Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in
Replies: 107 (Who?), Viewed: 19865 times.
Page 2 of 5
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
staff: retired moderator
#26 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 4:09 PM
That sounds like a crappy situation for everyone involved, AnnaIME. But disease transmission can be minimized by taking certain steps - teaching kids to cough into their elbow rather than their hand, encouraging proper hand-washing, disinfecting surfaces regularly, not sharing food/drink, and having the girl (and even perhaps her family members) wear masks to prevent inhaling the virus. In this case, the proposed solution seems pretty drastic (for the reasons you mention) but teaching kids (and teachers!) how to protect themselves and others from spreading illness is a good idea anyway. Even my 3 year old knows not to just cough out into the air, but to cough against his inner elbow; school-age children should be able to prevent spreading most things if it's made clear to them how to do so. And the girl's brother should certainly be the most careful about it, making sure not to get himself infected with anything by not touching his face without first washing his hands, not sharing food, etc.

Home schooling, while perhaps an appealing option, is not an option for all families or all children; parents may not be in a financial situation to stay home with a child, or may not have the knowledge in various subjects to teach their children properly. And in some places (like the US) access to schooling is a right for all children... And in others (like the Netherlands, apparently), home schooling is not an option.
Alchemist
#27 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 4:31 PM
you know, there is another reason to eat/serve PB&Js that i see nobody has mentioned... they're cheap and sustainable on a minuscule budget. peanut butter is cheap. jelly is cheap. bread is cheap.
as someone who grew up on very limited funds (my family couldnt spare $5 a day for me to buy one of those mini pizzas from round table for lunch), id just like to know that while its all good that folks want to take care of each other...who would be taking care of the replacement food?
i can tell you right now, if i hadnt been allowed to bring a PB&J to school as often as i had to, i wouldve gone hungry 9 times out of 10. "but SP, its just one meal." in my case, itd amount to two, since in the mornings i was too late to rise (always have had trouble getting to sleep, not staying there, so even being in bed by 7-8pm id be awake until around 11pm) to catch breakfast and didnt have an appetite that early in the day, anyway (still dont!). try skipping 2 meals for a day... then for two days.... then for three. then five. then youll know what im getting at.
"ah but SP, didnt your school have a free lunch program for the financially depleted?"
yes! yes, they did. and they still demanded a cut from the parents (whom mine could not afford, again) in order for us to be accepted into the program. so essentially, you were still paying for food, you just didnt have to prepare it yourself. so is it really any surprise that many years later, i still cant look a PB&J in its bread-y face and resist the urge to vomit?

i think itd just make more sense to let kids carry their own meds and serve a precautionary warning to the parents about the immediate health risks their child might be subject to at school and the possible legal implications of a child with a severe allergy being forcibly subjected to it (cough cough, kids can be turds, we all know this--but thats a warning better served to the parents, who should have the sense to tell little Timmy that if hes a jackass at school, there will be punishments) by another child. the risk of medicine abuse and the risk of a circumvent are about even, anyway. children might be underdeveloped, but theyre still little people and will do what they please when a watchful eye isnt upon them like most adults that i know of....

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
staff: retired moderator
#28 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 4:47 PM
I would agree with you on that, SuicidiaParadisia, -if- PB&J sandwiches were the only cheap food available out there (I did actually mention up-thread that it's a cheap food).

However, there are many, many other options (including ones considerably more nutritious the cheapest versions of peanut butter, jelly, and bread) that low-income parents can choose to send with their children. It may be a popular option with kids, but there's lots of other things kids like as long as they're prepared in a tasty way, and even picky kids will usually eat something other than PB&J if they're actually hungry. And if they're not hungry enough to eat it, well, there's always PB&J when they get home.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
Theorist
#29 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 5:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HystericalParoxysm
Home schooling, while perhaps an appealing option, is not an option for all families or all children; parents may not be in a financial situation to stay home with a child, or may not have the knowledge in various subjects to teach their children properly. And in some places (like the US) access to schooling is a right for all children... And in others (like the Netherlands, apparently), home schooling is not an option.


