This is nuts.

[stevew]

Parents want child with peanut allergy removed from school




Parents in Edgewater, Fl., protest a public school's extraordinary efforts to create a peanut-free environment.
A 6-year-old girl at a school in Florida has a peanut allergy so severe that she could have a reaction if she were to breath traces of nut dust in the air. Her elementary school in Edgewater, Fl., has taken extraordinary measures to accommodate her.

All students are now required to wash their hands and rinse out their mouths before stepping inside the classroom. Desks must be regularly wiped down with Clorox wipes. School administrators have banned all peanut products and snacks are no longer allowed in the class. Earlier this month, a peanut-sniffing dog walked through the school to make sure everyone is following the rules.

The school is legally obligated to take these safety precautions because of the Federal Disabilities Act, according to Nancy Wait, the the spokeswoman for Volusia County Schools.

"It would be the same thing as putting a handicap ramp for a student that is physically disabled. The only difference with this is that is affects other students," Wait told FoxNews.com.

A group of parents are outraged by the new requirements and protested outside the school holding signs emblazoned with phrases expressing their frustration: "What's next? Where does this end?" Parents feel that the new requirements are taking up to 30 minute out of the students' school day. They are asking the district to require that the girl with the allergies be home-schooled.

The girl and her family are deeply hurt by the protests. "We've fought very hard to put certain things in place to keep her alive in school," David Bailey, the father of the student with the allergy, told My Fox Orlando. "She's already a cast-out. She can't do most things kids can do."


Food allergies in children on the rise

Some 3 million children have food allergies, most commonly to peanuts, seafood, eggs, milk, and soy. The prevalence in kids has risen 18 percent in the past 10 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As more children are diagnosed with allergies, more schools are faced with figuring out how to deal with students requiring special treatment. Some schools adopt nut bans, while others implement less strict rules, for example, allowing peanut butter sandwiches while creating nut-free tables where students with allergies can eat snack and lunch.

Just how far a school should go to protect a child with a food allergy is a matter of debate.

Some experts feel that it's absolutely necessary to do everything possible for a child who could have a life-threatening reaction by simply touching someone who ate peanuts. Schools are often forced to take this side in order to protect themselves from lawsuits.

Other medical experts believe that doctors are over-diagnosing food allergies. They also think that nut bans are an over-reaction to the magnitude of the threat. Dr. Nicholas Christakis, a professor of medical sociology at Harvard Medical School, presents some compelling stats backing up this argument in a 2008 story for the British Medical Journal:

Serious allergic reactions to foods cause just 2,000 hospitalizations a year (out of more than 30 million hospitalizations nationwide). And only 150 people (children and adults) die each year from all food allergies combined. Compare that number with the 50 people who die each year from bee stings, the 100 who die from lightning strikes, and the 45,000 who die in motor vehicle collisions. Or compare it with the 10,000 hospitalizations of children each year for traumatic brain injuries acquired during sports or the 2,000 who drown or the roughly 1300 who die from gun accidents.
Yes, these numbers are convincing and make nut bans seem silly, but when you have a parent who has been told by a doctor that her child might die from eating peanuts that 150 number still seems high.

How should schools deal with students' food allergies?

Posted By: Amy Graff (Email, Twitter, Facebook) | March 22 2011 at 12:53 PM

Share | Email

Parents want child with peanut allergy removed from school : The Mommy Files

[CrimsonFox]

I think kids have always had allergies. Always have and will. Just we're more testing-crazy nowadays. The whole gluten thing and all that. I'm not saying that it's not valid but I also think it doesn't mean as much. Now for peanuts, that's a really serious allergy in some. That girl actually would actually GET an education if she were homeschooled

[RainMaker]

Florida

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

I think kids have always had allergies. Always have and will. Just we're more testing-crazy nowadays. The whole gluten thing and all that. I'm not saying that it's not valid but I also think it doesn't mean as much. Now for peanuts, that's a really serious allergy in some. That girl actually would actually GET an education if she were homeschooled

Hygiene hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

I think kids have always had allergies. Always have and will. Just we're more testing-crazy nowadays. The whole gluten thing and all that. I'm not saying that it's not valid but I also think it doesn't mean as much. Now for peanuts, that's a really serious allergy in some. That girl actually would actually GET an education if she were homeschooled

I don't know why kids today seem to have more allergies or fiercer reactions to them but the gluten thing is legit. When our son was two he began getting sores that would not heal and were excruciatingly painful for him. Nobody had any answers for us until we finally gave up the "regular" doctor route and took him to a homeopathic doctor. The first thing she suggested was getting him tested for a gluten allergy. When she said that we had no idea what gluten even was - got him tested, found out he's allergic to gluten, milk and corn so we immediately took him off of it and within a week the sores healed and never came back and that was after months and months of them being there and worsening daily. He's six now and never had the problem again - its not cheap or easy to feed him in some cases but to see the pain he was in at such a young age I'm very thankful we found someone who figured it out.

