse to allow for rejecting this child entirely) then the best solution is to make the environment as safe as possible, even if that isn't 100%.<<

NOT the issue. It's a shame that this child and her parents have sacrifices to make for the rest of their lives. Truly... it's sad. But their sacrifices and their special needs do not trump the rights of others.

There are no two ways about it.

>>I don't think that peanut allergies make a child any less entitled to the same public education system that everyone else is,<<

That's very noble of you. But many others in that community might not care a whip what you think, and would ask where you get off forcing your opinion on them by limiting their rights.

NOT the issue. A public education is not what's at issue here... it's the forcing of these restrictions onto others. This child can still have a public education... just not the traditional "schoolyard experience".

>>and the concessions to be made for this do not put undue burden on others.<<

NOT the issue. It's not whether or not such changes are easy or "not an undue burden"... the issue is (and ALWAYS WILL BE) whether or not the school has the right to RESTRICT THE RIGHTS of others.

I don't know why you don't understand that. You want to talk about everything EXCEPT that.

The school-board is overstepping their authority. I sympathesize... I really do... but they just don't have the right do to that. It's wrong.

[Pithlet]

87. If this weren't life or death

It wouldn't even be an issue. But it is. The fact that peanut and peanut related foods ARE deadly to a certain segment of the population makes it necessary for those schools who have a member of that population in their school to ban those foods.

If it were only a matter of convenience, I would completely be on your side in this issue.

[arwalden]

95. If It's A Matter Of Life And Death... (As You Point Out)

... then this child needs MORE protection than the public school reasonably be expected to provide. There is absolutely no way that they can provide the environment that this child needs.

The parents of the allergic child are foolish to risk their child's well being in such a manner. They are selfish for demanding that others be forced to accept their burden by having it legislated on them.

This is intrusive.

-- Allen

[Pithlet]

98. Oh, I could not disagree more re: selfish

I think that the school could do more to protect them than simply banning food substances. I would not be entirely opposed to other methods. I agree with you in that the school probably can't make everything completely safe. But, to do nothing about it at all is unacceptable to me.

I'm sorry, but I think that your assertion that these parents are being selfish is way off base. I think this is the first time I've ever disagreed with you about anything so strongly, but I think you're very wrong here. I think that having a child with such a deadly allergy would be extremely difficult. Trying to get them through life without dying probably takes all of their physical and emotional energy. I think that attempting to make the school aware of the problem and working with them on the best way is not only unselfish, but their responsibility. I don't think that the only way to declare them unselfish is to insist that they shut up about it and do nothing is right. You may disagree with them on the concessions they're asking, but to insist they're selfish is understanding little about what it means to be a parent to a child who suffers extreme difficulties or disabilities.

[arwalden]

107. My Response...

>>I think that the school could do more to protect them than simply banning food substances. I would not be entirely opposed to other methods.<<

Good grief! How much MORE could they possibly do? Would tissue-paper hospital smocks and sterilization entry chambers be appropriate? At what point would the school board be willing to say "NO" or "you're expecting too much, ma'am" or "we cannot control what they do in the privacy of their own homes, sir."?

>>I agree with you in that the school probably can't make everything completely safe. But, to do nothing about it at all is unacceptable to me.<<

I don't believe I've advocated doing "nothing at all". What I've said is that their current approach is heavy-handed and intrusive and wrong.

Also, their current approach is so full of holes that the child is probably at MORE risk than they would be if they just arranged for closer supervision and special eating arrangements, etc.

>>I'm sorry, but I think that your assertion that these parents are being selfish is way off base. <<

I think they are, but this really isn't the issue here. (What word would you prefer me to use?)

>>I think this is the first time I've ever disagreed with you about anything so strongly, but I think you're very wrong here.<<

Very-wrong. Okay, I understand.

>>I think that having a child with such a deadly allergy would be extremely difficult.<<

That's true, but that's not what's at issue. I'm not arguing whether or not these parents or the child have a difficult life.

>>Trying to get them through life without dying probably takes all of their physical and emotional energy.<<

That's also true, but that's not what the issue is either. I have not suggested otherwise, have I?

These are off-topic arguments that appear to be targeted at an appeal to emotion... but none of them have anything to do with the real issue.

>>I think that attempting to make the school aware of the problem and working with them on the best way is not only unselfish, but their responsibility.<<

What could be MORE selfish? Isn't what they are doing the very definition of being selfish?

Pronunciation: 'sel-fish
Function: adjective
1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

They have gone far beyond simply making the school aware. They are infringing on the rights of others. Remember, these aren't mere requests for voluntary compliance.

>>I don't think that the only way to declare them unselfish is to insist that they shut up about it and do nothing is right.<<

It's also inaccurate to suggest that I desire them to "shut up" and "do nothing". You continue to make off-topic emotionally-charged arguments that have nothing at all to do with this issue.

>>You may disagree with them on the concessions they're asking, but to insist they're selfish is understanding little about what it means to be a parent to a child who suffers extreme difficulties or disabilities.<<

Another argument from emotion that has nothing to do with this issue. How could I be so heartless? Why should anyone listen to me since I obviously am incapable of understanding? (Is that about right?)

The fact that I'm not a parent of a special-needs child doesn't make me any less capable of understanding what's going on. I don't think I'm any less qualified to argue with you. (If anything, being a non-parent allows me to look at this from a less emotional and more rational viewpoint.)

You may take issue with the words I use to describe the parents... but in the end, this discussion really isn't about semantics as much as it is about what the school board is doing to accommodate their unreasonable demands.

They have unrealistic and unfair expectations and the school-board is caving in. I continue to question the wisdom of these parents though. If their child is so high-risk, then NOTHING (short of decontamination chambers) will protect their child from the dangers of being in a public school.

-- Allen

[Pithlet]

124. Point by point

Good grief! How much MORE could they possibly do? Would tissue-paper hospital smocks and sterilization entry chambers be appropriate? At what point would the school board be willing to say "NO" or "you're expecting too much, ma'am" or "we cannot control what they do in the privacy of their own homes, sir."?

Good grief, Allen! Are those the only alternatives?! By admitting that my way isn't the only way, I'm advocating those things that you just just suggested? Funny, I thought I was admitting that a diet restriction may not be the only way to give a fuck about these kids.

These are off-topic arguments that appear to be targeted at an appeal to emotion... but none of them have anything to do with the real issue. Accusations of selfishness aren't based on emotion?

>>I don't think that the only way to declare them unselfish is to insist that they shut up about it and do nothing is right.<<

It's also inaccurate to suggest that I desire them to "shut up" and "do nothing". You continue to make off-topic emotionally-charged arguments that have nothing at all to do with this issue.

You could have fooled me. I even merely hint that there could be other solutions, and I'm accused of wanting to sterilize everything for them. I couldn't even concede a point! And, unless I missed it, you seem to suggest, by your assertion that the parents are being selfish, that is is THEIR problem. I even think you stated so in so many words.

I'm aware of the definition of selfish. I'm also aware of the definition of an emotional appeal. You cannot state that your position is entirely devoid of emotion, and then argue that the parents are selfish. By the very definition, selfish (or the lack of) is not entirely devoid of emotion.

[arwalden]

130. Pithlet...

>> Good grief, Allen! Are those the only alternatives?! <<

No... I was making a point. Apparently you missed it.

>>By admitting that my way isn't the only way, I'm advocating those things that you just just suggested? <<

No... but they would certainly be more effective. Wouldn't they?

>>Funny, I thought I was admitting that a diet restriction may not be the only way to give a fuck about these kids.<<

I guess I just don't "GIVE A FUCK" about those kids, eh?

But that's not the subject is it. Whether or not I "GIVE A FUCK" about those kids isn't what we're talking about.

I've never advocated doing absolutely nothing for the benefit of the allergic child. You keep suggesting that and it's simply not true. You're trying to paint me as some heartless beast, and that's not true either. So many diversions and red herrings.

ONCE AGAIN... I'm saying that the school does not have the right nor the authority to take away the rights of others.

>>You could have fooled me. I even merely hint that there could be other solutions, and I'm accused of wanting to sterilize everything for them. I couldn't even concede a point! <<

HUH? What?

Of course there are other solutions. But must those solutions include the creation of unreasonable rules and regulations that end up restricting the rights of others?

>>And, unless I missed it, you seem to suggest, by your assertion that the parents are being selfish, that is is THEIR problem. I even think you stated so in so many words.<<

Yes, it is their problem. Pity. But that's the way it is.

>>I'm aware of the definition of selfish. I'm also aware of the definition of an emotional appeal.<<

Okay... I'll take your word for it. But your earlier words led me to believe otherwise.

>>You cannot state that your position is entirely devoid of emotion, and then argue that the parents are selfish. By the very definition, selfish (or the lack of) is not entirely devoid of emotion.<<

No. That's not it at all. My arguments remain on topic. Yours do not.

[Pithlet]

133. How are my arguments off topic?

Exposure to peanut products kill kid. Kid needs to go to school.

Where you and I disagree is what we consider unreasonable. You think that forbidding peanut products is. I do not.