It seems like we're in a transition phase as far as these allergy issues are concerned. The sufferers are trying to reshape and control the public space and, if it involves not bringing peanut butter or other nut products to school or not wearing perfume in offices, it seems doable. But, to get down on the microbial level seems kind of crazy to me. Schools are hotbeds of illness. It would seem to be easiest to just keep those kids at home - maybe the state or district could pay the parent a stipend and provide a tutor who comes in wearing a hazmat suit.

Without music, life would be a mistake. - F. Nietzsche
Top Secret Researcher
#30 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 5:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crocobaura
If they can't understand the seriousness of the situation and why they can't have peanut products at school, then how are you going to prevent them from smuggling a Sneakers bar, for example, into the classroom?

You can't and you won't. What you will do is limit the legal liability of the school to "We told everyone the rules, and we're not responsible when people choose to break those rules and killed your child." That's terribly crass, but it's reality. Limiting legal liability is just as important as actually protecting a child in some respects, since an intense lawsuit can limit a school district's ability to service education to students in the future as valuable resources are tied up in "School District v. Dead Kid's Parents."

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocobaura
Smoking and firearms are a danger to everyone, you can't compare peanut butter to them.

I can and I did. Seriously, it's in print and everything.

What difference to someone's parents does it make whether or not their kid dies by another student shooting them with a gun or slipping them a deadly peanut. A dead child is a dead child. Just because something is specifically fatal to one child more than another doesn't change the potentiality of dead kids. Or hospitalized children. It doesn't make any difference at all.

If the allergies in question aren't potentially fatal then I understand being a bit flippant about the dangers in question. I've been sidelined and ill from my allergies to pollen and cats, for instance, in the past. But we're not talking about those sorts of allergies, they're specific and preventable fatally dangerous substances that people could knowingly introduce into a system of responsibility that could exponentially increase the potential chance and scale of risks involved for the caretakers. Whatever people could do in a perfect world of accommodating the other children, the simplest and most effective way of protecting the vulnerable charge is probably to remove the dangerous substance entirely.

Also, it's not only children who can have peanut allergies. What about employees with deadly peanut allergies? What happens when you've got a vulnerable educator surrounded by irresponsible children armed with "firearms shaped like a common foodstuff?" As an employer do you simply fire people for having an allergy, or do you attempt to accommodate them and provide a safe working environment to the best of your ability? What are the legal and ethical issues of not doing so?
Alchemist
#31 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 5:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HystericalParoxysm
I would agree with you on that, SuicidiaParadisia, -if- PB&J sandwiches were the only cheap food available out there (I did actually mention up-thread that it's a cheap food).

However, there are many, many other options (including ones considerably more nutritious the cheapest versions of peanut butter, jelly, and bread) that low-income parents can choose to send with their children. It may be a popular option with kids, but there's lots of other things kids like as long as they're prepared in a tasty way, and even picky kids will usually eat something other than PB&J if they're actually hungry. And if they're not hungry enough to eat it, well, there's always PB&J when they get home.


liiike?
twinkies? el oh el.
(but seriously, id like to hear about all these foods im supposedly missing that are:
A. able to be taken to school rather than prepared there [portable, doesnt need to be heated up]
B. LESS expensive than PB&J [like i said...super tight budget. couldnt afford $5 daily to feed me.] and yet also...
C. more nutritious than PB&J, despite that most cheap food is derived of chemicals that makes them cheaper to produce than real, nutritious food.)

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
staff: retired moderator
#32 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 5:40 PM
Really? Google "cheap nutritious meals" and you'll find loads of them. A small tupperware-like container can be reused, and most things are just fine cold as long as they're prepared with a few spices, a bit of salt, etc... If they've got ingredients that might make them risky if they were to warm up (meats, dairy, etc.) then you can put a reusable freeze pack in a lunchbox.

