Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Lab Assistant
#51 Old 30th Dec 2011 at 1:44 AM
Actually, I do get what this thread is about. But I also know that if a person is that allergic to something that it's more than what the public is capable of preventing. A person like that needs to be in a controlled environment, which a school is not. And if they are going to be in public, the child needs to learn what to do.

The girl I mentioned had been sent to the hospital for eating the wrong thing, by the way. Any food allergy, if bad enough, can be fatal. She couldn't eat pizza because of what the cheese would do to her. It wouldn't just make her sick, like cheese can do to me. I just can't eat for a while after. But it's something she grew up with, and she learned what to do.

Just like Crocobaura, I knew someone who was severely diabetic. She was rarely in school because of how bad it was. She had to monitor her insulin levels often, she was on a special diet, there were so many specifications for her that it was hard on her. I only knew her in Jr. High, and then I didn't see her every day because of her being in and out of the hospital. This is only what I saw, but it was enough. If she didn't eat at the right time she was likely to end up in the hospital again. This is similar to what you're talking about, a dietary requirement whether it's something being removed or amounts and number of times. Nothing was changed in the school to suit her needs, her parents took care of what was needed. Even having her home-schooled when things were bad enough. Through that she learned what she had to do.

Kids with allergies that can be fatal aren't any different from her. They have specific needs and should learn what to do about them rather than a public place (and yes a school is classified as a public domain even though it's own by the government) conforming completely to what they need. Or better yet the parents do something to keep their child in a safe environment. For socializing there are camps for kids with severe allergies. It's not a bad idea for the government to give aid to parents with such kids, but to expect to keep something like peanut products of any kind out of a school entirely is not going to happen even if they have it banned. There are always mistakes made.
Advertisement
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#52 Old 30th Dec 2011 at 1:46 AM
I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned epipen here, unless I missed it. It's significant - in the case of most (though not all) childhood food allergies, an anaphylactic reaction following accidental exposure can be stopped and resolved using epipen. Of course, that doesn't mean that precautions shouldn't be taken to avoid exposure: epipen is an emergency measure, and it doesn't necessarily treat non-life threatening but still highly unpleasant "minor" reactions, but it does mean that, in practise, an allergic reaction is much easier to manage than the worst-case scenario.

When I was at school, every kid with an allergy had an epipen. They were kept locked up by the school nurse, and some kids with particularly severe allergies, for whom any delay could be dangerous, carried another epipen with them at all times. If a kid had a reaction, out came the epipen, parents were called, nurse sat with the kid, and the kid was taken home/to A&E/to the GP as appropriate.
So, I have to wonder if this whole question is more fuelled by "first aider atrophy" than an actual unresolvable practical problem regarding allergies. I get the idea from hearing paramedics moan: all companies are required to have a trained first aider on-site at all times, but they're cheapskates so "trained" usually means "went on a two-day course". If the first aider helps someone but makes a mistake, and it turns out that the training was deficient (which it is), the company is liable for not ensuring that they have a properly-trained first aider. So, to avoid liability, whenever anyone is even slightly injured, they call an ambulance, thereby making the first aider totally redundant.
Do schools, nowadays, have nurses who are sufficiently skilled and knowledgeable to deal with an allergic reaction, administer epipen, and make the decision as to whether the kid needs emergency care, or whether TLC from Mum and Dad will be sufficient? Are these nurses confident enough in the support from their management, and vice versa, that no-one feels the need to take thing out of the nurses' hands by setting up strict blanket rules? If not, why not?

I do want to restate - that doesn't mean that care shouldn't be taken. Teachers need to be aware of which of their students have medical conditions, what signs they should look for, and who they should call if they think there's a problem. School dinners need to be prepared to contain as few common allergens as is reasonable, and kids with unusual allergies need to be catered for, either by lunches packed at home or by special menus at the school canteen. But my point is that, through a combination of sensible management of the risks, and proper responses if an exposure does occur, a competent school can deal with the vast majority of allergies without the need to issue blanket bans or other such drastic measures.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Theorist
#53 Old 30th Dec 2011 at 4:43 AM
Quote:
Do schools, nowadays, have nurses who are sufficiently skilled and knowledgeable to deal with an allergic reaction, administer epipen, and make the decision as to whether the kid needs emergency care, or whether TLC from Mum and Dad will be sufficient? Are these nurses confident enough in the support from their management, and vice versa, that no-one feels the need to take thing out of the nurses' hands by setting up strict blanket rules? If not, why not?