Most public schools forbid chewing gum. Is that an unreasonable and undue burden? Chewing gum happens to be a choking hazard that sometimes kills children (and adults). They can certainly say "That may happen, and there is nothing we can do about it. We can't ban all chewing gum everywhere. But we can on school grounds". And they are well within their rights.

I'm not accusing you of not giving a fuck. I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm merely disagreeing that peanut products are an inalienable right no matter where you happen to be. Banning at home=wrong. Banning at school=not wrong.

About that point. What was it? That I must only think that restrictive ways are the only way? The thread is about a school forbidding peanut products, and I was arguing that it isn't an undue burden. That is all.

[arwalden]

140. Again, Not The Issue... (How many times must I repeat: "Not The Issue"??)

Okay... let's get the silly comparison out of the way. If I don't address it you'll think you've made a valid point (which it ISN'T).
Gum = candy. Gum is not sustenance. That's not the same as food.

As far as the other points... I may as well be talking to a pop-up toaster because you just refuse listen and you refuse to understand this simple point.

You keep repeating that it's not an "undue burden". Is that the crux of your argument??? Simply because something is not an "undue burden" that we should permit the rights others to be infringed?

I can think of many things that are intrinsically "not undue burdens"... but that doesn't mean that it would be fair for anyone to force me to do these things simply because they are "not undue burdens".

It doesn't matter how little of an imposition it may be...
it doesn't matter how willing people may be to do it...
it doesn't matter how reasonable you think it is...
it doesn't matter whether they get 100% compliance or 50% complaince...
it doesn't matter who requested it...
it doesn't matter why they requested it...
it doesn't matter who benefits...

THEY ARE RESTRICTING THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS FOR THE NEEDS OF ONE AND THAT IS WRONG.

The foolishness and selfishness of the parents and the risks they are willing to take with their child just adds insult to injury.

The well-meaning "Bliss-Ninnys" on that school board think that they can legislate and decree a solution for everything at the expense of others. They are wrong and so are their supporters and apologists.

I think America has been softened-up by the Patriot Act... we'll just take away these few "unimportant" rights. It won't be an "undue burden" on you. It's apparent to me that this school board isn't thinking too clearly. They are letting their emotions and pity (or fear of frivolous lawsuits) prevent them from doing what's right.

-- Allen

This is becoming tiresome for me, Pithlet. Truly tiresome. This is my last message. You may have the last word... but if you have any questions, I won't answer. I'm exhausted. And if you make any more absurd assertions, then they'll just have to stand unchallenged. I'm done.

Freeforall... goferit... knock yourself out. Make it a good one.

EDIT: "Accusations" was the wrong word. I should have said "assertions". I made a correction above. My apologies for using a word that would give the impressions that you had accused me personally of anything.

[Pithlet]

141. I didn't deserve that, Allen.

I just disagree with you. I never accused you of anything.

Last word.

[arwalden]

146. NOTICE OF CORRECTION

This is not a reply nor is it a continuation of the discussion. It's just to alert you to a correction that was made in the previous message.

(EDIT: "Accusations" was the wrong word. I should have said "assertions". I made a correction above. My apologies for using a word that would give the impressions that you had accused me personally of anything.)

[Pithlet]

148. What assertions are you talking about?

I didn't agree with you. I argued your points. I'm so sorry. I will never do that again. I don't understand your sudden treatment of me in this thread. I admit, I'm baffled and a little bit hurt. I'll get over it. This isn't my first scrap on DU, but I admit, I am puzzled as to why it took such a wrong turn.

I will apologize for anything personal, but I will not apologize for my position on the issue.

[arwalden]

150. You Deserve A Reply... But It's Not A Continuation Of The Discussion

I'm not starting a new front or a new subthread... but you made some points that deserve to be addressed or answered.

>>I didn't agree with you. I argued your points. I'm so sorry. I will never do that again. <<

No you didn't.
Yes you did.
For what? No need to be.
That's an unnecessary resolution.

>>I don't understand your sudden treatment of me in this thread.<<

Having someone's will unlawfully imposed on others, and having one's rights limited or chipped away at is a subject that I take seriously. Please do not take it personally.

>>I admit, I'm baffled and a little bit hurt. I'll get over it.<<

I apologize for anything I said that offended you.

>>This isn't my first scrap on DU, but I admit, I am puzzled as to why it took such a wrong turn.<<

I do not know. My intense attachment to and my defense of personal freedoms might be to blame. Things got hot and furious.

>>I will apologize for anything personal, but I will not apologize for my position on the issue.<<

You have nothing for you to apologize for. You're free to have keep and maintain your position without apologies to anyone. I don't begrudge you that.

-- Allen

[Pithlet]

152. Thank you for that

I'm sorry I got steamed up, too.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

154. Allen..there are those that say it is infringing to ban public prayer in

school...do you still feel the same way about all the arguments you made on this thread?

[arwalden]

155. Surely You're Kidding

You do NOT want me to get started on THAT subject. (Besides, I think it's ORGANIZED or sanctioned or endorsed prayer that's the issue, not private praying itself.)

-- Allen

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

156. I don't ...but again...this article framed it as though it applied to one

kid when it really didn't...it applied to several kids and ONE had severe allergies. When we justify discriminating against a CLASS of people in order to appease the majority where the majority is simply inconvenienced (as they may be to eat nuts and seeded fruit at home...just like they can do prayer group at home), we then begin justifying discriminating against ALL groups of people.

Food allergies are much more epidemic than this one article implies and no less deadly than a weapon.

Frankly I think the district and the school had other options and took the "easy way out." But I still favor inclusion...rather than repeat myself, see my other posts.

[arwalden]

158. The School Made An Error In Providing Special Treatment

and in creating a special class of people at the cost of the freedoms of others. But... as you correctly point out, there were other inclusive options that make much more sense and seem to be MUCH more safe and less prone to failure. It's a shame that they took the easy way out.

-- Allen (rather than repeat myself, see my other posts too) :-)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

159. It's no less special treatment to ban substances that can kill one kid

(and in fact SEVERAL kids based on the article) than it was to let Ryan White into class.

When one is talking severe allergies, one is talking a CLASS of people not a SINGLE person...just like when one is talking acquired AIDS.

People having to eat their Pnut butter at home is an inconvenience...a kid (s) being precluded from a public education because a substance can kill them and they are not accomodated IS discrimination. Like it or not, food allergies are a GROWING problem and policy that works needs to be drafted to deal with it. Kids share food and it can be deadly.

Again, there are other remedies and it needs to be thought out, but I feel your posts on the matter are lacking a critical distinction, that being an inconvenience to SOME in order to ACCOMODATE others...it would be tantamount to saying handicap people are discriminating against able bodied people by taking all the good parking spaces...they aren't.

[arwalden]

169. No. Not Again... Stop Picking Scabs!!!!!!!!!!!

BACK OFF! You're skating on thin ice.

Pursuit of further discussion on this topic shows no promise of making any progress. You already knew what my feelings were on this subject after the angry discussion with Pithlet had run its course. It was a draw. In the past hour, my opinions on this matter have not changed, and they are not likely to change any time soon.

So, knowing that... why on earth would you want to pick a fight with me and start up this shit all over again? WHY? I've said everything I have to say on the subject and I've made all my points. I'm not inclined to rehash it all (again) here with you... but if you insist, we can give it a go.

Keep in mind that if you want to force the issue, it's likely to cause more harm than good. Do you want to continue? Do you really want to do battle with me? Must we?

I know exactly where this is going, and I know exactly how this is going to end. Would you prefer to just let it drop now? Or do you want to duke it out the the ugly conclusion?

You are smart enough to know how stubborn I am. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out that right now I'm just mad enough and just irritated enough that I'll never be receptive to any arguments that anyone makes. The likelihood that anyone could convince me that I'm wrong or change my mind is nil. Zero.

Also... as you aptly suggested, apparently I lack the ability to make critical distinctions. So any words of wisdom you shared with me would be lost and wasted effort, eh?

So why bother? What can you possibly gain?

-- Allen

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

171. It's simple..I know no matter how your emotions can get wrapped up in a

battle, in the long run logic will appeal to you. I also know that you don't favor discrimination simply to cater to nor accomodate the convenience of the majority..and I know you became a liberal THE HARD WAY via being a conservative first:D

Now..I'm really not going to pick scabs nor continue this further...I'm simply going to sit back and wait for you to realize for yourself that society must protect, defend and include the underdog in its institutions rather than writing them off or alienating them (just like they someday must with GAY PEOPLE even though WE are an extreme minority compared to the man on top Christian God fearing masses) even if doing so is a bit inconvenient for the pnut butter eating, non-seeded-fruit allergenic masses :D

[arwalden]

174. Here Is Your Response, Teena.

>>"I'm really not going to pick scabs nor continue this further"<<

That sentence is untrue. You say one thing, and in the very next sentence you continue on and do the EXACT thing you said you weren't going to do. God damn it... why did you have to go and do that?

I asked you not to push, but you did anyway. Obviously, you just-don't-care. No matter what the cost, you just can't help yourself, can you?

Even though I was hoping for more from you, your impulsive response did not come as a complete surprise to me. I'm not even surprised at what little personal regard you have for me.