Start here: http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/f...about-2-dollars ... obviously you wouldn't eat -just- brown rice, but brown rice with lentils, a bit of curry powder, and some veggies can be eaten chilled, for example, and is quite good for you. Or refried beans can be mixed with a bit of shredded cheese and chopped veggies and put into tortillas, the edges folded up, and grilled in a pan to make a little pocket - very kid-friendly and is just as yummy cold as hot (I prefer 'em cold, actually). You can make your own pizza at home -very- inexpensively and pop slices in a sandwich bag or container to eat cold at school. And even picky kids will eat 'em if they're done tastily and presented nicely - look up "bento" for some great techniques to take things as simple as rice and carrot sticks and make them so kids will be excited to open their (entirely reusable) lunchbox.

LOTS of options out there, made of much better ingredients than the bleached flour and added sugars you'll find in a cheap PB&J.
Mad Poster
#33 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 6:06 PM Last edited by KKiryu007Joker : 29th Dec 2011 at 6:19 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HystericalParoxysm
LOTS of options out there, made of much better ingredients than the bleached flour and added sugars you'll find in a cheap PB&J.


Oh cool you like bento! Bento is so cute! Maybe they should not allow peanut butter and jam then, stressing the health concerns. Is PB&J even that healthy anyway? High ch. and suger!? Pizza is healthier easily! I think HP is right in saying you can find cheap healthy foods other than PB&J. Schools need to take the time out to teach people about food and health concerns. Twinkies are gross and help make people overweight! Homeschooling may not be an option for many people, so schools need to deal with these things, because that's their job. They definitely need a training procedure for how to deal with problems with allergies as well. You either do something all the way or it falls into pieces with half-measures, so I believe that if it's a big problem it should be dealt with in a big way.

I'm a graduate of the Harvard business school. I travel quite extensively. I lived through the Black Plague and had a pretty good time during that. I've seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT.
Mad Poster
#34 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 6:19 PM
KJ - Peanut butter & Jelly can be very healthy if done right (put on whole grain bread or crackers, use a natural p.b. and a fruit sweetened jelly). Pizza isn't necessarily healthier - it could be on white dough with fatty cheese and a minimal amount of tomato paste. I've even tasted pizza sauces that have sugar in them. And school pizza is often horrific.

Bento is beautiful but fairly fussy. I get the whole affordability thing because that was the boat I was in when my son was in grade school. He would never touch cold pizza and I couldn't afford to buy school lunches more than a couple times a month. Honestly, if peanut butter had been banned entirely when he was there, I don't know what I would have done. He was so limited in what he would eat. It was a huge problem. I am so glad that the solution the school came up with was one we could live with.

I'm glad the schools can take action when it comes to allergies and I'm glad that as a society we can be more aware of what might cause problems for allergic individuals. All sorts of questions about allergies in general are coming up for me. Has it always been this bad? Are people suffering from more allergies now or from more extreme allergic reactions now? Is there hope for a medical breakthrough to address the reactions to allergens? What else do we (all of us) need to do to reduce allergies in our lives?

" Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." -Dalai Lama
Mad Poster
#35 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 6:31 PM
I'm not trying to argue (but what is a debate) but kids, if they are picky, can have their habits stopped. You have to set goals, give them choices, and never give in to their stubbornness. It can be pretty difficult. And if you can prepare pizza different ways, why can't you prepare it a healthy way? HP mentioned making your own pizza, not making a kid eat the school pizza. PB&J is the problem, whether or not it is prepared differently, whereas pizza isn't. What is your idea of fussy? Fussy? Food is both an artistic endeavor and a basic physiological need. I've been wondering about allergen breakthroughs though. Does anyone know of anything interesting?