[RainMaker]

Have you had him allergy tested by a real doctor? Homeopathic "doctors" tend to run tests that are highly inaccurate when it comes to that stuff. Not saying the results are flawed, but with the odds that someone is allergic to all 3 of those being so miniscule, you may want to get a second opinion from a real doctor.

Not saying they are wrong or anything, but I know the anti-gluten craze has gotten a little ridiculous. I have friends who will only buy gluten-free bread and stuff and they don't have Coeliac disease or anything. They've just been told that gluten is somehow horrible for people. A lot of that stuff takes out some of the healthiest parts of bread.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Hygiene hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well that sure makes sense.

[Solecismic]

I have a friend who has a gluten allergy. It was diagnosed in her 30s. Changed her life. She's very, very careful about what she eats now, and feels great.

I'm familiar with the peanut rules. There's a list of children in my son's school, with specific allergies and how bad they are and what to do, right down to where that child's inhaler is located if something happens. It's posted in the cafeteria, among other places. We are sent a list of specific snacks we can and can not let them bring to school. People take this seriously, the parents don't complain. My son's a vegetarian, so taking nuts out of his diet is a semi-big deal, but even he doesn't complain.

I cannot even begin to fathom why it takes 30 minutes a day to create a safe environment for this child. The peanut-sniffing dog sounds like an SNL parody - and what will the school do if the dog sets off a serious allergy?

It sounds like the principal isn't all that bright, and needs to meet with a doctor and the kid's parents, so they can come up with a safe plan that doesn't require so much disruption.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by stevew

she could have a reaction if she were to breath traces of nut dust in the air.

My wife tries to use this BS excuse all the time.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Have you had him allergy tested by a real doctor? Homeopathic "doctors" tend to run tests that are highly inaccurate when it comes to that stuff. Not saying the results are flawed, but with the odds that someone is allergic to all 3 of those being so miniscule, you may want to get a second opinion from a real doctor.

Not saying they are wrong or anything, but I know the anti-gluten craze has gotten a little ridiculous. I have friends who will only buy gluten-free bread and stuff and they don't have Coeliac disease or anything. They've just been told that gluten is somehow horrible for people. A lot of that stuff takes out some of the healthiest parts of bread.

This woman was a "real doctor" - she was a MD that practiced for over 40 years and was a graduate of U of M. Its just that her approach was to look for something that may be causing the problem rather than just telling us to put cream X on the sores and see what happens like the third "real doctor" we saw told us to. In fact like I said three "real doctors" had no clue what the problem was and really didn't try very hard to figure it out other than prescribing something. And either she was right or it was a pretty awesome coincidence that after having these sores that would not heal for six months of time that they healed within a week of taking him off gluten.

We don't feel that gluten is horrible for people - the rest of our family still eats gluten (I can't imagine the food bill to feed six of us on what the gluten-free stuff costs). Personally I wonder if some of my random stomach issues are caused by gluten but I like the food I eat too much to try and transition to a gluten free diet My son on the other hand started this when he was two so he really doesn't know any different but he's happy, has nearly any food we can think of available to him and most importantly is healthy so we're sticking with the gluten free diet for him.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

My wife tries to use this BS excuse all the time.

Gold, Jerry. Gold I tell ya.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Hygiene hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i buy it. i used to be deathly allergic to cat hair and dust but thanks to my habitual dating of cat hoarders and my unwillingness to clean i've conquered both.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Been there, on a lesser scale, done that.

I understand how much of an annoyance this sort of thing can become, pretty much became a roll-eyes topic at my son's last school. Problem was exacerbated by the holier-than-thou physician parent of the student in question, who demanded & received a 30-minute lecture time at a parent-teacher night. Went over like a lead balloon, even with a largely touchy-feely crowd.

We tried to be reasonably accommodating (don't send peanut butter cookies for lunch, avoid sending peanuts when it was our turn in the send-snacks-for-all bubble) but didn't invest a whole lot of energy into parsing every single thing that went to school with our son either.

[tyketime]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

My wife tries to use this BS excuse all the time.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We tried to be reasonably accommodating (don't send peanut butter cookies for lunch, avoid sending peanuts when it was our turn in the send-snacks-for-all bubble) but didn't invest a whole lot of energy into parsing every single thing that went to school with our son either.