My suspicions were confirmed with the condescending and arrogant reply along with one or two personal insults thrown in for good measure... classic! Well done! It suits you. You should be very proud of yourself. Mission accomplished.

Only... there's one thing that confuses me... I kinda figured that you were smart enough to be able to tell the difference between your friends and your enemies. Apparently I was wrong about that.

-- Allen

Perhaps this message will be deleted. Maybe you'll read it in time, maybe you won't. I'm kinda like you... I just-don't-care either.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

177. Completely untrue. I care about you and think highly of you- eom

[Pithlet]

143. At any rate

I'm sorry I got involved in this thread. It certainly wasn't worth risking DU friends over. I mean, it's not like it's an abortion thread, or anything. I would think that this is an issue that friends, or at least DU accquaintances, could agree to disagree on.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

101. Again REREAD the article...there are OTHER kids with allergies

and ONE kid with severe allergies...the school COULD take other measures and one suspects, they chose THIS measure so as NOT to provide MORE supervision.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to keep kids from sharing their lunches...they COULD have provided special lunch areas and accomodated the one sever boy differently...this is NOT the parents or lawsuits...this is the schoold district making a dollars and cents decision on a GROWING problem.

[johnnie]

103. True, there are other students

And this is becoming fairly common, but...this one student is extremely sensitive and I think that is the issue.
My question is: How far do you take this?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

105. No that's NOT the issue

How far do YOU take protecting children that are in YOUR charge? The school or district's response is to take this action which is ridiculously unenforcable...there will ALWAYS be children with special needs and those needs MUST be accomodated. What are YOUR remedies, remembering of course that this child is entitled to an education?

Again, the district or the school COULD have set up a special program or COULD provide greater supervision....this child will NOT be the only child with severe allergies...there will be others...even IF this child's allergies are MORE severe..ANYONE with NUT allergies is at risk for anaphylactic shock if nuts are ingested...it is a DEADLY allergy. Therefore, even if this kid's allergies are MORE severe, the other kids with NUT allergies are NO LESS at risk for sudden death if they come into contact with nuts.

[johnnie]

123. I really don't know

I don't know what the correct answer for this is. That's why I posted this thread, I was curious how others felt about it.
What if the child has some contagious disease? Do all the other children wear protective clothing and masks to let that child have their education they are entitled to?
I am all for everyone pitching in to help each other out. But to what extreme do we go? At this point, the situation here is a child who is extremely allergic to certain foods. This child could die whereas the other children with the allergy are not as much in danger. Most schools who are enforcing the nut-free environment are doing fine, but this school has to take it one more step. Then the next will be the child who has outbreaks from red meat, and the school will stop all red meat from coming in the school.
I guess I am just rambling. I have no children and this doesn't affect me, but I was curious on other's opinions and no one here is wrong in my opinion.
Hell, I never had this many posts on a thread before, I'm kind of happy that this one beat my other threads by about 100 and something...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

127. Case law already protects children with AIDS. Remember Ryan White?

Again, you and the article FRAMED it as one child, but that ONE child statistically represents HUNDREDS or even THOUSANDS even if it's only one in that school.

Do you support or deplore discrimination.

You are rambling because we are now trained via pop culture and the media to take cases where reasonable attempts to preclude discrimination of a class of individuals and accomodate them are hyped to the extreme.

Again, severe allergies are NOT uncommon and are on the INCREASE..school funding on the other hand is on the DECREASE.

Are we so much accustomed to I GOT MINE that we have abandoned traditional liberal values such as inclusion?

The foods banned by the school are SEEDED foods with well known RISKS to a statistically SIGNIFICANT portion of the population.

[johnnie]

132. I haven't paid attention to the amount of children who suffer from this

It wasn't until this thread that I put the "no peanuts on airplanes any longer" together. I don't believe in discrimination and I don't believe I discriminate against anyone.
I grew up in a different time. I am now 40 years old and single. I have never had children and never been married. I am all that I deal with on a daily basis. When I grew up I was the shortest kid in class from the day I started school until the day I got out. I was laughed at, teased, picked on, made fun of and all the other shit that a kid goes through. At the age of 40 I am still made fun off. But I never expected to be treated different because of it. I laughed with them and shrugged it off. I would have to say that in the world today I was discriminated many times over. So, as a rule I tend to not judge people by what or who they are.
Of course that is different than the children who's life is threatened by something they have no control over. I have read the posts on here and can see both sides and I do feel sympathy toward the child who has to live with this. Once again, I wanted to see what other's thoughts where on this because even though I have my own thoughts, I never feel I know all and I am always open to other people's opinions and thoughts. It's the way I learn about things I don't know much about. It doesn't mean I am stupid, it means that I have never really thought about a situation like this because I had no need to and I am now thinking about it today.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

135. I wasn't implying you are stupid and certainly there are others arguing

against this kid on the thread..again..the issue isn't this kid..the way the issue was FRAMED in the article is typical of how backlashes against REASONABLE accomodation are created.

Using an item that caused you to be made fun of isn't really the same as using a condition for which you would be precluded from equal rights, BTW.

If, in fact, you were EXCLUDED institutionally via the school from participating due to your height, I would agree.

And, BTW, it is a sign of intelligence to ask for input and weigh the responses...my ONLY gripe and I now see that you didn't see it, is that the thread was FRAMED in a manner to lead people to NOT consider equal treatment under the law as a right, but as an inconvenience...so let me turn the conversation around...if we discriminate against people with allergies, where does it end?

[chiburb]

139. I'll turn your last question around...

And say that since we already discriminate against the poor, GLBT, elderly, people of color, etc., why should we care about a kid with killer allergies? It isn't "where does it end", but "why not start doing the right thing here"?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

151. I'm a liberal..I don't defend discrimination...you'll have to ask someone

who does ;-)

[johnnie]

142. I wasn't implying that you were implying......sorry :)

Well, I wouldn't say I was intentionally excluded during my school days. But I was aware enough of what was done by the students and adults. But, that was a long time ago.

I would obviously classify an allergy as a medical condition and it should be treated as such. I guess my question would be to what extent of any illness do we, as a society, accommodate that illness? In other words, will we get to a point where being in "good health" gets you discriminated against because of it.
Should we have any regulations and boundaries? An example I am thinking of is the increasing number of automobile deaths as a result of the elderly "stepping on the gas instead of the break". Should the elderly continue to be able to drive until they cause harm or death as a result of their advancing in age? I know aging is not an illness, but it is a condition which the person needs to have separate accommodations. Or is taking away that persons ability to have a license discrimination?
In my opinion, almost everyone can say they are discriminated against in some form or another. It is a very flexible term.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

153. Banning those foods in an institutional setting isn't discriminatory to

the masses since one has alternatives to eating them at school, and remember it isn't really a large class of foods. There are many fruits still available to be eaten and again, nut allergies affect a statistically significant portion of the population. As I said above or elsewhere in the thread, I would favor other remedies that still lead to inclusion but we would hav to give higher priorities to schools than to prisons to accomplish them.

As far as your arguments about the elderly and drivers' licenses, careful what you ask for...the most dangerous drivers are still males under age 25. How about a little discrimination?

Saying one is discriminated against and demonstrating it are two different things...so I don't really GO there.

If this child were NOT accomodated in the public school system knowing he represents a statistically significant portion of the population, I believe it would be discrimination...discrimination is NOT against ONE person but against a CLASS of persons.

[Pithlet]

43. Also

I wish I could remember where I read about this, but there was a case of some children who had the deadly aversion to sunlight that you talked about. They did indeed go to school. The school kept the blinds drawn on all the windows in the class room, and the areas the children went to.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

81. I know about that.

Was that in England somewhere or am I confused? But I do clearly remember seeing it on television some time.

Pithlet, I see where you are coming from. If I had a child who was normal in every other way, and I beleieved that child could easily attend public school as long as parents would adhere to some basic food guidelines, I would think it pretty selfish if they refused to do that.

However, these guidelines seem pretty complicated, and I just don't think it's feasible to trust all the parents in a school to adhere to them all the time. Other posters have already posted examples. What if a child has a forbidden food for breakfast and goes to school with it on his breath or even his fingers? What if a grandparent or someone not familiar with the guidelines packs a forbidden food? What if parents don't realize that some particular food contains a forbidden ingredient? I would not trust the parents of 400 children to adhere to complicated guidelines where my child's life is at stake. And for the school to pretend that they can police such a think is IMO providing a false sense of security.

Perhaps there are solutions out there that are more feasible than banning such food items from the entire school. I don't know. The accomodations made for the girl who was sunlight-intolerant actually seem less burdensome and easier to manage than these food guidelines. And I think the children in that case benefitted themselves by learning the value of making sacrifices in order to accomodate others. I think it probably made them more compassionate. So I don't agree with those who seem to think that no accomodations should ever be made. I just think this crosses the line of what is reasonable and feasible.

[Pithlet]

89. That's where the rub is

I would not want to trust that everyone else would, or could, follow the guidelines. That is why, if my child were allergic, I would more than likely not send them to school. I would likely home school them. But, I have the ability and means to do so. Not everyone does.