In most states of the US school nurses are required to have the same certifications as a nurse you would find in a doctors office or a hospital.

Hi I'm Paul!
Mad Poster
#54 Old 30th Dec 2011 at 11:37 AM Last edited by VerDeTerre : 30th Dec 2011 at 11:51 AM.
* The epi-pen was mentioned, and I've never heard that it takes any special training to administer it. One was handed to me during a field trip when I accompanied an allergic child. I believe they are designed to be administered easily, even self administered.

*Determining when to administer an epi-pen or send a child to the hospital vs. sending a child home sick?

It's easy to see when it's a real emergency:

"Anaphylaxis may begin
with severe itching of the eyes or face and, within minutes, progress to more serious symptoms.
These symptoms include swallowing and breathing difficulties, abdominal pain, cramps, vomiting, diarrhea,
hives, and angioedema (swelling similar to hives, but the swelling is beneath the skin instead of on the surface)."

*Regarding the need to be in a controlled environment : This is something that the public, in this case, the school, is capable of preventing with some simple measures.

*Regarding the claim that these are not any different from other food allergies - Maybe, maybe not. The difference with peanuts is that they are in so many things of which people are unaware and people tend to spread the allergen by touching things after eating peanut butter or handling peanut butter. It becomes more innocuous that way.

* "But my point is that, through a combination of sensible management of the risks, and proper responses if an exposure does occur, a competent school can deal with the vast majority of allergies without the need to issue blanket bans or other such drastic measures." I agree completely. From what I've experienced and from what I just found on the web, it doesn't look like a blanket ban is necessary at all.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Mad Poster
#55 Old 30th Dec 2011 at 12:24 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
Note that firearms are also prohibited on planes and in schools with those protections. That's because protections, "rights," don't apply to substances - they apply to people. You don't have the "right" to own or carry anything, and once you own something you never have the universal right to possess it just anywhere you care to have it. Property owners and the authorities with responsibility for properties rights (which are enumerated, because they are entities, not property) have the power to restrict your possession of property and access to their property nearly universally, excepted when specified in the aforementioned instances.


I thought the US constitution guaranteed the right to property, but apparently it only guarantees the right to bear arms and it infringes even on that. Scary thought.
Theorist
#56 Old 30th Dec 2011 at 3:03 PM
It's important to remember that "rights" as established by governments are established by governments. "Unalienable" rights notions aside, in the real world you've got what the government gives you, established to meet and react to specific needs and worries.
Instructor
#57 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 1:03 AM Last edited by SimsLover50 : 5th Jan 2012 at 1:50 AM.
I think reasonable accomodations should be made, whenever possible, but it gets to a point where it is too hard to protect an extremely allergic child, then perhaps a separate environement needs to be provided.
Scholar
#58 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 11:01 AM
Severly allergic children should not be coddled, they should be taught. If they are just coddled they run the risk of their child becoming unaware. I say this because I seen some parents of children with peanut allergies that rather prevent the world from having peanuts then to teach their child to make sure they know what they are eating, and to be aware of their surroundings. An allergy is just like any life long illness, or disability that needs to be monitered. The more a child knows the safer they will be. Eggs, milk, seafood, wheat, and soy are another big allergy source. are we going to start banning them all together now... And what about other tree nuts?

(Fact: According to the Mayo Clinic Milk, Eggs, Peanuts, Tree nuts, Fish, ShellFish, Soy and Wheat make up 90% of allergys)

Okay I do understand the allergy to peanuts is one of the fastest climbing allergy of all and tops of all death rates. When do we become unfair?

(From CNN.com
Of those who died after accidentally eating the food to which they were allergic, 58 percent were between the ages of 13 and 30. Of the 31 people the study examined, 68 percent had eaten outside of their home, for example at a restaurant, school cafeteria or the home of friends. More than 80 percent of the deaths were caused by peanuts or tree nuts, such as almonds, cashews and pecans. The study also documented four milk-allergic individuals who died after accidental exposure to a dairy containing product and two who had eaten shrimp)

Maybe if your so severly allergic you shouldn't eat outside your home unless you are certian it has no peanuts. Bring along specially prepared food. And incase a kid in the class does have a severe allergy I understand asking parents to avoid giving their kids stuff that contains peanut butter to avoid it being smeared around.