I think that's fair though - at some point people have to accept reasonably accommodating because you cannot structure things simply for one person no matter what it is. If someone is that severely allergic I would think the parents would not want her in a school situation for her own safety.

I also don't agree with the line from her father about her being a "cast-out" and I'm surprised that her father would feel that way. Just because she has an allergy, even if it is a severe one, does not make her a cast-out. She can't have friends or be in social situations because she's allergic to peanuts? I'm assuming their home is peanut-free, why can't she be homeschooled and invite friends over to an environment where her parents know there is not the danger of peanuts or peanut dust being present? Instead of focusing on everything she can't do or can't eat and instead of focusing on trying to get everyone else in the school to upend their lives to accommodate them why don't they focus their energy and time on finding the ways to adjust their lives to try and make things as "normal" as possible for her.

I guess its just my opinion but if my child's allergies were so severe that just a trace of dust could set off a reaction I wouldn't be leaving the responsibility that she is an environment free of that open to a bunch of random people who are all very busy with their own children and lives and could very easily forget to think about it. As parents we are responsible for our children and for some people that means a hell of a lot of extra work and sacrifice than for others. Maybe its not fair, maybe its extra expense or extra time spent or extra hassle but that's the way it is.

[Autumn]

We have a friend who has a child who is deathly allergic to peanuts, milk and eggs. Fortunately, I guess, for his school she chose to homeschool him. Because as ludicrous as some of that stuff above sounds, it's necessary. She knows if she sent him to school there's nothing they could do to actually keep him safe. Even their family can't manage to be strict enough with the precautions to keep him from having reactions when they see him. For example a cousin or somebody he met gave him a play kiss or something on the cheek, and since she'd had cream cheese that morning at breakfast, he had a serious reaction.

We are some of the only people who are careful enough to be able to visit them. We have our kids take a bath the night before we see him, we don't eat anything with nuts, dairy or eggs the day that we see him, have them wash their hands when they get to his house. We have to make sure they wear clothing that has just been washed, don't bring any of their toys in with them, etc. He has to wear gloves whenever he goes out in public because he'll react to touching things that people have touched after eating food he's allergic to, like playground equipment or library books.

So the stuff is no joke, and unfortunately these parents have to choose between homeschooling or forcing schools to go through hugely extensive things to keep their child from dying. I've seen first hand that most people aren't willing to really follow the guidelines carefully, so unfortunately even doing all these things isn't going to necessarily help.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I also don't agree with the line from her father about her being a "cast-out" and I'm surprised that her father would feel that way. Just because she has an allergy, even if it is a severe one, does not make her a cast-out. She can't have friends or be in social situations because she's allergic to peanuts? I'm assuming their home is peanut-free, why can't she be homeschooled and invite friends over to an environment where her parents know there is not the danger of peanuts or peanut dust being present? Instead of focusing on everything she can't do or can't eat and instead of focusing on trying to get everyone else in the school to upend their lives to accommodate them why don't they focus their energy and time on finding the ways to adjust their lives to try and make things as "normal" as possible for her.

I can speak from my friend's experience that yes, it's very hard for her child not to be socially isolated because of his allergies. As i wrote before, a kid touching him that has had peanut butter that morning, hours and hours later, and even after being washed up in between, can send him into a reaction. There are very few parents who she can trust to be careful enough to really keep her kid safe, and that greatly limits his opportunities for interaction. Lots and lots of people just don't take it seriously, and I've watched him breaking out at his birthday party because his own grandparents couldn't be bothered not to eat cream cheese that morning, or because they won't read labels carefully enough to know which bread is safe to eat.

I don't know anything about the family in the story, but it's not hard at all for me to think that the child might feel isolated. Imagine never being able to go over to a friend's house. Our friend's child has never been able to come to our kids' birthday parties unless we have it outside at some safe place. They can't go to the library, or most playgrounds. He can't go trick or treating. And until you know a kid with a food allergy you don't realize how freely most adults and kids will hand food to someone without asking the parent first.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

or because they won't read labels carefully enough to know which bread is safe to eat.

Grandparents are one thing but for the more general public, I'd say that'd be asking a hell of a lot of bother. Most folks don't have time to read things they want to read, much less study the ingredient list connected to every f'n allergy and then study everything they eat/touch/encounter in order to accommodate those. Yes, I realize that isn't what you said the parents you know expected but my experience has been that is isn't hard to find those who do either (the case I mentioned earlier).

As for the handing food to kids thing, it seems reasonable to me to assume normal parameters apply if a parent puts their child into a normal environment.

[Autumn]

No, my point is that there's 0% chance that the entirety of a class or school is going to be that careful. I'm just pointing out that it's very much the case, therefore, that kids with these kind of allergies are going to feel isolated, because only the few families willing to put in that sort of care are going to be able to spend time with the kid.