Just because it's complicated, and not everyone can or will follow them, doesn't mean the school should just throw up its hands and give up. My objection is that some people think it is not only complicated and hard to implement, but that it is an unreasonable, and the school is being unfair.

I think a school can, and should, acknowledge that one (or in some cases more) of their students has a deadly aversion, and make attempts to make the school environment safe for them. Because not everyone can afford the alternatives, and it shouldn't be assumed that parents of a peanut allergic child should, or does.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

94. But is the child left out in the cold?

I think most states say that the state must provide the child with an education one way or another. If the child has problems that prevent attendance at a regular public school, other accomodations must be provided. It's not as if the child's parents have to pay for the child's education all by themselves at that point.

[Pithlet]

96. Yes (in anwer to alternatives)

If the school provided an alternative that did not place the burden on the parents, then I would have nothing against working something like that out.

My objection is to the "It's too unfair!" crowd, really. I don't understand why it is fair to just ignore the problem and do nothing about it. And, I'm sorry, but I just don't think that telling people not to bring certain food items that are deadly to one of the students is all that unreasonable. I just don't see it.

[Ms. Toad]

196. Then perhaps...

You don't have a child that is allergic to a different list of things,

you aren't already packing her lunch (because the accommodation made by the school for that not immediately life-threatening list of allergies is to feed her the exact same unappealing lunch every day),

your choice of foods you can pack in that lunch are not already very restricted because of your child's list of allergies, and

the new ban on a variety of items (that far exceeds anything that might have that potentially fatal peanut butter smell) doesn't further restrict the already limited choice of items you can put in your child's lunch.

For what it is worth, the vast majority of peanut allergy sufferers do not have potentially fatal reactions to the smell of peanuts. Generally the reaction to smell is along the lines of itchy eyes and a runny nose. Because there are a large number of children who are allergic to eating peanuts, keeping peanuts out of school provided lunches is an appropriate accommodation. Further restricting my daughter's already limited lunch choices to prevent itchy eyes (the strongest reaction most of these children would have to smelling my daughter's peanut butter sandwich) is not.

One of the primary reasons children carry their own lunches is to accommodate their own health or religious dietary needs when the school accommodation is inadequate. When you not only ban the school from providing a list of specific foods as part of the lunches they provide, but you forbid others from packing those items in lunches they bring from home, you are inappropriately infringing my daughter's right to have a well balanced diet that accommodates her own allergies for the purpose of accommodating what is in all likelihood a fairly minor reaction to the smell of such foods in my daughter's lunch.

If the reaction is that severe to smells, it is truly one in a million, and beyond what it is appropriate for the school to completely accommodate in the school setting. The school should keep peanuts out of the school lunches. Perhaps, if it is medically documented that this child is the one in a million for whom smelling peanuts is really potentially fatal rather than merely irritating, the school should ban packed lunches with intense peanut smells (i.e. peanut butter sandwiches, but not foods cooked using peanut oil). Banning an entire list of additional items (most of which do not have any significant smell), or even banning peanuts to prevent an allergic reaction similar to seasonal allergies is an unreasonable accommodation.

Beyond that, for a child that severely allergic, the parents should be working with the child and the school to figure out how to help the child learn how to survive in a world filled with such smells. Banning them from school just means that child will enter adulthood without have adequate coping skills to survive.

[DemBones DemBones]

187. You're not aware of the severely disabled children

served by public schools now? I applied once for a job teaching kids with cerebral palsy, having had some experience teaching CP kids who were mainstreamed. Turned out these kids were teenagers, some of whom had to be assisted with using the toilet, including lifting them onto the toilet, and wiping their bottoms. As a friend, who is a nurse, said, "That's a nursing job, not a teaching job."

[Pithlet]

22. I disagree

All children are equally entitled to an education. If there were many types of allergies that were as sensitive as peanut allergies, it would be different. But, peanut allergies are absurdly reactive, unlike almost all other allergies.

I just don't see how one student's right to eat peanut products should trump another's right to an education. If these restrictions aren't made, the peanut allergic child cannot go to school. I'll take restricting certain foods to restricting a child's right to an education any day.

[johnnie]

29. But this is beyond peanuts

Peaches, beans, peas, cherries, plums and more. This also means that if a child is bringing a chicken sandwich, they are not to have sesame seeds on it.
I understand your point, but in my opinion this is quite a lot of adjusting for student, teachers and parents.

[Pithlet]

35. I don't see limiting food choices

as a whole lot of adjustment to ensure that another child's life is not endangered. This isn't about being inconvenienced. It is about a child's throat closing up and the child suffocating to death.

Education isn't a choice, like going to a restaurant, or traveling on a plane. I don't think that children, particularly ones who's parents couldn't afford alternative schooling, should be barred from school just so everyone can eat whatever they want.

[name not needed]

44. Would you be willing to send your child to school

if the smell of peanuts could kill him? Would you be willing to risk your child's death because some dick ate a bag of peanuts and gave him a whiff? Just so he could get a public education.

[Pithlet]

51. Probably not

But, my houshold income is quite high. We could afford alternative schooling for my kids.

[seaglass]

77. I agree. My kids elementary schools was peanut and latex

free and it wasn't that big of an imposition. This kid's allergies are a bit extreme.

It's not clear in this article whether the additional items would also cause death. If they would then I know my kids would refrain from eating banned items at school, but if all they did was cause a minor reaction like itching, I wouldn't agree that the school should go along with it.

[arwalden]

50. That's An Unfair Shifting Of Burden To Others

You can't simply LEGISLATE what foods should be forbidden. How would you enforce such stupid rules? What's the punishment for breaking these rules? How would you even begin to try to deliver such a punishment?

>>I just don't see how one student's right to eat peanut products should trump another's right to an education.<<

But that's not the issue. You've got it backwards.

Nobody has taken away the allergic child's "rights". He still has the right to an eductaion. --- I think you're confusing "rights" with "needs".

He "needs" a peanut-free environment, but he doesn't have the RIGHT to impose those restrictions on everyone else.

-- Allen

[chiburb]

23. Like Pithlet said,

The reaction to peanuts can, for some, be much more severe than other allergens like cat dander or dust. Have you seen a bag of peanuts on an airplane lately? For just that reason...

[arwalden]

56. I Also Don't Hear Airlines Asking...

"Has your luggage been in your possesion the entire time? And did you eat peaches or peanut butter today? Did you eat a Snicker's bar? Have you washed all traces of peanut butter from your fingers and did you rinse your mouth out with a peanut neutralizing enzyme? "

Nor do I see people being denied entry because they don't come from peanut-free states or because they work at Planters.

The whole world cannot come to a screeching halt because of the medical condition of the deathly allergic folks. They must learn to handle their burdens as best as they can and to take THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITY for their own health and safety.

[Pithlet]

60. Denying someone entry to an air plane

and denying a child access to a public education are two different things, are they not? People with peanut allergies do understand that the world is indeed a dangerous place, because there is no way to completely eradicate peanuts from every aspect of life. But, this is school we're talking about. Part of a weekday. One meal out of several.

I guess the difference is you see restricting peanuts as a huge imposition. I just don't agree that it is, at least not enough to bar someone from attending a school. Particularly since it isn't asking a person to change their entire life. Just a part of the day. One meal. And only on weekdays.

[arwalden]

69. That Is Incorrect...

They want to restrict the diets and food choices of what they eat at home BEFORE arriving at school.

>> People with peanut allergies do understand that the world is indeed a dangerous place, because there is no way to completely eradicate peanuts from every aspect of life. But, this is school we're talking about. Part of a weekday. One meal out of several.<<

Nope... not just "one meal" out of several. It's INTRUDING and an unlawful imposition into the private homes and lives of others.

The responsibility lies with the allergic individual and her parents... not the community...and not with the school system.

>> I guess the difference is you see restricting peanuts as a huge imposition.<<

LOL. No. It's not the SIZE of the imposition... it's whether or not a school system should be permitted to DICTATE such restrictions onto others. They shouldn't be permitted to do so... it's wrong.

The needs of one do not outweigh the rights of everyone. Their problem is not my responsibility.

-- Allen

[Pithlet]

71. Where did it say that in the article?

That they're restricting their diets outside of school? I read the article, and I only saw where they are restricting it AT school. If I missed it, I apologize. Certainly, if they're trying to impose on what kids eat at home, then that is wrong. But, my understanding of this article, and this thread, was restricting what children eat at school.

I do think that a school has the right to restrict the food that comes into their school if certain items can prove deadly to one or more of their students.

[arwalden]

85. Here You Go... You Tell Me

"The child, whose identity has not been released, could have a severe reaction simply by smelling the breath of someone who has eaten the banned foods."

I can only imagine...


"Okay Missy... did you sneak a snicker's bar for breakfast? Your breath smell like peanuts. You go home right now young lady!"

"Joe... you ate leftover burritos for breakfast didn't you? I can smell the BEANS on your breath. GO HOME! Get out of this class."

[Pithlet]

100. I'll tell you

It doesn't say that the school is banning the substances at home. That part of the article is stating how dangerous peanut allergies can be. But, the article states that the school is banning what can be brought to school. It says nowhere about dictating what they can have at home.