For those of you with an allergy to artifical surgar becareful of medicines and gum. These two things often carry artifical surgar. Especially Tyonal (sp)

Disclaimer: I am just being a goof ball, please ignore me if offended.
Mad Poster
#59 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 11:33 AM
Definitely these kids need to be taught to be aware of what they eat, but kids do need extra help with that and, face it, people can be so dense sometimes unless it is really harped at them. That's one reason I'm in favor of a school taking precautions. Please note that I am not advocating a blanket ban since it has been called unnecessary even by the experts on allergies. But back to people being dense: I've seen too many adults, even in schools, offer foods to those with severe allergies totally missing that the food they offered would be likely to have the offending ingredient in it. Peanut butter and oil are in so many products that are likely to find their way into school parties or treats that teachers might offer. So, raising awareness for the public, in this case the school, as well as for the young person is important. Just look at those statistics on death that you gave and it shows that steps need to be taken at that age and in a school setting.

Another point here is that it's not just about what a child puts in his mouth. He has to be aware of taking someone's hand (how often in a group activities throughout the day are young children encouraged to take hands with others?), he has to be so cautious against some friend grabbing his hand or touching his arm or face, he has to be aware of touching desks, door nobs, etc... since peanut butter is slick and can get left on any number of surfaces after someone has been consuming sandwiches or candies with peanut butter. It seems like a bit too much to ask of a child to be aware that at any moment, he could come in contact with peanut butter through touch and is likely to asphyxiate. That's the second reason I support efforts of public places taking precautions (again, not a blanket no-peanut ban) to keep an area allergen free.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Mad Poster
#60 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 11:45 AM
Quote: Originally posted by VerDeTerre
It seems like a bit too much to ask of a child to be aware that at any moment, he could come in contact with peanut butter through touch and is likely to asphyxiate. That's the second reason I support efforts of public places taking precautions (again, not a blanket no-peanut ban) to keep an area allergen free.



Why is it too much to ask a sick child to watch out for himself and it's not too much to ask everyone else to watch out for him? When you cross the road, you don't expect the cars to watch out for you, do you?
Scholar
#61 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 12:28 PM
Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
When you cross the road, you don't expect the cars to watch out for you, do you?


Nope, not even if I have the right of way. It's all up to me to make sure I am not turned into road kill.

Disclaimer: I am just being a goof ball, please ignore me if offended.
Mad Poster
#62 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 1:36 PM
Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
Why is it too much to ask a sick child to watch out for himself and it's not too much to ask everyone else to watch out for him? When you cross the road, you don't expect the cars to watch out for you, do you?


The key word here is 'child' - yes, adults should always be watching out for children. If the blanket ban isn't effective as VerDeTerre said then that's one thing - a decision made by adults based on evidence. But, in general, children aren't adults - they're still learning to make decisions and take care of themselves and need to be protected while they're learning.
Mad Poster
#63 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 3:40 PM
Quote: Originally posted by RoseCity
The key word here is 'child' - yes, adults should always be watching out for children. If the blanket ban isn't effective as VerDeTerre said then that's one thing - a decision made by adults based on evidence. But, in general, children aren't adults - they're still learning to make decisions and take care of themselves and need to be protected while they're learning.


It's one thing to watch out for them and another thing to hoover over their every step. Children, starting with toddlers, need to learn certain basic safety information like not to play with matches, or that ovens can be hot, not to poke things into the electrical sockets, not to eat random stuff, not to hit each other, etc. Teaching them not to eat food they are allergic to is same as teaching them to ask to go to the bathroom or not to accept candy from strangers. A school going kid with a mean allergy should be able to recognise and protect himself from possible dangers simply because he's the one interracting first hand with the his environment.
Mad Poster
#64 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 4:19 PM
My point is that they're still learning, so it may not be safe to leave them to their own devices. The word 'should' as in 'should be able to recognize and protect himself' is just a word and doesn't absolve a child's caretakers from responsibility. There's a difference between what an individual thinks is reasonable or how an individual chooses to raise their child and public policy which is I think what Mistermook was saying.
To use your crossing the street analogy, yes, an individual motorist can choose to drive like a maniac and mow down slow pedestrians, so the pedestrian has to learn to look out for him or herself. But public policy doesn't sanction that behavior; there are laws about stopping at crosswalks, etc.
transmogrified
retired moderator
#65 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 4:27 PM
Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
Why is it too much to ask a sick child to watch out for himself and it's not too much to ask everyone else to watch out for him? When you cross the road, you don't expect the cars to watch out for you, do you?