It doesn't sound to me like this school in particular was asking much. Rinse out your mouth, wash your hands and wipe off the desks? Maybe my kids would get less sick if all the schools did this. And they're handing out lists of foods, having done the grunt work. I'm sure it seems a hassle for families not close to this kid to have to send in different lunches or snacks. They're not asking anyone to read labels, or change their breakfasts, which are further things which would make the kid even safer. Sounds like a fair compromise.

I know my thoughts are biased, knowing one of these kids, but having to pick a different snack food for your kid is a small sacrifice. I'm just thankful that my kids are healthy and I don't have to spend all day worrying about whether they're going to go into shock.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I can speak from my friend's experience that yes, it's very hard for her child not to be socially isolated because of his allergies. As i wrote before, a kid touching him that has had peanut butter that morning, hours and hours later, and even after being washed up in between, can send him into a reaction. There are very few parents who she can trust to be careful enough to really keep her kid safe, and that greatly limits his opportunities for interaction. Lots and lots of people just don't take it seriously, and I've watched him breaking out at his birthday party because his own grandparents couldn't be bothered not to eat cream cheese that morning, or because they won't read labels carefully enough to know which bread is safe to eat.

Right but as you wrote you do care enough to take the necessary precautions to be able to go and visit and you do those things because you do care for that one particular child. The parents of this story can't, just as your friend can't, expect everyone to be either so concerned or even remember to keep it as a top priority in their daily lives. Yes, this sort of thing eliminates daily run of the mill interaction in a social setting but as you have shown it does not eliminate the opportunity to have friends - friends that can be visited with the proper precautions and when older there are multiple ways of interacting such as phone, text, online chat/games in addition to visiting and hanging out face to face.

And until you know a kid with a food allergy you don't realize how freely most adults and kids will hand food to someone without asking the parent first.

As I posted above, I do have a child with food allergies so I am very familiar with this. Thankfully they're not life threatening ones but he's six now and has spent the last four years of his life learning that if he does not know the food he has to ask us first about it for this very reason. If someone gives our children say a candy bar he knows enough to smile, say thank you and then when we get to the car or wherever he will just give it to us and we'll allow him to have a candy bar from the house that we have specially for him so that he doesn't feel isolated. He knows that he is not exactly like other kids and his food allergies will isolate him from some social things (like grabbing a pizza with his buddies when he's older) but that's the way it is. It doesn't make it easy on him and he asks now and then why he has the allergies or will he ever be able to eat "regular food" so yeah that's a little tough to deal with but its just how it is and we've taken it upon ourselves through research and cost to find foods that are gluten free and when we go somewhere such as a birthday party we don't expect the host to not order pizza or not to serve cake...we bake him his own pizza and his own cupcakes and bring them with us so that he gets to have pizza and dessert just like everyone else.

We don't expect anyone else to do anything different - if someone offers to do something special to accommodate his situation that's great but we feel that if we want him to be in that situation then we should do what needs to be done to make sure he has food that is safe to eat and if we're unable to do that then we wouldn't allow him to be in that situation or pass the burden on to someone else.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Hygiene hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Having an 11 month old and being in a parents group with 6 othe parents with kids the same age I can tell you this has legs. It is absurd the over sanitation that goes on with everything. My wife and I are pretty whatever, if our kid drops something on the floor and we are't in someplace overly germ infested we let him put it back in his mouth. It is actually pretty funny to watch some of the other parents cringe. My opinion is the immune system needs practice.

As for gluten allergies, they are very real. My SIL has one, and when she eats gluten she gets realy bad arthritis. My uncle, who is an internal medicine doctor with 40 years experience says the gluten is why, and since she addressed it the problem has gone away.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Autumn

No, my point is that there's 0% chance that the entirety of a class or school is going to be that careful. I'm just pointing out that it's very much the case, therefore, that kids with these kind of allergies are going to feel isolated, because only the few families willing to put in that sort of care are going to be able to spend time with the kid.

And I don't want you to think I'm downplaying this side of it - obviously this is very tough for the child and family to deal with but trying to force everyone in the school to change isn't the answer. They won't be able to force a university to not allow peanuts to be used anywhere on campus, they won't be able to force people at a job to not eat peanuts, they won't be able to ensure that nobody in a shopping mall has not eaten something with peanuts that day...their daughter has a very serious allergy and unless the allergy can be cured or lessened somehow she will always have to face these situations.