[arwalden]

109. Oh, Please. This is not hard to figure out.

What familes are permitted to possess at home and what they are permitted to consume at home (before coming to school) are two different things.

If peanut-butter breath is forbidden, then the practical effect is that such products are forbidden from being consumed in the privacy of their own home. The food Nazis are coming!

[Pithlet]

112. It didn't say that peanut breath was forbidden!

You are the one who's reading that in. No where does it say that no one can ever eat any of those items on that list. It isn't even suggested.

All the school is doing is saying that one of their students can be killed by exposure to certain items, so could parents refrain from bringing them. The school does not want these things in their building.

[arwalden]

118. If The Child Can Die From Smelling Peanut Breath...

... then the rest of the rules and restrictions are MEANINGLESS.

With a GAPING HOLE in the "security" net as big as that one (allowing peanut breath)--if the mere odor of peanut butter can cause the child to go into shock--then all the other excessive measures are for NOTHING.

Why would they even bother? This is a threat that can be easily addressed. NEW RULE: No eating of peanut butter on your toast in the morning. No peanut butter English muffins. No soy milk on your cereal (sorry lactose-intolerant kids).

This ain't rocket science. It ain't that hard to figure out what they would have to do in order to make this work.

Only the most naive of us would believe that it wouldn't go further in order to address all threats and risks. I don't think that's you.

[Pithlet]

121. You are saying all or nothing.

Because every single little thing cannot be possibly done to prevent exposure, NOTHING should be done? I'm sorry, but I don't think it is naive to assert otherwise.

And that doesn't change the fact that the article doesn't say that the school is banning peanut products at home. Sure, that may make the risk of exposure even less. But, there is a limit to what they can do. They can't enforce what people eat outside of school. But, they can enforce what goes on in the school, even if some may break that rule, knowingly or not. I don't buy the "They can't enforce it every time, so they should enforce it never" argument. I think it is a fallicy.

[arwalden]

125. They Do Not Have The Authority To Restrict The Rights Of Others.

I just don't know how to make this any more digestible. I know it's not palatable... but this isn't difficult to understand.

They.
Do.
Not.
Have.
The.
Authority.
To.
Restrict.
The.
Rights.
Of.
Others.

It's wrong.

[Pithlet]

128. And I'm saying that a peanut butter sandwich

on school grounds is not an inalienable right. Particularly if it could kill another child.

[arwalden]

131. Then You Would Be Wrong. And So Is The School

There's a big difference between what they are capable of doing and what's right. There's a difference between what they are allowed to do and what they ought to do.

This is wrong.

The parents of this child need to make other arrangements. They are foolish.

[Pithlet]

134. That is where you and I disagree

You think the school is wrong. I do not. Schools have the right to ban things. They always have.

It is not up to the parents to make other arrangements unless a restriction places undue burden. That's the way it's always been. The parents aren't asking to get rid of math, or forbid all liquids, or mandating that children only eat celery. They aren't maintaining that their religion forbids school on Thursdays, so no one should go on that day. They aren't saying that everyone should pray. They aren't saying that their children have the right to suppress other children's point of view. They are saying that some items may kill their children, and could the school kindly not allow them. Not even on the same level as those other things I mention.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

91. There's really not enough info in this article to determine why

the reaction. Granted the school may be covering its ass with both hands, but it sounds like there is ONE severe allergic case but several other cases in the school based on the statements of the administrator.

The BIGGEST problem that I can see is that there MAY not be appropriate supervision during meal and snack times. It's hard to get kids (especially young ones) to keep from sharing foods and a BITE of something can be as deadly as if a kid took a loaded gun to school.

The headline is misleading as it states ONE KID'S allergies are so severe but the article indicates based on the principle's statements that this has been a problem in the past.

It is the LAW that parents send their kids to school and home schooling may not be economically feasible.

I think there are other alternatives such as divided halls for food or separate dining conditions, but obviously the school district opted for a more extreme remedy.

Food allergies are getting MORE common, not less. It seems the school's remedy is to restrict everyone rather than provide MORE SUPERVISION...that's sad.

[Pithlet]

102. With all my huffing and puffing in this thread

I agree with everything you said. I'm not opposed to other methods. I just can't see how a school is being unfair or unreasonable in its attempts to accommodate everyone. I don't understand the outrage, is all.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

106. The outrage is that we live in an US VERSUS THEM society now

where people who have special needs are being portrayed as the criminal....it's social darwinism and the opening post of the thread was framed as such...it's really sad to see Democrats get sucked into this thought process.

[LWolf]

26. This isn't a simple issue.

Generally, nut allergies, milk allergies, etc. are dealt with by making sure that there is more than one choice on the menu, and that ingredients are known before the child chooses.

If simple exposure, without touching or eating, puts a child's life at risk, you can either ban all of the known substances or keep the child isolated. Banning all of the known substances is extreme; I'm not sure which is worse. The ban, or setting a precedence for denying children admittance to school.

You can't just suggest that parents "homeschool." Every child has a right to be educated. We are obligated by law to provide the child with an equal opportunity to learn. So, if he isn't going to school, he needs a teacher to show up at home to teach him. That's a really, really expensive proposition. An independent study program, where the teacher shows up a few hours a week and leaves work behind, is not a long-term solution. That is not equal to full-time instruction available at school. And complete isolation from other kids is not healthy for social development. Remember that this situation will crop up in all group situations outside school. Visiting other kids' homes, going to church, scouts, little league, etc.. It's not like all of those social needs are going to be met playing with kids after school. They bring their snacks and their breath with them.

I don't think there are any simple or fair solutions to this one.

[Rowdyboy]

30. How does one go about policing 400 families to ensure that no one

has any of these products for breakfast? What does the school do when some kid trying to be funny eats a pbj for breakfast and "breathes" on the student? Is he or she to be deprived of their right to a public education. Must the school individually check every packed lunch to make sure no "banned" products are included? This goes entirely to the ridiculous.

Home schooling is the only workable answer I can see.

[Tummler]

59. Easy!

1. Re-train drug-sniffing dogs to detect peanuts. A positive side-effect: after enough training with peanut butter, the dogs may become amusingly fat. Kids love dogs with fat bellies!

2. Also, train the dogs to viciously attack any child who dares to bring the Forbidden Substance with 100 meters of the school. The dogs can work off their peanut-butter bellies that way.

3. Install electronic sensors in all school toilets (for kids AND teachers) to detect peanut residue in solid or liquid waste. Install loud, flashy alarms that are triggered by detection of said residue. The kids will love the attention!

4. The kids can be re-programmed to hate peanut butter. You could make this fun with field trips, e.g., an outing to desecrate the grave of George Washington Carver.

5. Get Bush to declare a War on Peanuts. America is 58-1 in wars; I like those odds!

[Rowdyboy]

74. You may be onto something....

Hell, Jimmy Carter GROWS the evil things.

[Tummler]

82. They don't call him "history's greatest monster" for nothing!

(As seen on "The Simpsons," when they unveil the Jimmy Carter statue bearing the words "Malaise Forever.")

[arwalden]

180. The Lunchbox Gestapo

That's exactly what you're describing, and that's exactly the unwise and militant myopic approach endorsed by others here.

It goes beyond what's reasonable into the ABSURD and unworkable and intrusive.

-- Allen

[Richardo]

33. Easy answer: Soylent Green for everyone!

[name not needed]

34. Soylent Green is people!

[Screaming Lord Byron]

37. That's a baseless slur John Kerry is putting about.

[Richardo]

39. Yes, but we screen out the corpses who ate a PB&J before expiring...

Consume! Buy! Travel!

[name not needed]

41. Ignorance is Strength!

War is Peace!

Freedom is Slavery!

[Tummler]

46. They should also remove any mention of G.W. Carver from their school books

Better safe than sorry.

[Ron Green]

48. PBJ's are pretty much a staple of kids' diets

in this country. They're not the best food, but they're not the worst either. If this school has to treat such a dietary staple as a poison, I think it'll be too much of a stretch for most.

[AngryAmish]

149. I had PB&J everyday from 2d Grade through HS

I was a very picky eater. (I also attened Hot Dog Days, but I got special dispensation from the bishop for that).

Solution? Lengua tacos for all, all the time.

[Richardo]

55. Pardon my ignorance, but when did this whole 'peanut allergy' thing

...come to such prominence? How many people have this allergy?

I grew up in the idyllic 60s and 70s and I don't remember anyone keeling over from peanuts or any other deadly legumes.

What's the deal?

[johnnie]

58. It's Bill Clinton's fault

:evilgrin:

[chiburb]

63. Wrong. Jimmy Carter's... n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

110. As childhood asthma increases due to environmental pollutents so does

the risk of acquired allergies...

[Richardo]

113. Wow. Pretty telling development then...

...thanks as always, NSMA. Your encyclopedic knowledge never ceases to amaze me. :hi:

[Missy Vixen]

189. I used to work with a woman who had a peanut allergy

>I grew up in the idyllic 60s and 70s and I don't remember anyone keeling over from peanuts or any other deadly legumes.<

A woman I worked with fifteen years ago was allergic to peanuts. Considering the fact we were both employed by a "vegetarian" child care center, peanut butter was on the menu quite often for those who were picky eaters.