I'm a graduate of the Harvard business school. I travel quite extensively. I lived through the Black Plague and had a pretty good time during that. I've seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT.
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
staff: retired moderator
#36 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 6:43 PM
I did indeed mean home-made pizza done yourself with a whole-wheat crust, not-full-o-crap sauce, veggies, etc. - a whole 'nother beast from school pizza or delivery pizza. SuicidiaParadisia was talking about very cheap PB&J, which usually means something like Skippy or Jif (loaded with extra sugar, salt, and oils), white bread (bleached flour, often a lot of additives and even corn syrup) and jelly (cheaper ones are often just some fruit juice and sugar). Nice natural peanut butter can be pretty pricey, as can the jellies with nothing but good stuff in 'em; wheat bread can be inexpensive but you still need to check ingredients as they often add a lot of stuff to the cheaper varieties.

Bento doesn't -have- to be super fussy. Even just putting the stuff in cupcake papers (you can get reusable silicone ones too) or using cookie cutters to cut cheese slices into shapes can make a big difference in how something is received by a fussy kid... Mine is VERY picky but just putting together things in a way that makes it fun to eat (which usually takes no more than a couple minutes and doesn't increase the cost of the meal at all) means he'll eat most of what I put in front of him. And if he doesn't, well, he won't starve missing a meal, and if he's -really- hungry, he'll eat it anyway.

Allergies -do- seem to be greatly on the rise nowadays. As I've said, my kid is peanut-allergic (though not seriously). My grandma's generation in my family had no allergies whatsoever, nor any asthma/eczema (conditions both linked to allergies). My out of my mother's generation, both my uncle and aunt had asthma, but no allergies across that generation. In my generation, asthma was more common than not, me and my cousin both have had eczema, and several of us have environmental allergies (pollen, cats, etc. - nothing serious, but uncomfortable). And out of the little kids, most of them have environmental allergies, eczema, or asthma - and my son is the first out of -any- of us (on both sides of the family, mind) to have a food allergy.

Now, obviously, that's anecdotal, but if it was purely genetic it would be odd to see it increasing so much over the generations of a single family when taking into account both fathers and mothers, and for a dramatic-though-not-life-threatening peanut allergy to occur seemingly randomly. No idea -what- is causing it, but it's certainly a concern... I've heard the theory that it's due to over-sanitation; kids who are exposed to more things to trigger their immune response to actual causes for concern are less likely to get allergies to otherwise non-harmful things like peanuts and wheat... But, well, my generation, all the little kids, and my kid have all eaten their share of dirt and bugs and we're still getting more allergies. So... I dunno.

I'm really hoping that I can get my son in a desensitization program once he's old enough, but they can be hard to find (it's a fairly new thing so not a lot of allergists do it yet), and I'm not sure if it's covered by insurance. Certainly, for a lot of folks in the US where health insurance is not universal, it wouldn't be something they could do.
Alchemist
#37 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 7:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HystericalParoxysm
Really? Google "cheap nutritious meals" and you'll find loads of them. A small tupperware-like container can be reused, and most things are just fine cold as long as they're prepared with a few spices, a bit of salt, etc... If they've got ingredients that might make them risky if they were to warm up (meats, dairy, etc.) then you can put a reusable freeze pack in a lunchbox.

Start here: http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/f...about-2-dollars ... obviously you wouldn't eat -just- brown rice, but brown rice with lentils, a bit of curry powder, and some veggies can be eaten chilled, for example, and is quite good for you. Or refried beans can be mixed with a bit of shredded cheese and chopped veggies and put into tortillas, the edges folded up, and grilled in a pan to make a little pocket - very kid-friendly and is just as yummy cold as hot (I prefer 'em cold, actually). You can make your own pizza at home -very- inexpensively and pop slices in a sandwich bag or container to eat cold at school. And even picky kids will eat 'em if they're done tastily and presented nicely - look up "bento" for some great techniques to take things as simple as rice and carrot sticks and make them so kids will be excited to open their (entirely reusable) lunchbox.