That's why I said it would be better if the parents spent this effort on figuring out how life can be "normal" for their daughter and teaching her the tools to deal with this for the rest of her life. That's alot for a six year old to take on but like I said, our son has been learning from two how to deal with his food allergies. Her case is far more severe of course as thankfully we don't have to worry about what is in the air of where he is, only about the foods he eats, but the same thing holds true that no matter what they try to force the school to do she's always going to have to deal with this allergy and the potential isolation it creates so why not teach her strategies to do that instead? That's a sad thought for a six year old to not be able to play at a friend's house or go to the playground at school but it's the reality and it also doesn't stop people who really want to be her friend from coming over to her house and playing on a play structure at her own house. She doesn't have to be a "cast-out" like her father said but her allergies do make her different and her parents need to address that and deal with the reality of that situation rather than trying to shoehorn her into what other "normal" kids are doing.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

We don't expect anyone else to do anything different - if someone offers to do something special to accommodate his situation that's great but we feel that if we want him to be in that situation then we should do what needs to be done to make sure he has food that is safe to eat and if we're unable to do that then we wouldn't allow him to be in that situation or pass the burden on to someone else.

Right, but if your child's allergies were much more severe, his options would be much more limited. I'm not saying you or they should expect other parents to do more. I'm saying, of course a kid with this sort of allergy feels isolated or cast out. They are, they can't participate in a great deal of what is normal life for the rest of us and our kids. Your kid can't get the candy bar he's given, but my friend's kid could go into shock if someone handed him unwrapped food. Your kid can't grab some pizza, but my friend's kid can't even go to someone's house, or eat at a restaurant, or get takeout food. I'm not trying to single you out, just using that to emphasize that the order of magnitude is much, much greater than what most kids have to deal with.

Unfortunately people tend to take this as "they're expecting us to do X, Y and Z." And some parents probably come across like that. But I think most parents with these kind of allergies just want others to understand and sympathize, even if they don't do anything different. I've seen the countless times my friend has been told allergies aren't a big deal, or she should stop spoiling her child, etc, etc. If people would just believe and understand that her kids' allergies are dangerous, I think she'd feel much more accepted.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I saw this thread right after stevew started it, and then I just re-read it a moment ago. The thread title didn't really hit me until just now. Love it.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

And I don't want you to think I'm downplaying this side of it - obviously this is very tough for the child and family to deal with but trying to force everyone in the school to change isn't the answer. They won't be able to force a university to not allow peanuts to be used anywhere on campus, they won't be able to force people at a job to not eat peanuts, they won't be able to ensure that nobody in a shopping mall has not eaten something with peanuts that day...their daughter has a very serious allergy and unless the allergy can be cured or lessened somehow she will always have to face these situations.

I agree with you generally with your points here, and am impressed by how well my friend has made this not be a disability in her son's life. He's very aware of how to be careful, knows how to use his EpiPen. She's started a co-op school that my kids are a part of where parents agree to take precautions, etc.

I'm not sure I agree though that it's unreasonable to ask a public school to take these precautions. Aside from the legal arguments, we all have to decide as a society when it's appropriate to exclude a child because their disability is just too much. Is it really such a big deal to wash hands and bring in different snacks? Is that a bigger deal than spending the money to renovate a school to fit wheelchairs?

Yes, universities and jobs aren't going to take the same precautions. (though I think most people outgrow these sort of allergies by adulthood, so that's not as much of an issue). I'm not sure I agree that you're "coddling" the child by giving them this chance to be part of public school before they go off into life. Maybe you're teaching them that they're important enough to stand up and ask your friends and neighbors to help keep him safe. Have we gotten to the point where that's not what we do?

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I'm not sure I agree though that it's unreasonable to ask a public school to take these precautions. Aside from the legal arguments, we all have to decide as a society when it's appropriate to exclude a child because their disability is just too much. Is it really such a big deal to wash hands and bring in different snacks? Is that a bigger deal than spending the money to renovate a school to fit wheelchairs?

Yes, universities and jobs aren't going to take the same precautions. (though I think most people outgrow these sort of allergies by adulthood, so that's not as much of an issue). I'm not sure I agree that you're "coddling" the child by giving them this chance to be part of public school before they go off into life. Maybe you're teaching them that they're important enough to stand up and ask your friends and neighbors to help keep him safe. Have we gotten to the point where that's not what we do?