My former co-worker carried an Epi-pen, read labels carefully, and didn't eat anything she didn't have an ingredient list for. To my knowledge, she's still healthy and happy, and she did not demand that the entire workplace accommodate her allergy.

Julie

[LeftishBrit]

194. Your colleague was an adult

Your colleague was old enough to take the responsibility for dealing with her allergy herself. A small child cannot, for example, read labels carefully.

I don't think a workplace, or perhaps even a secondary school, needs to go to such lengths to accommodate people who are capable of looking after themselves in these respects. Primary and nursery schools are in a different category.

[Missy Vixen]

195. Doesn't matter

>Your colleague was old enough to take the responsibility for dealing with her allergy herself. A small child cannot, for example, read labels carefully.<

She managed to live to adulthood, so I believe that she learned to manage the allergy at a young age. The child in question (and its parents,) are ensuring that the entire school is held hostage to his/her allergy. As Arwalden has already said, this is not reasonable precaution, this is one person trampling on the rights of 400 others and their families.

Julie

[Lavender Brown]

57. Some more info

http://allergies.about.com/cs/peanuts/a/blfaan120903.htm

I don't know what to make of it myself, but this Maine thing definitely isn't unique. I've heard of a lot of other schools where this happened.

[johnnie]

70. This is true

I was mentioning this story to a guy at work here, and he said his children had a peanut free school at one time. But when I read him the article, he said this was a lot more than they had to do.
The difference is, this child is extremely sensitive where he can die from smelling the breathe of a child with peanuts on their breath. I am aware of people having allergies to peanuts, but what about a child who is in danger of loosing their life because one parent accidentally packs a sandwich that has sesame seeds on the bread?

[Dogmudgeon]

62. Get ready

They're trying to make peanut allergies the new Political Correctness outrage. But it won't last.

Why not?

The incidence of allergies is rising faster than the incidence of obesity, and it's world-wide. Although pollution is proposed as a reason, no one really know why people are getting so allery-prone.

My own personal idea is that it's part of the ecology-wide die-off that's happening. Nature's signalling system has gone awry, and we're suffering for it.

It would be interesting to conduct some controlled studies on allergens with animals. I strongly suspect that more animals are developing allergic problems. A few years ago, I spoke to a veterinarian who had this opinion, too, but she said it was strictly from her own observations of housepets and farm animals, and she, too, was unaware of any studies.

Desensitization therapy works pretty well, but it's not permanent and it's dependent on the area in which the sufferer lives. But if there was a vaccine-like response that could be evoked with a single exposure to an allergen or some other allergy-mediating factor, it would make treatment a whole lot better.

--bkl

[liontamer]

104. i think it's part of our modern habit of disinfecting everything

If the immune system never gets to exercise itself on the normal targets it goes haywire and attacks randomly (much like an indoor housecat does when confronted with string)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

114. I think allergies and childhood asthma go hand in hand and in the case

of childhood asthma, environmental pollutents AND super viruses created by over prescription of antibiotics BOTH seem to be culprits according to the literature.

You are right on the PC issue...it is being framed as social Darwinism so that certain people can be BLAMED for what there should be SOUND policy on anyway.

[chiburb]

72. Point/Counterpoint... by MD's

Should schools ban peanuts?

YES:

Along with tree nuts, peanuts are the leading cause of fatal and near-fatal anaphylaxis induced by food, and the incidence is rising. A report in the British Medical Journal found that peanut and nut allergies account for over half of all allergies seen by age 2, and 92% seen by age 7.

A handgun is potentially lethal, and we don’t allow a child to carry one into the classroom. For the child with peanut allergy, peanut products are potentially lethal. Schools aren’t prepared to deal with life-threatening anaphylaxis. Most lack personnel trained in resuscitation.


Sure, people with allergies need to learn to deal with day-to-day risks. But young children with peanut allergies cannot be expected to bear this kind of responsibility on their own. There’ve been cases in schools where peanut butter has been waved in the face of a peanut-allergic child.

The nonallergic population needs to recognize the severity of this issue.

NO:

A ban could create a false sense of security. Early signs of a reaction may be discounted long enough to delay treatment, leading to worse outcomes.

Moreover, a complete ban is impractical and technically almost impossible. Cross-contamination with peanuts can occur during manufacture, in restaurants, and in the home. Sometimes the same machinery is used for making peanut and non-peanut-containing products. At home, chocolate-chip cookies might be baked with the same utensils used earlier with peanut butter.

It’s too much to expect parents of a nonallergic child to guard against cross-contamination of every food item their child brings to school. Bans could lead to lawsuits by parents of allergic children against parents whose children accidentally bring a cross-contaminated item to school.



For most settings, though, providing a safe environment includes education of all parties about the allergy, instruction on the indications and technique for injecting epinephrine, having an emergency plan in writing, enforcing a strict “no-food sharing” policy, washing hands and tables, and having a supervised “allergy” lunch table.


More here:
http://www.physweekly.com/archive/99/04_12_99/pc.html

[liontamer]

78. I've been wondering if nut allergies are getting worse

I don't remember anybody dying when I was a kid from smelling the breath of someone who ate nuts even though I knew people with nut allergies. Is this just hype or is there some environmental cause that's actually creating these hypersensitivities?

[Logansquare]

84. I have a friend with a severe nut allergy

She has to carry an epipen for shock in case she accidentally eats a nut, and then go to the nearest emergency room. Inhaling peanut dust (if someone near is opening a plastic bag) can make her ill as well. I understand the parents' concern about peanut butter, especially if the child is 6 or 7 and may not have good impulse control, but banning pitted fruits?? That's being *too* worried.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

108. This thread was framed in a social Darwinistic manner

"whole school has to change for one child" is basically BLAMING the person with the disability for being accomodated in society as though the kid with the allergies should be stuck in a bubble for the benefit of everyone else.

That is NOT the choice. Frankly, school districts have KNOWN this was a problem for a long time and the response of this school and districts like it is that they have NO imagination.

Kids with special food needs CAN be accomodated just as kids with special other needs can. Foods can be locked up or monitored more efficiently so that kids with special allergies CAN be accomodated..but MORE TO THE POINT...what about schools serving meals with foods that are well known to trigger allergies?
A kid can NOT be allergic ONE day and BE allergic the next day as with nuts...one can ACQUIRE allergies. Therefore, if we KNOW certain foods place kids at risk for ACQUIRED allergies such as nuts and certain pitted foods, i.e. apricots and avocados...isn't it MORE prudent to ensure the risk is not GENERATED in the first place?

These allergies are FAR more common in the child population due to the fact that childhood asthma is so common.

[KittyWampus]

167. The One Kid With Allergies Can Eat In The Nurse's Office

it's that simple.

[Rabrrrrrr]

119. Rabrrrrrr's lucid and intelligent response

So you have a kid who's deathly allergic to nuts. Fine. There are many of them.

The school's only responsibility is to ensure that no nut-based foods are ever served to that child by any employee of the school. The school should also be responsible for making sure all the kids know that nut allergy is a serious condition, not to be fooled around with.

The school should not be responsble for policing the lunchbags of others students.

I think it logical for the school to remove the possibility of screw up by banning all nuts in the food the cafeteria serves - just to be sure. That's fine.

But the school CANNOT maintain control over food items of the students and their families. The school can (and should) inform people to be respectful of the needs of others, including perfume sensitivity, food allergies, etc. But the school should not be in the habit of banning foods and etc., because it cannot provide the resources to ensure 100% safety without incredible increases in cost (gotta hire people to inspect every package of every child as they come into the school).


What I see here is another instance of the "liberal lie" which is: "If we just pass a law or make a rule, everything will be perfect because everyone follows rules and laws" (such as, "If we make using guns in crimes illegal, no one will use guns in crimes any more!" or "If we make being racist illegal, we'll solve the problem!").

The real onus in this instance, and all other instances of disabilities/sensitivities/etc. falls on the parents and the person with the problem. Pushing the problem off on the schools and the other people is not only wrong, it's utterly irresponsible of the parents in this case since it is a life or death issue.

If the child is that deathly allergic to nuts - even to the breath of otehr students - then that is a problem far beyond what we can or should expect a school system to deal with. Schools cannot be made perfectly safe by any means whatsoever, especially not from random stuff.

Banning guns, knives, whips, chainsaws, etc. in schools - okay, that makes sense. Spending a lot of money refitting the school so that wheelchairs can get through - that makes sense. Asking everyone involved in the shool to take on the responsibility of not accidentally killing a very sensitive child - that doesn't make sense.

Putting every person in the school at risk of a charge of manslaughter for forgetting that little Johnny could die if you have cherries or peaches or nuts on your breath - that's insane.

The parents are being very selfish here - little johnny can't expect other people to protect him from nuts everywhere and everywhen for the rest of his life. If he's that deadly allergic, then the parents have to figure out a way to deal with it. As I said above, the school's only responsibility should be to ensure that no employee or volunteer of the school knowingly serves nuts to the kid. The school should be very clear to the parents that "We will not force every other family in this school to re-adjust their lifestyles to protect your child".