LOTS of options out there, made of much better ingredients than the bleached flour and added sugars you'll find in a cheap PB&J.


my only qualm would be prep time, then. my parents both worked their asses off to pay the bills, they couldnt also be standing around cooking for us kids as well. in fact, they often used to argue about who had to go pick us up from school if we had to come home early for some reason (or often times just walked, even if we were sick or injured). there were times when i had to stay at school in the office all day because neither of them could spare the time away from work to help me out, but the school didnt like the idea of sending me off alone or putting me back in class.
PB&Js take a hell of a lot less time to prepare than a bento box does, and most of the time i could make the PB&J for myself at home, too.

@KJ: as a picky eater, i can tell you that none of that will work if the child is determined enough. my parents used to make me sit at the table until i finished everything on my plate, but if there was something on it that i didnt like, i would end up sleeping at the table that night. you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make it drink (unless you advocate animal abuse, but i imagine thats different than trying to revise stubborn inclinations).

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Mad Poster
#38 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 7:20 PM
Ultimately, if a child's life is at stake, then an accommodation to limit or eliminate allergens as much as possible is necessary. I am just trying to point out that it isn't without hardship. A "fussy eater" goes beyond a child who is just throwing a tantrum. You can't imagine it unless you've experienced it.

HP - those are great suggestions. I still don't know if they would have worked when my son was little, but I would have given them a try. Both you and KJ are making good points about the quality of a product, not the product itself.

Your evidence is anecdotal, but I've been wondering the same thing, about allergies being on the rise and what causes it. I've heard the proposed theory of food allergies concerning eating the same foods year round. But I wonder if it's a bigger problem than that. I wonder about mass produced foods and too much of the same type of food being used in processed foods, perhaps leading to overexposure of the same types of things. I wonder about agricultural processes and the effects of pollution. I am wondering about climate, molds, disease, yeasts, and viruses. So much has changed in our world. I can't help wondering if the root causes are many and interconnected as opposed to a single thing that can be identified.

" Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." -Dalai Lama
Mad Poster
#39 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 7:38 PM Last edited by KKiryu007Joker : 29th Dec 2011 at 7:58 PM.
Look, Suicidia and VerDeTerre, I agree, banning the stuff is tough. I think that the best solution would be a medical one, like how are allergies caused exactly and how to stop them. Whatever would be done, would have to be done all the way though. I am not trying to argue with any of you guys.

I'm a graduate of the Harvard business school. I travel quite extensively. I lived through the Black Plague and had a pretty good time during that. I've seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT.
Top Secret Researcher
#40 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 8:34 PM
In the meantime, waiting for the "cure" for peanut allergies though, you're left with doing whatever you can to keep live kids from the alternative situation.
Mad Poster
#41 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 8:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermook
In the meantime, waiting for the "cure" for peanut allergies though, you're left with doing whatever you can to keep live kids from the alternative situation.


Woooooooooo the obvious. So are you gonna say what you think? Besides I already suggested like everybody else that the schools need prevention and knowledge programs. I thought I already said that?

I'm a graduate of the Harvard business school. I travel quite extensively. I lived through the Black Plague and had a pretty good time during that. I've seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT.
Lab Assistant
#42 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 9:05 PM
I don't agree with the idea of banning a certain type of food completely in a school, but then I guess I was spoiled. As a kid there were a lot of types of food I couldn't eat because it would make me sick, but rather than bringing it up with the school my parents would pick me up for lunch and let me eat in the car. Either that or I'd skip lunch. That's an idea for parents, actually be there to feed their kids for lunch. And yes, I'm being sarcastic.

