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!
Theorist
#76 Old 6th Jan 2012 at 8:55 AM
Quote: Originally posted by DrowningFishy
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.

And mysteriously enough, we have lower speed limits often enforced more strictly than others outside of schools. It's not about a blanket ban everywhere, because when you manage to get your child killed on your own time the government doesn't get sued, there isn't an enormous public political backlash, and people's careers aren't ruined. But all of those things are not just possible, but likely as hell when you're talking about children given into the care of near strangers who are public servants carrying out public policy with liability issues because of their expectation of care.

Go somewhere where the government has a blanket responsibility like a military base: The speed limits on bases are ridiculously low, because it's not a public space. They take the easiest way of dealing with the real possibility of a place with an above average number of 18-25 year old drivers, who statistically have some of the greatest chances of being in accidents, and larger than average numbers of pedestrians from all of the cardio they want people to do.

Asking the government to protect people less when they have liability would mean you'd have to find some means of limiting that liability - and even if you could legally limit liability you'd still end up with gun-shy politicians who don't care to be painted during elections as "that guy who got away with killing people's kids by writing legislation that limited private citizen's means of seeking recompense for their dead child." People talking about this as if children are only responsible for themselves, or their parents have sole responsibility over them at all times, really aren't talking with enough understanding of the legal process. You are responsible for minors given into your care and you are responsible for taking reasonable measures while anyone is on your property. That works for you and I, but it's also how it works for business owners and the government.

I know I keep saying "dead child" over and over again, but it's important: Whatever your intentions were when you failed to protect the child, nor even what the applicable laws are, the moment the press gets to paint you, or your organization, or the government in the same breath as "dead child" the rules of what you can and should do change dramatically. Perhaps some of you don't have children for one reason or another, but as a parent I have it on good authority that "dead child" is something no parent cares to have associated with anyone or any organization that's also taking care of your child. That applies even if there's no real reason for that sort of emotional response. No amount of lack of care that results in a dead child will make your child more allergic to peanuts, but on the other hand if they're unwilling to protect a child in their care that they know has an issue that might result in a possible fatality just what the hell will they be doing on with your kid? "Should have known better" sounds good, but ultimately when someone dies it's pretty fucking empty. It's one thing when someone dies because of something that no one could predict or do anything about, and it's quite another entirely when you can point a finger and go "My kid died because you're a bitch who couldn't resist giving your kid a peanut butter sandwich." Even if the kid doesn't die, it's the same root emotional response.
Advertisement
Scholar
#77 Old 6th Jan 2012 at 9:19 AM
How about: "Bitch because my kid died from food poisening because I couldn't find anything to put in his lunch that wasn't parishable." (yeah laugh but overly clean environments mean kids are not getting the reisistance to germs they need) Remember schools do not have fridges for school lunches. Peanut butter and jelly is great because it does not go belly up. Also you might end up with a kid with not enough to eat, the price of lunch meat here is getting nuts. Fact is PB&J is an easy meal for kids without having to worry about cost or icepacks. IT really is not fair to other kids with out the allergies to be told no. I understand the whole dead kid, but maybe if your kid is that allergic he should eat lunch in a seprate location from the other students. America is already sucking the life out of childhood with "safety" playgrounds, no tag rules, and being anti-dodgeball. No wonder kids are turning intio fatties, there being wrapped up in bubble wrap.

Disagree with me or not I don't care but seriously when is the line going to be drawn.

Disclaimer: I am just being a goof ball, please ignore me if offended.
Mad Poster
#78 Old 6th Jan 2012 at 11:15 AM
Again, some of this argument is unnecessary since a ban against all peanut butter products in a school environment is NOT necessary per the standards of medical professionals. Only a partial ban is necessary.

At the heart of this argument seems to be the question of how much protection and care does a child need. For those of you who say the kids can fend for themselves - I feel sorry for any children you may be entrusted with and I feel sorry for the neglected child you must have been. It's our moral obligation to protect those who need it. And children need it. This does not mean bubble wrap. Making an environment safe for someone who suffers from deathly allergies is common sense and does not in any way remove the responsibility from the allergy sufferer to take steps for his own protection. A partnership must be formed.

There is also an attitude of "why change" and "I don't need to give up any of my rights for anyone else". The second one is part of the social contract. It's why we have laws about murder and liability and such so that we may live together peaceably as a society. You give up a small amount of your freedom for the benefit of all (including yourself).

As to "why change" - because we know more than we did before and because change is called for.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Mad Poster
#79 Old 6th Jan 2012 at 12:57 PM
Quote: Originally posted by VerDeTerre
.....