Its not about the costs involved in doing whatever its about the impact on everyone else and in a hypothetical discussion you can throw out the legal side but we live in an overly litigious society. What happens if a child, not understanding the severity of the issue, grabs a package of peanut butter cookies to bring with him without the parents knowing? Is the school liable? Are the parents of the offending child liable? What if the adult had peanut butter toast for breakfast and gave their child a kiss before sending them to school? You said it yourself that people can't even count on family members to remember what needs to be done all the time - why do you even want to put your child into a dangerous situation where you're relying on people you don't even know to follow a strict set of guidelines every single day when you know its almost guaranteed that at some point someone is going to slip up? What if there's a second child with a gluten allergy that was just as severe? Can you force everyone to put their children on gluten-free foods so that one child can attend a public school? Peanuts aren't that hard to work around for lunches and snacks, you're right, but what if its wheat?

I feel bad for the little girl to have to deal with something like this but her and her parents have to deal with it. They don't have to lock her in the attic but they also have to accept that she's special and she can't live life the way a "normal" six year old would. That said she can still live the life of a six year old, it just takes finding the ways to do it and the people who care about her to allow her to have friends. It sucks for her but that's what life is for her right now.

IMO your friend has the right method here - she has taught her son about his situation and because she can't rely on others to keep him safe she's taken it on herself to start the co-op school that people can choose to be a part of if they're willing to follow the rules. I think that's great and she should be commended for that and I think her child is much safer in that situation and also has been given a great example of if you want or need something done differently then you step up and do it yourself as opposed to pushing that responsibility on everyone else and expecting them to adjust to you.

[Autumn]

But the same argument can be made for all disabilities. okay, we have a child in a wheelchair so we fix all the doorways and bathrooms, railings, etc, etc. Oops, now we have a second child who is blind and needs different things, or has some other disability. The costs there are more indirect, but we clearly pay them as a community. Why should the child who needs no peanuts in the school be treated differently than the child who needs their own aide, or all the stairways to be renovated?

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, I don't have a strong opinion about how this should be dealt with, I'm pondering it myself.

[Warhammer]

There is such a thing as tyranny of the minority. The costs of doing some of these precautions are extraordinary. Plus, you start down a slippery slope, if you're willing to do X, going to Y is just a little further, and then Z is...

For example, serving food that is not made with peanuts, ok. Having to wash everytime someone goes outside? What about parents picking up their kids or at a school play, etc. Additionally, you're accepting some liability if something does happen. Little Susie gets sick because someone didn't wash their hands, means someone didn't do their job. Someone needs to pay, etc. Also, let's not forget, we live in a society where we need to post notes in the bathrooms of restaurants that employees need to wash their hands before returning to work.

I think it would be much more effective for the parents to set up their own social network with other children with similar disorders. That way you know the other parents are understanding, etc., etc.

[JediKooter]

The needs of the many, out weigh the needs of the few, or the one...

[Warhammer]

I don't think the issue is so much with peanuts. That can be easily rectified. The problem is with gluten. A gluten free diet is difficult. Plus, when you are running a public enterprise that bids out the food service or food contracts, you're not necessarily going to get the highest grade food.

Heck, I'll use something that affects me, what about certain preservatives? I'm allergic to some preservatives used in cherry pie fillings. These are not listed on the ingredients of the filling. I'm not allergic to anything else on the ingredient list, I can eat some cherry pie fillings with no problems, other times, I get a mild allergic reaction. The laws may have changed, but the preservatives used were not required to be put on the label. I have no idea what preservatives I am sensitive to, or what foods they are in. But the only one I have had issues with is cherry pie filling.

EDIT: How do you police something like that?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Is it really such a big deal to wash hands and bring in different snacks?

From a practical standpoint, I'd say yes, the snack thing is a pain in the ass. Truth is, I give less than a damn whether kid X is at the school or not, and I don't care to be discomfited in the slightest to accommodate them. I don't want them to drop dead (literally), but I resent spending even two extra minutes a week thinking about something in order to deal with someone else's problem. And that's how I see it: not my problem.

Is that a bigger deal than spending the money to renovate a school to fit wheelchairs?

One of the many reasons that I strongly opposed most of the ADA restrictions, as well as the "mainstreaming" efforts that began before it's passage. I believe it too often places an unreasonably high burden - in both cost & practicality - on the majority.

Also, just FTR, I'm not trying to give you any grief either. Just as you were playing devil's advocate, I'm just being brutally honest about how I feel about these situations.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

if you want or need something done differently then you step up and do it yourself as opposed to pushing that responsibility on everyone else and expecting them to adjust to you.

If only I had encountered more parents in the situation who felt this way, maybe I wouldn't have such strong feelings about the subject (as expressed above).

I appreciate your approach & would likely be more inclined to make more efforts to be accommodating if I saw it more often.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Autumn

But the same argument can be made for all disabilities. okay, we have a child in a wheelchair so we fix all the doorways and bathrooms, railings, etc, etc. Oops, now we have a second child who is blind and needs different things, or has some other disability. The costs there are more indirect, but we clearly pay them as a community. Why should the child who needs no peanuts in the school be treated differently than the child who needs their own aide, or all the stairways to be renovated?