Being a person who had to be careful of what she ate, I still don't agree with the idea of forcing others to have the same diet. Especially when I never knew what was going to make me sick. The only guarantee was dairy, me being lactose intolerant as well. So, should we have forced my school to adjust to my requirements? I don't think so. It's not fair for everyone else just because a few have a health condition that needs to be controlled. I know a lot of allergies can be fatal and depend on certain conditions, but it's impossible to keep everything as clean as required. If a child has an allergy that serious, they should either be in a specific school where they have the right conditions, or taught at home until the child knows what to do to keep it under control. Some allergies do weaken with age.

The point is the child is going to have to learn to adjust because it's something they're going to have to live with. Making everyone else adjust to their problem is only telling them that everyone will adjust for them. I knew a girl with the same problem as me, only worse. Her parents never forced her schools to adjust to her needs, instead she learned what she needed and adjusted. It's something that can be done, and should be done.
Mad Poster
#43 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 9:22 PM Last edited by VerDeTerre : 29th Dec 2011 at 9:34 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliDawn
The point is the child is going to have to learn to adjust because it's something they're going to have to live with.


Eli, you must have missed what was posted already. A mild allergy such as you describe is not life-threatening. A severe reaction (anaphylactic) could be set off by the scent of a peanut butter sandwich being consumed by someone at the same lunch table. Anaphylactic reactions can result in death.

*Correction* The jury is out over the scent of peanut butter causing a severe allergic reaction. Most say that there is a lack of protein in the scent, so unless there is physical contact via touch or taste, there should not be a reaction. However, some still report a reaction. The best practice seems to be to avoid ingesting anything with peanuts and, in the case of a school, to have a peanut-free zone in the cafe. This does not mean a school-wide ban.

" Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." -Dalai Lama
Field Researcher
#44 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 9:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HystericalParoxysm
But disease transmission can be minimized by taking certain steps - teaching kids to cough into their elbow rather than their hand, encouraging proper hand-washing, disinfecting surfaces regularly, not sharing food/drink


The school does all this and more, not because of this girl but because of common sense. There is hand desinfectant in every classroom, and the children are encouraged to use it regularly. There is also the general 48 hour quaratine when a child has been ill.

Allergies are very much more common in Sweden today than they were just 50 years ago. The popular theory here is that we live too "cleanly". We don't get sick "enough". We eat food so highly processed that bacteria, beneficial and other, simply isn't there. Comparisons have been made between Swedish children and children in the Baltic states (who apparently eat more whole food and have hardly any allergies), and the Baltic children had a richer variety of digestive bacteria. We don't give our immune systems enough to do, so it gets confused and starts attacking harmless things like pollen or our own cells.
Top Secret Researcher
#45 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KKiryu007Joker
Woooooooooo the obvious. So are you gonna say what you think? Besides I already suggested like everybody else that the schools need prevention and knowledge programs. I thought I already said that?

If you'd bothered to read the entire thread you'd find I've commented at length on my own views. Do you have a problem reading, or is it a difficulty with social conventions? When you comment, do you expect people to not reply?

Some points need restating. Dead children should not become a distraction from the incontinence of parents wanting to feed their children banned sandwiches. They're the whole point of the thing. It's significant. It cannot be restated enough.
Mad Poster
#46 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermook
If you'd bothered to read the entire thread you'd find I've commented at length on my own views. Do you have a problem reading, or is it a difficulty with social conventions? When you comment, do you expect people to not reply?

Some points need restating. Dead children should not become a distraction from the incontinence of parents wanting to feed their children banned sandwiches. They're the whole point of the thing. It's significant. It cannot be restated enough.


Hey buddy, stop trying to get me to argue, by asking me what I asked you.

I'm a graduate of the Harvard business school. I travel quite extensively. I lived through the Black Plague and had a pretty good time during that. I've seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT.
Mad Poster
#47 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 10:31 PM Last edited by crocobaura : 29th Dec 2011 at 10:47 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermook
Also, it's not only children who can have peanut allergies. What about employees with deadly peanut allergies? What happens when you've got a vulnerable educator surrounded by irresponsible children armed with "firearms shaped like a common foodstuff?" As an employer do you simply fire people for having an allergy, or do you attempt to accommodate them and provide a safe working environment to the best of your ability? What are the legal and ethical issues of not doing so?