Well, you're not going to be there forever to protect your child. What happens if something happens to you while he is in your care and he also needs help? What if your kid was allergic to penicillin, would you just assume that there will always be someone to watch over his medication, or rather teach him to inform his doctors and also wear a warning bracelet in case he's unconscious and needs treatment?
Teaching, supervising and making sure the kid knows what to do in certain situations is one thing, restricting the kid's interractions to make sure he does not get into certain situations is a completely different thing. Also, if he's so severely allergic that certain food products have to be banned in the whole school, it might be better for him to go to a smaller, more easily manageble environment like home schooling or dedicated schools for people with similar needs. It's common sense to make adjustments in those places that are more easily adjusted and controlled, rather than to try and adjust the whole world to fit your specific needs.
Scholar
#80 Old 6th Jan 2012 at 1:46 PM
I am a teacher and a relative with someone who has a severe peanut allergy. I have taught in many schools with kids with peanut allergies and they don't ban the nut because their allergies are not severe enough to cause a specific reaction. Once I describe this, I hope people have more sympathy for the extremely severe reactions.

My cousin's daughter has extremely severe reactions to peanuts. They first discovered it when she was 18 months old. They went to an indoor home and garden show. There was a peanut roaster in the main building. They could smell the peanuts but they couldn't even see the vendor as it was across the room. Their daughter's face immediately started swelling up with giant red welts. They had to go to the emergency room. Just the peanut particles in the air caused this reaction. She can't even touch peanuts. She can't eat food that was prepared with utensils that touched peanuts even if it was rinsed off -- it has to be completely wasshed. You can't touch her if you have been touching peanuts or she will have a reaction. It sounds ridiculous, but it's real. She's been hospitalized several times for things people didn't even think about twice.

If there was no peanut ban, she would be homeschooled. Most kids with allergies this bad ARE homeschooled because most schools won't put a peanut ban in place, despite what you hear in the media. I think the only reason her school has a ban is because her mother teaches there. Very few children have peanut allergies so severe that the particles in the air can be lethal, but if it is, their life can be extremely limiting. I have no idea how she'll be able to survive as an adult, to be honest. Going to the grocery store could be fatal (she still goes to the store.. but yikes..) Schools are easy to control what goes in and out -- so she has one haven where she can be mostly safe from peanuts.

I don't know of any other food allergies that can cause reactions just by the particulates in the air. I have checked. I don't think there are any. Nobody with milk allergies or celiac disease can go into shock or break out in massive hives just from being near someone who has recently had mac and cheese. It's crazy and scary. Luckily, it affects almost no one. I think if you counted the actual number of schools with peanut bans and compared them to the actual number of schools out there, you'd be pleased to know that it's not happening as often as you think.
Instructor
#81 Old 6th Jan 2012 at 5:30 PM Last edited by SimsLover50 : 6th Jan 2012 at 8:38 PM.
Airborne peanut issues are a problem for some allergic people. It is very sad. I think that level of hypersensativity would be very difficult to protect against, because even if you ban the school there would be other uncontrolled environements to deal with such as the mall, the grocery store etc.

At this point, I think focus should be on providing the child with his own form of protection. Such as as some sort of protective clothing. While that may sound severe, it would be impossible to guard against. A protective suit, might allow for some reasonable amount of protection in uncontrolled environements while pursuing other forms of allergic desensitization.
Theorist
#82 Old 6th Jan 2012 at 10:12 PM
If it were simply a matter of having the kid wear this special mythical suit you're imaging, that removes airborne allergens, I think they'd have done it. I think you'd see a lot of people wearing your special suit, to protect them from the harmful effects of allergens.

But while we're at it, why don't we just say we'll wait for someone to invent a magic ring, and until them wait until the school system kills a child before we take preventative measures. After all, magic rings are much more stylish than magic clothes - and you have to do less laundry.
Instructor
#83 Old 6th Jan 2012 at 10:24 PM Last edited by SimsLover50 : 7th Jan 2012 at 12:07 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
If it were simply a matter of having the kid wear this special mythical suit you're imaging, that removes airborne allergens, I think they'd have done it. I think you'd see a lot of people wearing your special suit, to protect them from the harmful effects of allergens.

But while we're at it, why don't we just say we'll wait for someone to invent a magic ring, and until them wait until the school system kills a child before we take preventative measures. After all, magic rings are much more stylish than magic clothes - and you have to do less laundry.