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, I don't have a strong opinion about how this should be dealt with, I'm pondering it myself.

The difference is building a wheelchair ramp accommodates that student but doesn't affect anyone else. Nobody has to wash their mouth before entering a classroom and no parent has to read the label of every food item they send in to make sure it doesn't contain the allergen. Something like this puts a burden on everyone else as opposed to just making something more accommodating for one or a handful of students.

Like I said, I feel badly for the child involved - that sucks for her and I don't wish any child to have any sort of disability or disease or serious allergy but there are unfortunately those children and families out there and they just have to find ways to deal with it so that their children can be as healthy and happy as possible.

Everyone else has their own issues to deal with too don't forget. Whether its working multiple jobs, being a single parent, having their own children who have special needs and a host of others - its a lovely thought to think that everyone would love to be accommodating of a situation like this but its not realistic - even the people who are willing to go along with something like this are bound to have an accidental slip up simply because someone else's child is not a top priority in their already far too busy life.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

From a practical standpoint, I'd say yes, the snack thing is a pain in the ass. Truth is, I give less than a damn whether kid X is at the school or not, and I don't care to be discomfited in the slightest to accommodate them. I don't want them to drop dead (literally), but I resent spending even two extra minutes a week thinking about something in order to deal with someone else's problem. And that's how I see it: not my problem.

One of the many reasons that I strongly opposed most of the ADA restrictions, as well as the "mainstreaming" efforts that began before it's passage. I believe it too often places an unreasonably high burden - in both cost & practicality - on the majority.

Also, just FTR, I'm not trying to give you any grief either. Just as you were playing devil's advocate, I'm just being brutally honest about how I feel about these situations.

I appreciate your honesty. I think most of us are like that unless we have an experience that has made us attuned to whatever the particular disability is, or have a relationship with that particular child. I maybe differ in that while I I recognize that most people's reaction is going to be "not my problem," I don't necessarily think we should accept that as the correct reaction.

There definitely is a slippery slope where it's hard to decide which accommodations are reasonable. But there's a slippery slop in the other direction to. At which point do we start accepting that we can not give a crap about the people we live in community with? At what point have we just become calloused, not pragmatic?

I've worked with small schools and organizations and know that ADA requirements can be more than burdensome. I don't have a kneejerk reaction that we have to assume we can or should accommodate anything, the hard reality that most liberals, and in some topics, most Americans, don't want to face is that we can't afford a lot of the things we'd like to do.

However, I think we can allow too much of a backlash too. None of us really want to deal with changing our snack options for someone else's kid. But putting in some effort that may only benefit other people in our community is part of the deal with being part of a civil society. I probably won't need the cops, but I pay for them, I might not use the library but I pay for it, I might not have any kids in school, but I pay for it.

I guess the difference here is that we can all be sure it's not our kid that's going to get hurt. If we just knew there was a chance that one kid out of the class might die from peanuts, we'd make any effort to prevent that. It's kind of odd to me that if it's only one kid who's a victim, it's their responsibility to go elsewhere. I think of all we do to prevent violence or sexual abuse or kidnapping from affecting children, the vast amount of money and time our society spends to keep kids safe. If we knew which kids were going to be the victims of those things, would we save the money and just tell them to stay out of school?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If only I had encountered more parents in the situation who felt this way, maybe I wouldn't have such strong feelings about the subject (as expressed above).

I appreciate your approach & would likely be more inclined to make more efforts to be accommodating if I saw it more often.

I also agree with this, the reality is that the attitudes of the parents involved have a lot to do with shaping how people react to things like this.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

The difference is building a wheelchair ramp accommodates that student but doesn't affect anyone else. Nobody has to wash their mouth before entering a classroom and no parent has to read the label of every food item they send in to make sure it doesn't contain the allergen. Something like this puts a burden on everyone else as opposed to just making something more accommodating for one or a handful of students.

But that's only an indirect difference. I had to work extra hours to pay the taxes that built that ramp. No matter what the accommodation, people are paying for it, whether it's by rising their mouth or paying taxes or having the money for those accommodations come from other services they could have used.