I am so easily distracted by slightly off-topic questions. We have a lot of yield-only pedestrian crossings in my city which I use to get to and from work. While I wouldn't cross if I saw a motorist approaching at a speed too great to stop, I do regularly step out in the middle of oncoming traffic because if I waited for an empty street or for the cars to stop while I am hovering on the curb, I would never get across. So, yes, I do expect the driver to see the zebra crossing, be aware that I am in it, and stop. Why must the responsibility and awareness be all one side or the other's?
Mad Poster
#66 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 5:36 PM
Quote: Originally posted by mangaroo
Why must the responsibility and awareness be all one side or the other's?


Because you are the most vulnerable. The car might get a scratch or two, but you might end up with a broken bone or worse. Others may and probably will watch out for you, but when their attention wanders off, you are the only one directly interested to stay safe and can make a difference should their attention be elsewhere and also keep both of you out of trouble.
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#67 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 5:38 PM
RoseCity, yes, children can't be expected to have adult competence and judgement, and they are more at risk from certain dangers no matter what you do. But the solution isn't to totally shield the child from danger: appropriate responses aren't something innate in adults, they have to be learned. If you have a ban on all peanut products at a school, how is a child with an allergy going to learn how to avoid allergens? How are they going to get into the habit of reading labels or asking cooks/servers?

Isn't it, in fact, better that a child makes these mistakes, is accidentally exposed, by something they eat at school, where they are supervised by responsible adults whose job it is to help - than for the child to make that mistake buying sweets from a corner shop, or trying different things at a market, for instance, where by the time they have a reaction, they may be alone and without anyone around who knows what to do for them?

If I had a kid with an allergy, knowing that they were probably going to be exposed at various points in their life, I think I would consider the least bad place for an exposure to happen to be at home, with me, knowing what to do; second would be at school, with teachers and nurses who have instructions; anywhere else - out and about, with friends, with a friend's parents - would be a complete nightmare. Kids have to be exposed to risks - note that's risks, not allergens... - and the role of caring for them as adults is best fulfilled by supervision and support, not by taking it out of their hands.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Mad Poster
#68 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 7:29 PM
My point is that the decision on whether or not to have a blanket ban on peanut products should be based on whether or not doing that is actually an effective policy and not on someone's idea of what kids 'should' know. If you want your kids to learn the hard way, that's a personal decision, but is it a basis for public policy? I don't think so.
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#69 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 7:42 PM
What other way is there to learn? Instruction is all well and good, but without practise, it doesn't count for anything much.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Mad Poster
#70 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 8:19 PM
I think there's something for the child in question and her community to learn.

It's a great idea to teach children to read food labels, to know what sets off their allergies and to learn to ask, "Is there peanut butter in that" and "can you please check the list of ingredients?". The school community also needs to learn to read labels before offering food to an allergic child. They need to learn to be aware of how they might spread an allergen such as by spreading peanut butter with a knife and then using that knife to cut a cake or spread something else. They need to learn to wash their hands before entering an allergen free classroom or after eating snack and definitely before touching someone if they've just touched peanut butter or oil. They need to create a peanut free area in the cafe and keep it that way.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Instructor
#71 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 8:52 PM
Some folks are so deathly allergic the dust of a peanut can be a problem. Airlines in some areas have banned them, as well as ballparks where peanuts are served in concession.
Undead Molten Llama
#72 Old 5th Jan 2012 at 9:34 PM
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider
RoseCity, yes, children can't be expected to have adult competence and judgement, and they are more at risk from certain dangers no matter what you do. But the solution isn't to totally shield the child from danger: appropriate responses aren't something innate in adults, they have to be learned.