I really don't think this level of sarcasm is really called for. protective suits are in use in plants where allergens are present and high risk visitors might be be exposed such as dry roasting plants. It really isn't that 'mythical,' or that wild an idea to pursue development of some sort of protective wear for those whom inhaling dust is deadly. I acknowledge it hasn't been done yet at least that I can tell.... but that doesn't mean it could not be. Obviously making the environement peanut free is the obvious choice, but if you are allergic to dust of a peanut that would be extremely tough to safeguard.
Theorist
#84 Old 6th Jan 2012 at 10:59 PM
What they do in other places is of absolutely no relevance to the school district's requirements for providing a safe environment.The death of the child in question any place not on school grounds, under school supervision, isn't something the government is required to consider except in the general sense of "public welfare." Peanut allergies are severe, but they're not widespread enough to warrant a universal ban - we're talking about a concern of liability and that means it doesn't exist without responsibility or some sort of action that activates it. The rest of the time they're out and about, the parents can kill their kids with letting them be around peanuts and everyone can get upset with them.
Instructor
#85 Old 6th Jan 2012 at 11:22 PM Last edited by SimsLover50 : 7th Jan 2012 at 12:02 AM.
I agree, but how do you protect against peanut dust? It is easy enough to scrub a person's face and hands and make sure they don't eat peanuts before school, but you cannot protect against peanut dust... The segment of the populace which is allergic to peanut dust is very small but very hard to safeguard.

<edit> I don't think it is unreasonable to ban nuts at schools really, or have a peanut free area, cafeteria, or policies about handwashing etc. This is done in other countries such as canada.
Theorist
#86 Old 7th Jan 2012 at 2:15 AM
Quote: Originally posted by SimsLover50
I agree, but how do you protect against peanut dust? It is easy enough to scrub a person's face and hands and make sure they don't eat peanuts before school, but you cannot protect against peanut dust...

The exact way we're all talking about - you make the school a peanut free area and hope no one breaks the rules. But since you've banned it, at least when and if someone breaks the ban the school and administrators aren't liable. The manslaughter charges and bad press? They head toward the idiot parent who couldn't send their kid to school with a jam sandwich, or a banana.

No one's discussing a ban on peanuts altogether. This has specifically been talking about schools, and schools, as government property, have general patterns they tend to follow when trying to limit exposure to lawsuits and everything that goes with it. Hurting kids when you could have avoided it, is a legal and publicity nightmare. It's right up there with losing pretty white girls overseas and "death panels."
Scholar
#87 Old 7th Jan 2012 at 6:06 AM
Question: If you have kids that are allergic to peanuts that bad what is the possibility of them getting a job later on in life? I mean, try to start a peanut free work place and I bet you'd have a lawsuit right there.

Disclaimer: I am just being a goof ball, please ignore me if offended.
Mad Poster
#88 Old 7th Jan 2012 at 7:27 AM Last edited by VerDeTerre : 7th Jan 2012 at 8:03 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
No one's discussing a ban on peanuts altogether. This has specifically been talking about schools, and schools, as government property, have general patterns they tend to follow when trying to limit exposure to lawsuits and everything that goes with it. Hurting kids when you could have avoided it, is a legal and publicity nightmare. It's right up there with losing pretty white girls overseas and "death panels."


I find myself feeling irritated each time liability as a reason to do something is brought up. Although it's important to protect oneself or an institution from liability, from a moral standpoint, as a motivator, it stands on a lower ground. I would hope that schools and individuals are motivated by a desire to protect and care for people. As part of a school, I have seen and experienced both types of motivators, but liability is a legal aspect that is satisfied first only so that one may delve deeper and more thoroughly into the issues that create the liability in the first place.

The precautions a school may put in place to protect someone could still fail. You would hope that they wouldn't, but they could. At the very least, taking them raises the awareness level of the students and staff and that has effects that carry beyond time spent in school. It's another piece of education.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Theorist
#89 Old 7th Jan 2012 at 8:54 AM
Quote: Originally posted by DrowningFishy
Question: If you have kids that are allergic to peanuts that bad what is the possibility of them getting a job later on in life? I mean, try to start a peanut free work place and I bet you'd have a lawsuit right there.

What they do later on life is irrelevant to their situation and the school's responsibilities toward them while they are children. A school isn't responsible for children who graduate and become serial killers, but they're responsible taking reasonable precautions for keeping child serial killers going to the school from committing crimes - like by not allowing children to bring weapons on campus.

Quote: Originally posted by VerDeTerre
I find myself feeling irritated each time liability as a reason to do something is brought up. Although it's important to protect oneself or an institution from liability, from a moral standpoint, as a motivator, it stands on a lower ground.