[Pithlet]

129. The parents are not being selfish

Schools ban objects and substances all the time. Not always for good reason, but they do. I think "one of the kids in our building could die if we allow this" is good reason.

A parent who's kid could die from exposure to peanut products is not being selfish by asking the public school that their child attends to make the school grounds safer by forbidding those substances. A peanut from a kid's lunch packed at home is no less deadly than one that a school official administered. Their kids is no less entitled to a public school education. If the requirement was too difficult, or places too much of an undue burden on other students, then, it can't be done. But, that doesn't make them selfish for trying. And, I would argue that disallowing peanut products on school grounds is NOT undue.

It is no more undue than forbidding chewing gum, and every single public school I attended did so, even if my parents packed it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

136. It seems that you keep misreading Arwalden, and have now done so to me

You said:
Schools ban objects and substances all the time. Not always for good reason, but they do. I think "one of the kids in our building could die if we allow this" is good reason.

If you'd read my post, you'd know that I realize that schools ban stuff all the time. Even the chewing gum you mentioned - that's banned because kids throw the shit all over and sstick it to desks and get it on the playgrounds and crap. Other stuff, that is a bona fide danger to EVERYONE in the building also makes sense to ban: to wit, guns, chainsaws, explosives, gasoline, knives, rototillers, anthrax, etc.

Banning stuff that is NOT a bona fide danger to everyone, but is only dangerous to one or a few, doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because it IS selfish and it's unenforcable and leads to a VERY FALSE sense of security. See, in my first post, the section about the big "liberal lie" that laws and rules make us safe.

So the school bans EVERY food that might possibly cause a problem - the kids with allergies are then ledf to believe that their school is 100% safe, so they no longer need to be diligent. So little Angela, momentarily forgetting that she can only eat Peanut Butter Captain Crunch on weekends has some on Wednesday morning. Little johnny, our allergy boy, since his parents have lied to him and given him a very false sense of security, assumes that everything is now perfectly safe for him and so doesn't stop to think before he offers her a little kiss on the cheek, killing him.

Had the parents, and the school, been sensible, little Johnny owuld know that HE better make sure something is safe since it's HIS LIFE that's on the line. But, the parents being selfish and lazy, have put the onus of protecting their son onto the other families and the school administration.

So, little Johnny's parents sue the school, the school board, and the parents of Angela, who if she were older would be on trial for manslaughter or at least criminal negligence. As she is a child, she can't be tried for manslaughter. But the parents get a really good lawyer who fights hard to get her to be tried as an adult so she can be executed because she had the audacious SELFISHNESS to forget that peanut butter captain crunch can only be eaten on the weekends or school holidays, but they fail because the ACLU steps in and says, "WHOA SHIT NELLIE! This is insane!"


A parent who's kid could die from exposure to peanut products is not being selfish by asking the public school that their child attends to make the school grounds safer by forbidding those substances.

Yes, they are - they are putting what should be their and the child's responsibility into the laps of others. "I don't want to do my own due diligence as to my environment, I want the All Powerful Super Daddy Big Government to make sure about it, so I don't have to undergo the stress of taking care of myself".

A peanut from a kid's lunch packed at home is no less deadly than one that a school official administered.

Absolutely. Which is why the parents and the allergy child should consider the fact that even with the most draconian laws, and the most ridiculously heinous punishments, dangerous food will likely always be present in the school. I certainly wouldn't expect 400 families to be absolutely perfect in their diligence and memory about what is and isn't okay foods to take into a school.

That's why I prefer the option of expecting the parents and the child to take care of themselves, with the school helping by not putting nuts in lunches, and helping to INFORM the public about the dangers, but with the expectation that the school IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for monitoring Little Johnny's contacts, foods, and the eating patterns and habits and items of the other 400 children.

Their kids is no less entitled to a public school education.

I never said the child wasn't. I'm only saying that the other 400 families are entitled to not have to spend the next 10 years or whatever of schooling constantly worrying about whether they are protecting Little Johnny properly. That's unfair. And it's stupid. The kids entitled to be in the school, but he is not entitled to force the other 400 students and the school to make him safe from an otherwise utterly benign set of things. That's his job.

If my child were SOOOOO sensitive to *whatever* the he/she would die, and that *whatever* is something that is utterly common and otherwise utterly benign, I would not expect the entirety of my community to give up that benign *whatever* and feel that THEY are responsible for making sure my child doesn't come in contact with *whatever*.

One thing that would have helped me in school a lot, with my asthma and allergies, would have been air conditioning and a ban on cutting the grass on school grounds when school is in session. Obviously, I'm not dumb enough to ask for either.

[Pithlet]

137. Why am I misreading you and Allen

Simply because I don't agree with you? I understand both of you completely. I just don't agree.

[Pithlet]

138. I brought up schools banning things

as an example of things that schools can and should do. I was in no way saying that you disagreed with this. I was asserting that banning peanut products falls in this category. Just to clarify things.

[Rabrrrrrr]

168. And I'm asserting that it doesn't fit in the category of banning sensibly

nuts and fruits - dangerous to very few, they are normal food items, found all the hell over the place in public places and grocery stores and cinemas and even in nature and, well, pretty much everywhere

guns, propane, etc. - legitimate risks to EVERYONE

gum, boomboxes, video games - legitimate annoyances and/or disractions to everyone



I still think it is rude, selfish, and asking too much to demand that 400 families adjust their lifestyles in such an unecessary way to accomodate one or a few people who have food allergies. It is also a slippery legal slope.

[Pithlet]

184. I know that is what you're asserting.

I just don't agree. I think I read you clearly. I don't object to you not agreeing; I just object to the accuasation that I'm reading you, or anyone else incorrectly. Maybe I'm being to sensitive about it, but I've taken a beating on DU today for not agreeing in some threads. There is a difference, you know.

[Ann Arbor Dem]

126. Regarding nut allergies

I never had problems with nuts until last summer. I had two reactions within one week after eating salads with walnuts at a local restaurant. It was scary enough for me to call my doc, who then me to an allergist and the skin tests were done to see what was up.

I have an slight allergy to tree nuts, less with peanuts. The allergist gave me an epipen to carry in case I had a severe allergic reaction. I haven't had problems since, but then I'm not eating nuts anymore.

The doc told me that nut allergies in the U.S. (esp. in the last decade) are growing at a rate that much greater than expected and the number of resulting deaths has increased a lot. Researchers are trying to pinpoint what the cause of this problem is. One theory rests on how nuts are process in the U.S. today. (I have no idea it's done or how/if it's different than in the past.)

I wondered at the time if the nut allergy problem has to do with agricultural genetic engineering.

Anyway, just wanted to share what I learned. I'm sure there is some great literature out there.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

147. That's fascinating...

and a little scary, too!

My younger boy is allergic to raw apples and peaches (possibly similar fruits as well, but we haven't risked experimenting). I've never had a problem with them myself, until we learned of his allergy.

I now notice a slight sensitivity when I eat raw apples...nothing serious, but my lips swell slightly for a brief period of time.

[Ratty]

145. You know, it's not as if the world will end if kids don't get PB for lunch

Yeah, my first reaction is "Oh boy. Another case where some people ruin it for the rest of us," and all the other thoughts most people have when reading things like this. But in this case, what's the big deal, really? Aren't wagon wheels good enough for lunch nowdays? Would the menus be soooo bare if it didn't include nuts? Can't parents send their kids off to school with tuna fish or hummus in their sandwiches? For some kids and parents this is a BIG, life-threatening deal. For the rest of us ... eh, who cares?

[politicat]

190. but the allergic kids can't have hummus, either.

Chickpeas are beans.

That's where this is going to end up - vegetarian parents suing the school for not allowing their vegetarian child to bring her tofu (soy - a legume) or her tahini (sesame seeds) or any of the other proteins that vegetarians use.

Really, this is a major conflict; were it happening here in Boulder County, I can guarantee that there would be problems since so many of the kids are vegetarians. One kid can't be exposed to seeds, nuts and legumes; the rest can't eat meat.

Me? I'm a real, honest to evolution Darwinist. Allergies like that are dangerous to the species. If the kid makes it to adulthood, I do hope he doesn't choose to have children. A nut allergy that severe is a dangerous mutation that should take the offspring out of the gene pool. It will be sad for his family and parents if something happens, but overall... *shakes head*

But then again, no one ever said nature or I was kind. There are reasons Mr. Pcat and I have taken ourselves out of the gene pool.

Politicat

[ikojo]

160. What about this kid's social life outside of school?

I've read through approx. 90 posts and have seen no consideration given to this kid's social life away from school. Will the town be forced to ban peanuts and other allergenic foods so that this kid can walk about? What about birthday parties and such? Will his parents go over to the homes of this kid's friends (if he/she has friends) to inspect them for peanut free-ness?

Another thing to consider...when this kid grows up, the working world will not be as accomodating. He/She will just have to cope and get by.

I have a friend who has a beef allergy and she carries and epipen with her everywhere she goes.