Yes. Yes, yes, yes. I am all for kids (and adults, for that matter) learning from experience and, frankly, the lessons are learned more quickly when the experiences are bad. I know that sounds heartless and cold and all that...but it's the truth. And in reality, even a "deathly" allergic reaction is wholly treatable without extreme measures for quite a while after it starts. Whole minutes, even. So as long as the allergic person has been taught not to panic, has the right tools (such as an epi-pen) always at hand, and knows how and when to use those tools properly, the situation is relatively easily handled, life goes on, and all is groovy. Such children simply have to learn to to have the necessary tools always at hand, and the sooner they learn this lesson, the better because the reality is that it is something they will have to do for life. This is the biggest lesson that my daughter (whose issues were not allergies but some rather nasty aftereffects of being born very prematurely) had to learn.

But learn it she did, because she HAD to, in order to deal with the world as it is rather than as we would like it to be. I insisted that she learn because I realized early on that trying to shield her from danger and trying to control what others did and didn't do (a largely impossible task) around her would have done her no favors at all. Because really, banning and precautionary procedures like "peanut free zones" are all well and good...but "oopses" will happen nonetheless, and if a kid is used to being shielded (or is relying on others to handle situations for them) and an oops happens, they'll be up the proverbial creek. Shielding is not a favor, as I said. Plus, even if the school is somehow made reliably "safe," the rest of the world certainly will never, EVER be. IMO, someone with a condition where environment and foods and such are a factor MUST learn to accommodate the world, NOT be given unreasonable expectations of the world accommodating little ol' them. Some places will accommodate -- restaurants, for instance -- out of fear of lawsuits and such, but not ALL places. IMO, the sooner a person with a "condition" learns and accepts this, the better.

Overall, my problem with schools when it comes to kids with health conditions in general is their drug paranoia. Instead of allowing such kids to have, for instance, epi-pens on their person at all times, they take such things away as a OMG!DRUG and then try to treat the problem with sanitary measures and bans instead...which are pretty likely to fail, whereas having an epi-pen on hand with the kid well-taught as to how/when to use it...Problem solved, really, without the kid having to rely on anyone or anything other than him/herself. Like I said, when my kid was younger, her medical issues were easily handled with drugs that she had learned, from sometimes painful experience, how and when to use properly. She could function in the world perfectly well in any situation so long as she had her stuff with her. But had I sent her to school, her meds and syringes would have had to have been kept in the nurse's office...where they would do her little good. As I said, unless this drug policy were to change, I wouldn't send a truly "deathly allergic" kid to school, and I would make any necessary sacrifice to make that happen. Since I live in the US, I have that option. I realize it's not a universal option, but it IS one of the good things about America.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Mad Poster
#73 Old 6th Jan 2012 at 12:34 AM
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider
What other way is there to learn?


I count a lot of different ways here.
Also, children differ by age and maturity. You can't expect the same level of maturity from a 6 year old as from an 11 year old.
Theorist
#74 Old 6th Jan 2012 at 5:21 AM
Not to mention that dead kids aren't exactly taking a well-earned lesson.

Since we're also mentioning playing in traffic, if the public school was telling the first graders to cross a busy six lane street, at what amount of instruction would it be ok to you when they sent yours home in a casket? Talking about the "managability" of the allergies, at what point is it okay for a school to make your child I'll to teach him or her a lesson? Maybe some of you'd care for children to be led into a closet and raped, so that they learn the tough lesson about not doing that even with the people who are legally responsible to provide them care?
Scholar
#75 Old 6th Jan 2012 at 6:52 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
Not to mention that dead kids aren't exactly taking a well-earned lesson.

Since we're also mentioning playing in traffic, if the public school was telling the first graders to cross a busy six lane street, at what amount of instruction would it be ok to you when they sent yours home in a casket? Talking about the "managability" of the allergies, at what point is it okay for a school to make your child I'll to teach him or her a lesson? Maybe some of you'd care for children to be led into a closet and raped, so that they learn the tough lesson about not doing that even with the people who are legally responsible to provide them care?


Blanket Peanut ban is like ordering no cars on streets near where children play, or no closets will be permited so your child can't get raped in em.

Seriously is it just me or is the blanket peanut ban is like the war on trans fat? Nobody wants to take responsibility for raising there own damn kids so everybody else has to suffer.

Disclaimer: I am just being a goof ball, please ignore me if offended.
 
Page 3 of 5
Back to top