Regardless of how it's perceived otherwise, liability wouldn't be an issue without an ethical standpoint. If the law didn't have clear paths of responsibility and declarations of competence built into it, there wouldn't be this liability issue; and the law has these things built into it not because of some arcane raffle, but because it's attempting to enforce ethical standards on people who mostly don't have very good ethics and moral character.

It's fairly clear that some people here would listen to a peanut ban at their child's school and perhaps send the potentially lethal agent onto campus regardless as some deadly mechanism of "learning." I don't think they lack moral character or ethics, and would send a child onto school grounds with a loaded gun for instance, but they're simply lacking the context the law establishes. Without the law enforcing ethical behavior then, you'd end up with more dead children because some people were too lazy to care about not killing other people's children.

Don't think of the law and liability as something that attempts to establish morals and ethics. It's an agent for enforcement. It establishes boundaries by outlining punishments. While it would be great if everyone were simply good people all of the time, everyone knows this mostly isn't the case and even people who are good most of the time sometimes cut corners dangerously in ways that aren't good for society or other members of society.
Mad Poster
#90 Old 7th Jan 2012 at 9:28 AM Last edited by VerDeTerre : 7th Jan 2012 at 10:08 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
Don't think of the law and liability as something that attempts to establish morals and ethics. It's an agent for enforcement. It establishes boundaries by outlining punishments.
This is the very reason I am irritated each time it is brought up. Don't get me wrong. What you said about people arguing about bringing in guns and having laws to protect against that makes sense. I'm grateful to the better minds that have come up with many of our laws.

But the discussion doesn't end with an explanation of liability. In this thread we are discussing and debating many aspects of a peanut ban, including what is morally right as well as what's reasonable.

Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
A school isn't responsible for children who graduate and become serial killers, but they're responsible taking reasonable precautions for keeping child serial killers going to the school from committing crimes - like by not allowing children to bring weapons on campus.
This may be true, but again this doesn't end the discussion. If children were to become serial killers, it would devastate the school community almost as much as it would the parents of those children. It also doesn't end the discussion because, while the school may not be liable, as educators, they are very much interested in the rest of a student's life. The goals and hopes of education are not realized at graduation - they continue. For that reason, considering what happens after school is relevant. For purposes of this discussion, looking at what happens in the rest of the world can give a reference point to what happens in a school, even though different rules apply.

I thought DF's question was good. I wonder the same sort of thing: How do these individuals cope once outside of the safer environment of the school? Are peanut allergies something new?

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Instructor
#91 Old 8th Jan 2012 at 4:51 AM
After reading this thread I understand the ban better but I still see the other side as well my brother can't take Peanut butter to school for lunch even though no one in his school has serious allergies to them. there have been times when my family has been so broke we couldn't afford anything but peanut butter and powdered milk so since we can't give him peanut butter he goes to school with no lunch. Its fortunate we haven't been that bad off for a while but I know children who don't eat at school because of just that.

my point is if the allergy is serious enough I'm fine with ban but if its not deadly baning peanuts is going a bit far. I also feel a tad bitter that my brothers school would ban peanuts for children who don't have the truly bad reaction when they won't make the same effort to help with children who have far more serious issues. which make it hard for me to fully support the idea of a ban
Theorist
#92 Old 8th Jan 2012 at 6:28 AM
If I had to guess why some schools might possibly ban peanuts even without employees or students who have the extreme reactions due to their allergies, with admittedly little knowledge on the subject, I'd guess it might have to do with the costs of cleaning up possible peanut contamination for future students that might attend and run into something left behind in a locker or hallway surface.
Mad Poster
#93 Old 8th Jan 2012 at 6:48 AM
It sounds like your school isn't up on the facts, PhenethyaSim. A complete ban is not necessary and, as you pointed out, it is unfair to those who cannot afford many of the alternatives for lunch. I wonder if there's something you or your parents could do to talk to the community and then approach the school as a group with some facts about allergy containment and with some arguments about fairness to the rest of the students?

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Instructor
#94 Old 8th Jan 2012 at 4:07 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
If I had to guess why some schools might possibly ban peanuts even without employees or students who have the extreme reactions due to their allergies, with admittedly little knowledge on the subject, I'd guess it might have to do with the costs of cleaning up possible peanut contamination for future students that might attend and run into something left behind in a locker or hallway surface.