Sorry, but by that reasoning you need to make sure that the food that is prepared in a restaurant for your allergic person also does not come in contact with peanuts. Do you ban peanuts in restaurants or do you ask the cook to take necessary precautions? How about peanuts on the airplane, when the lovely hostess gives everyone a bag of peanuts and a can of whatever? Do you inform the airline in advance about your condition or do you take personal precautions when you get there? Trying to accomodate to someone's needs is OK, but it's not Ok when that means infringing on other people's rights. When you ban peanuts in the whole school just because one person is sick, you're infringing on other's right to have peanuts, people who due to their particular circumstances will never even come in contact with the sick person. Trying to provide a peanut free environment more than you'd normally expect in any other public places is overdoing it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by EliDawn
The point is the child is going to have to learn to adjust because it's something they're going to have to live with. Making everyone else adjust to their problem is only telling them that everyone will adjust for them. I knew a girl with the same problem as me, only worse. Her parents never forced her schools to adjust to her needs, instead she learned what she needed and adjusted. It's something that can be done, and should be done.


Exactly. I knew a kid who had insulin dependent diabetes, which meant he had to take insulin shots a few times a day, with varying dose based on his food intake and other factors. Too much insulin and he could overdose, too little and he could go into a coma and develop other diabetes related complications. This on top of having to watch carefully whatever he ate. The teachers only had numbers of whom to call in case of an emergency.

View my other downloads on MTS

www.mintrubbing.org
Mad Poster
DELETED POST
29th Dec 2011 at 10:46 PM
This message has been deleted by crocobaura.
Top Secret Researcher
#48 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crocobaura
Sorry, but by that reasoning you need to make sure that the food that is prepared in a restaurant for your allergic person also does not come in contact with peanuts.

No, by that reasoning when you have peanuts on the menu or in the preparation of your meals in your restaurant you need to have it mentioned on your menu or on a sign in the window. Most restaurants I've seen do exactly that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocobaura
How about peanuts on the airplane, when the lovely hostess gives everyone a bag of peanuts and a can of whatever?

On their way out. Several airlines have voluntary bans, and the only reason there isn't an outright ban already is because of a law requiring a formal study before such bans are put in place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocobaura
Trying to accomodate to someone's needs is OK, but it's not Ok when that means infringing on other people's rights.

You do not have the right to possess dangerous food products in regulated environments outside of your personal authority. No one is banning peanuts in your house, they're banning them in places where they have specific legal authorities and responsibilities. There is no "rights" issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocobaura
Trying to provide a peanut free environment more than you'd normally expect in any other public places is overdoing it.

Schools are not universal access public spaces. They are government property. Planes are not public spaces. They are owned by airlines. There are specific rights of access guaranteed by US laws (not for race, gender, sexual orientation, etc) but peanuts are not protected. Peanuts have even less of a contentious allowance of protection than firearms, which do have specific protections in legislation.

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.

No one can take your peanuts away from you (right now, but the government could if they wanted to, just like they can take your machineguns, DDT, and first sixteen feet of your front lawn away from you) but nearly everywhere you go outside of your home you're going to run into people who can choose to regulate and restrict your access to their property on the grounds of you possessing peanuts.
Mad Poster
#49 Old 29th Dec 2011 at 11:30 PM
I believe that we created the allergy problem by doing our damndest to detoxify everything in an effort NOT to get sick, especially by sheltering infants from anything that might make them sick. Ironically, this has made us (at least in the developed world) generally more sickly as a population, at least when it comes to weird things like bizarre allergies. Plus, we've gone and created "super bugs" via the overuse and improper use of antibiotics. Yay.