[name not needed]

163. He'll have to live in a bubble

[Rabrrrrrr]

165. I addressed it a bit up above

but you're right - the parents believe they can make a 100% perfectly free no-risk space for their precious little child (and this applies to any parent who wants the world to bend over backwards in the name of "safety for my child"). I just hope the parents stop their smothering at some point, and teach the child how to be responsibl;e, how to live with the disability of the allergy, and how to adjust and cope in a world in which the vast majority of people have no problem with the substances in question, and so aren't gonna be real keen about being told they can't have it any more.

Might as well get cities to spray the hell out of the environment to make sure there aren't any bees so that people with bee sting allergies can be perfectly safe.

[KittyWampus]

170. The Obvious Solution Is For The One Kid To Eat Lunch In Nurse's Office

or somewheres away from everyone else.

When he's done, go out and play during recess.

How freaking simple is that?

[XanaDUer]

173. Peanut butter

is also a staple in a lot of poor kids' lunches.

[jmowreader]

172. What the local district does

Our local hospital system runs a school so the kids that are in the hospital won't fall behind. This school belongs to the county school system, has certified teachers and is in every way a school.

Because it is a public school, it gives the child who attends equal access to public education. And because it's at the hospital, they're set up to deal with situations like this.

This kid is gonna die if he stays in this school too long. A hospital-based school seems the perfect solution, and if there is one in Waldoboro they should send him there.

The ADA says "reasonable accommodations." It does not say "herculean effort," which is what the Miller School is up against.

[arwalden]

178. Precisely... Reasonable vs Herculean

Some people are incapable of telling the difference. Knowing the difference between the two isn't bigotry or discrimination or creating a 2nd class of citizens.

-- Allen

[jmowreader]

197. I remember when the ADA first started being discussed

People thought it meant that the Detroit Lions would have to put double amputees on the field. (Not realizing or admitting that the quality of the Lions' play would probably improve. :evilgrin:)

No. Not at all. The Act recognizes that there are some jobs a disabled person cannot do no matter how many accommodations are made for them. Blind people will never be able to drive buses, deaf people will never become sonar operators and people with no hands will never become piano players.

Similarly, a school district is allowed to make a separate-but-equal school for disabled children so long as it is truly equal, if that is the most beneficial way to handle a disability. Here we have an Alternative School. They send the pregnant teens, disabled children and kids who have been kicked out of other schools to this one. They get a lot of personal attention there and usually come back to their home schools in better academic shape than they were in when they left. (This is for the mild cases. The MR/DD kids go to the Walker-Spivey School, which is also great.) The Alternate School allows them to concentrate their resources--instead of spreading the high-priced special-needs teachers across 115 schools, they're all in one place.

But in Cumberland County we have tens of thousands of students. In this town in Maine they may have hundreds. In this instance, I would support using tax dollars to send the child to a private school, or hiring a teacher for him and schooling him offsite. At this point the freepers in the audience are thinking, "if he supports vouchers for this child, why not for all children?" Well, it may be because "all children" will not die if someone pulls a sandwich made on seeded Italian bread out of her lunchbox. "All children" do not go into anaphylaxis if fruit cocktail is served in the lunchroom, and "all children" do not disrupt the whole school.

[arwalden]

199. I Hope Other Adversaries On This Thread Will Read That Jmowreader

You've hit on the exact points that the alarmists simply refuse to acknowledge or admit. It's impossible for the school system to be all things to all people.

I know that if they think about it, they will realize that the Lunchroom Nazis and Brown Bag Inspection Gestapo methods aren't the answer.

I think they are letting GOOD JUDGMENT and plain old COMMON SENSE be clouded by their pity and sympathy for the difficulties (and dangers) that highly allergic children must endure.

-- Allen

[pbg]

175. But it seems to me

..that if the child is that sensitive, then children would have to be banned from eating peanuts or pitted fruit for breakfast. How on earth can that be required?

The kid is living--must live--in a bubble. The question is, is the bubble to be the size of the school?

[arwalden]

176. You Are Correct

Some things are just impractical and unwise. It cannot be done without restricting the rights of others and creating a special class with special rights at the expense of others. It's wrong.

[SoCalDem]

181. I practically had to get a court order for my son's epi-pen

to stay with HIM.. He is deathly allergic to bee/wasp stings, and the school insisted that the pen had to stay with the nurse.. He was stung in the 4th grade (at recess) and of course the nurse's office was locked, and she was not there that day, so he had to be taken to the ER..

We were finally able to convince them that the whole purpose of the pen was to have it available at a moment's notice..not locked up where he had no access to it..

I'm not so sure about the peanut thing though.. I sympathize with the parents, but if MY child could actually DIE by being exposed to a peanut, I would not want him/her going to an "ordinary" school, where kids, being kids, might "test" that fact..

A note going home warning about banned foods, will do little to prevent that one parent who either does not read the note, or forgets, from sending food that might be banned..

[SmileyBoy]

183. My old high school went latex-free because of one allergic student.

I think it still is.

[arwalden]

186. How Would They Enforce Something Like That

Sorry boys... no jock straps during gym class. You're on your own.
Young ladies... no support panties and no bras! We're latex free!
Elastic bands in BVD are now forbidden. Cotton draw-string boxers only gentlemen!

I just can't imagine how that would work.

-- Allen

[jdj]

185. it's all about potential lawsuit

Kids swap food, and kids pull pranks

[DemBones DemBones]

188. I just read a short article the other day about

flying today. It said to be sure to wear shoes that are easy to remove, be sure to take food since the airlines aren't providing much anymore, and be sure not to carry any nuts, since they could be confiscated before you get on the plane, due to people with nut allergies on the flight. First I'd heard of that.

Flying used to be pleasant. . .

[politicat]

191. How are they handling the vegetarian and vegan kids????

Telling them they must eat meat or skip protein at lunch?? I can't think of any non-animal protein that does not contain nuts, seeds, beans or legumes.

And how will the school handle hamburgers? When I was in school, the hamburgers were about 40% soy.

I know if it were my vegetarian child being told she could not have hummus, bean soup, tahini, peanut or almond butter, tempeh or Boca burgers in her lunchbox, we'd be looking for another school or making a serious stink.

The good of the one cannot outweigh the good of the many, and this seems to be a non-reasonable accomodation. This is above and beyond reasonable accomodation, and will, I think, end up harming the allergic children significantly in the future, if they grow up believing the world is a safe place for them and their allergies.

Pcat

[LeftishBrit]

193. I think health problems do need to be accommodated

There may be other ways of doing so, like creating a separate lunch area. But not all schools have that sort of space. As far as homeschooling is concerned, that is simply not a possible option for many families.

In the UK, there is a push for inclusion of children with special needs in mainstream schools. Although this is sometimes ill-planned and under-resourced, and may be inappropriate for some children, I think that it's a good thing overall, at least as regards children with physical disabilities and chronic illnesses. It's important that such children learn to mix with others, and have the chance of a normal education; and it's also important that other children learn to accept and deal with special needs - after all, most people will have to deal with others' special needs sooner or later.

I have worked in a primary school in Oxford which was a 'peanut free zone' for similar reasons. No one had a problem with it. I can see that it might be a more serious problem if it involved more 'staple foods'; e.g. fruit as in one of the cases here, or milk; but life-threatening allergies to these are much less common than those to peanuts. Perhaps if the allergies encompass staple foods, or a wide range of foods, a separate lunch area might become more necessary. In any case, adapting a school situation to deal with someone's allergies is just the same sort of principle as making physical adaptations in a school building to accommodate children with wheelchairs. Both are desirable if at all possible.

As regards the concept of a 'slippery slope', I think this can be used over almost anything. Schools ban all kinds of things already, often for much more trivial reasons. I am equally concerned about the danger of a 'slippery slope' in the other direction: creating an intolerance for other people's health needs. I feel rather strongly on this issue, since I have some dietary restrictions due to having Crohns disease from childhood. I do not have life-threatening allergies, and it certainly doesn't harm me if other people keep or eat the foods that I can't. Nonetheless, as a child I was often accused at school and elsewhere of being spoilt and a fussy eater if I didn't eat what others were eating (even though I was not asking to be provided with anything else instead; just to not have to eat these particular foods). This was very upsetting, and I would be quite worried about a 'slippery slope' toward such intolerance. At the bottom of this slippery slope, one can get people who are intolerant of other people's quite ordinary health needs; e.g. people who insist on smoking right in other people's faces.

I do think that children with allergies ultimately need to learn to take responsibility for their own diet, and for avoiding items that are dangerous to them. However, this cannot be expected of younger children. By the time they reach secondary school, I think that there is less justification for a ban on such items entering school, though the school should still be aware of the pupils' allergies and keep an eye on the situation (just as a secondary school may keep potentially dangerous chemicals for science lessons, and expect pupils to have the sense not to misuse them, but should still keep a watch to ensure that they don't).

[politicat]

198. I agree with you on all of this, except... this is BEYOND peanuts.

It's into a LARGE swath of staple foods.

And glad to see you - I'll be in your time zone coming up soon - just as soon as we can get my fellowship worked out and get my husband accepted into school too!

Pcat