It might also be easier just to keep the ban in place, and the students and parents trained, than to have it change every semester which might confuse folks. Also, they may not know when someone with allergies might transfer in.
Mad Poster
#95 Old 8th Jan 2012 at 4:47 PM
First they ban peanuts in schools because it's an allergic person's right to go to school, then they ban peanuts in the grocery stores because it's an allergic person's right to go to the grocery store. There is something really wrong with this picture. Next thing you know, peanuts will be declared a lethal weapon, no one will be allowed to possess one for fear some person might develop a possibly fatal allergic reaction to it. The alternative option given by the government will be to use genetically modified (or completely synthetic) peanut butter substitutes that will screw people's immune system even further, but no worries, some companies will release some wonder drugs, protective clothing, filters, sanitizers, etc.
Mad Poster
#96 Old 8th Jan 2012 at 5:09 PM
Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
First they ban peanuts in schools because it's an allergic person's right to go to school, then they ban peanuts in the grocery stores because it's an allergic person's right to go to the grocery store.



I haven't seen this anywhere. I don't believe we are in danger.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Theorist
#97 Old 8th Jan 2012 at 7:13 PM
If a grocery store institutes a ban then it's a different animal than when the government does it. If a private company does this I don't see how it's anti freedom.
Mad Poster
#98 Old 9th Jan 2012 at 2:27 AM
Maybe the problem will solve itself if peanut butter becomes prohibitively expensive.
Peanut Butter Price Jumps
Instructor
#99 Old 20th Feb 2012 at 12:11 AM
Sorry to bring this back up, but I'm on the fence especially about peanut products. I think it's rather unfair to the majority of kids who aren't allergic. PB and J is a kid staple and the easiest to afford when you compare the costs of peanut butter and jelly vs meat and cheese.

Personally, I am allergic to fire ants. I lived in dry, ant infested California. The schools didn't go on a huge ant killing spree just because I would swell up from getting bit. In fact I recall quite a few ant hills on campus in elementary school. I merely avoided them. While I wasn't fatally allergic, I was about 4 or 5 when an older boy pushed me onto a giant ant hill in an alley behind the apartments I lived in. I was a swollen mess the next day and couldn't open my eyes for hours.

These days I think there are many options. If a kid is so allergic they'll run the risk of dying just from catching a whiff of a peanut, then they shouldn't be attending public school. They probably ought to be home schooled or doing some alternative schooling. The state I live in now currently offers online schooling for k-12.

Then again I do see the other side, but, that's still no excuse. I can understand a teacher asking parents not to send allergen items that are meant to be shared, but for items like lunches... Nah.

I don't get why so many Simmers hate Marsha Bruenig. She actually grows up to be quite pretty if you allow her to.
Mad Poster
#100 Old 20th Feb 2012 at 12:42 AM
Quote: Originally posted by punkrockgoth1988
Sorry to bring this back up, but I'm on the fence especially about peanut products. I think it's rather unfair to the majority of kids who aren't allergic. PB and J is a kid staple and the easiest to afford when you compare the costs of peanut butter and jelly vs meat and cheese.

Personally, I am allergic to fire ants. I lived in dry, ant infested California. The schools didn't go on a huge ant killing spree just because I would swell up from getting bit. In fact I recall quite a few ant hills on campus in elementary school. I merely avoided them. While I wasn't fatally allergic, I was about 4 or 5 when an older boy pushed me onto a giant ant hill in an alley behind the apartments I lived in. I was a swollen mess the next day and couldn't open my eyes for hours.

These days I think there are many options. If a kid is so allergic they'll run the risk of dying just from catching a whiff of a peanut, then they shouldn't be attending public school. They probably ought to be home schooled or doing some alternative schooling. The state I live in now currently offers online schooling for k-12.

Then again I do see the other side, but, that's still no excuse. I can understand a teacher asking parents not to send allergen items that are meant to be shared, but for items like lunches... Nah.


I think it's great for you to resurrect this discussion if you bring something new to the table. However, many of these items have already been discussed and clarified in the thread. A blanket ban is not necessary nor even what is recommended by medical experts. A peanut allergy is not on the same level of consideration as most other allergies in that contamination is easier due to the nature of peanut butter oils and because it's a life-threatening allergy. The issue about a whiff of peanut butter killing anyone is still up for discussion. The medical community doesn't acknowledge this yet, to my understanding. The question about individuals who are that fragile belonging at home is still being debated and could be looked at further. I think there's a moral question at the base of it regarding the rights and needs of the individual versus the community as a whole.

How awful that you were attacked that way! I once developed an allergy to an alloy that goes with metal products when someone attacked me with a chemical at school as a joke.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
 
Page 4 of 5
Back to top