The immune system is reactive, not proactive. It learns how to work by having to work, by being exposed to things and by experiencing generally minor illnesses and thus learning how to defend against that illness and, significantly, rarer but more severe illnesses like it. Infants and children are, in short, SUPPOSED to get sick, and not allowing them to do so doesn't do them any favors. Yes, being sick isn't fun, not for the kid or the parents, but by NOT getting sick as we're "supposed" to, we've only created weakened and sometimes completely haywire immune systems that don't know what the hell they're supposed to do (or not do), so they go stark raving loony over stupid things like peanuts or shellfish. Or they go and attack the body they're supposed to be protecting, as with autoimmune disorders. Yay.

That said, the problem exists now where it didn't exist outside of rare genetic disorders just a generation or two ago. It is simply what we've gone and created. That said, if I had a child that was so deathly allergic to something that a second of exposure could kill them in a second... Well, actually, I don't think that that severe of a condition really exists. As I understand it, it takes at least a minute for the airway to become completely obstructed during anaphylaxis, and even after that happens it takes...what?...4 minutes for the brain to start to die from lack of oxygen? (Yes, I'm being facetious; I'm sorry, but I get tired of people getting overly dramatic about their allergies. I also get tired of the entitlement complex that having a "deathly allergic" child seems to give parents, making them believe that the world must accommodate them rather than accepting the fact that, in reality, they and their child will have to learn -- and change -- to accommodate the world. Yes, it sucks, but that's the real world, kids.)

But anyway, if I had a genuinely deathly allergic child...I'd probably not send that kid to school because I likely wouldn't trust that the situation could be properly addressed in any way that wasn't hugely inconvenient for everyone else (thus practically ensuring that the ban would be broken) and/or still dangerous for my child. I didn't send my daughter to school for just that reason, only in her case the issue wasn't life-threatening allergies but that she was born very prematurely and I didn't trust that her various medical issues that were especially troublesome when she was an under-10 could be properly addressed, especially given the fact that she wouldn't be allowed to keep her meds with her and to self-medicate as necessary, which she was perfectly capable of doing from even a very young age, simply out of sheer necessity. Anyway, even if peanuts (or whatever) were banned, all "fairness" arguments on either side aside, the only thing that a ban would do would be to release the school district from legal responsibility if my kid were to die in the district's care, so I wouldn't be able to sue them. Nothing more. Yay.

Really, the only way to ensure said deathly allergic kid's safety (as much as it can be ensured, that is) is to lock them away from anything that might make their immune system explode. Anyone remember the "Boy in the Bubble?" (OK, that wasn't allergies, but rather a genetic lack of an immune system, but still...) Really, banning things in this case, even if it were done, is just legality; it shouldn't make any parent of a deathly-allergic child feel at all safe. The best thing a parent can do is completely educate themselves and the child as early as possible. That's what I did with my kid, although as I said her issues weren't allergy issues. Such parents would also do well to realize that the world cannot be made to accommodate a single person, however "unfair" or possibly tragic that may be. It may sound cold...but it's the cold, hard truth.

So I'm taking another stab at documenting a neighborhood. This one stars Benjamin Long. Pathetic attempts at humor can be found here.
I caved and made myself a Simblr. Woe is me. But hey! There's already stuff there that isn't here at MTS. :)
Mad Poster
#50 Old 30th Dec 2011 at 12:29 AM
It's really not such a big woop to accommodate this allergy. It does not require a school wide ban. Here's 's a link to a great little article about peanut allergies and kids and below is an excerpt concerning what schools can do:


"....Depending on the age of the student, strategies to avoid peanut exposure may include:

• no peanut products in the classroom (not only in terms of eating, but also in terms of classroom
science and art projects)
• peanut-free zones in the cafeteria
• no food sharing
• washing hands before and after eating"

None of this is terribly difficult to do, so why not? It's a small work-around that allows a person to participate safely in the community.

" Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." -Dalai Lama
Page 2 of 5
Back to top

Section jump