Certainly, that difference is why you get such a strong reaction to these things - people feel more inconvenienced because there's a very direct thing they now have to do which they didn't before. People resent those sort of things more than they do indirect costs, that's just human nature, but doesn't mean there's a real difference between the two.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by stevew

Other medical experts believe that doctors are over-diagnosing food allergies. They also think that nut bans are an over-reaction to the magnitude of the threat. Dr. Nicholas Christakis, a professor of medical sociology at Harvard Medical School, presents some compelling stats backing up this argument in a 2008 story for the British Medical Journal:

Serious allergic reactions to foods cause just 2,000 hospitalizations a year (out of more than 30 million hospitalizations nationwide). And only 150 people (children and adults) die each year from all food allergies combined. Compare that number with the 50 people who die each year from bee stings, the 100 who die from lightning strikes, and the 45,000 who die in motor vehicle collisions. Or compare it with the 10,000 hospitalizations of children each year for traumatic brain injuries acquired during sports or the 2,000 who drown or the roughly 1300 who die from gun accidents.

Parents want child with peanut allergy removed from school : The Mommy Files

Am I the only one struggling to see the relevance of these numbers? 150 deaths from food allergies is a meaningless number unless you tell me how many people suffer from extreme food allergies. And even then, the vast majority of food allergies are not potentially fatal; they will make you very sick but won’t kill. “Of the x number of people with nut and shellfish allergies 150 die each year” would be relevant, but we don’t know what x is.

And the inclusion of the other data seems like an intentional attempt to lead the reader to view the 150 deaths in the context of the total population. But this was published in a medical journal, so it had to have been peer reviewed, right? So what am I missing?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Everyone else has their own issues to deal with too don't forget. Whether its working multiple jobs, being a single parent, having their own children who have special needs and a host of others - its a lovely thought to think that everyone would love to be accommodating of a situation like this but its not realistic - even the people who are willing to go along with something like this are bound to have an accidental slip up simply because someone else's child is not a top priority in their already far too busy life.

While true, I think there are better and more diplomatic routes to take than protesting outside the school. That isn't fair to any of the children involved.

[JediKooter]

I love how they compare food allergies with auto accidents or lightning strikes. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, no one is allergic to accidents or lightning.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I love how they compare food allergies with auto accidents or lightning strikes. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, no one is allergic to accidents or lightning.

David Dunn disagrees.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Autumn

But that's only an indirect difference. I had to work extra hours to pay the taxes that built that ramp. No matter what the accommodation, people are paying for it, whether it's by rising their mouth or paying taxes or having the money for those accommodations come from other services they could have used.

Certainly, that difference is why you get such a strong reaction to these things - people feel more inconvenienced because there's a very direct thing they now have to do which they didn't before. People resent those sort of things more than they do indirect costs, that's just human nature, but doesn't mean there's a real difference between the two.

There's truth in that for sure but I think there's also the safety/legality issue to deal with and the issue that you are making policy for the benefit of one person. Where do you draw the line at doing that? Is a public school setting precedent in doing this that other public schools will be forced to follow? If not then should parents of allergen students be able to specifically choose that public school to send their children to instead of the one in their district? Seems like its just opening one giant can of worms.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Lathum

While true, I think there are better and more diplomatic routes to take than protesting outside the school. That isn't fair to any of the children involved.

I would tend to agree although the school has to know that by making policy for one they're going to rile up everyone else and that people are sometimes more interested in making news than solving problems.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Only skimmed through this, but...

On Jon's point, when we attended a 'Meet the Teacher' when my daughter entered kindergarten this year, there was a mom who started lecturing about what allergies her daughter had (strawberry and lemons) and what our kids should avoid bringing in as snacks or for lunch. I am a reasonable guy, but when you start listing, on the 3rd day of school, the things my child should not be bringing to eat because of your child, I am immediately tuning out. (Also, she had green streaks dyed in her hair...apparently her daughter is not allergic to that).

My daughter's school segregates lunch tables...I would assume this is normal practice. Lucy LOVES peanut butter, takes it virtually every day for lunch. She can't sit with one of her friends who has another allergy (escaping me right now), and therefore sits at the segregated table, which also has kids with peanut allergies.

For Christmas, Valentine's Day etc, we are urged not to send chocolate and candy, rather stickers and pencils. I imagine this is as much related to avoiding foods that may trigger reactions as it is related to the health kick or no candy, sugar, pop, etc that schools are on.

And, related to Lathum's point, aren't there studies regarding the affect of anti-bacterial gels and their OVERuse now? A certain amount of germs are good, for building antibodies to fight those. When you have kids who are bathed in anti-bacterial and decontaminated as soon as they touch dirt, when they are finally exposed to germs, only makes sense their reaction is more severe.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

And, related to Lathum's point, aren't there studies regarding the affect of anti-bacterial gels and their OVERuse now? A certain amount of germs are good, for building antibodies to fight those. When you have kids who are bathed in anti-bacterial and decontaminated as soon as they touch dirt, when they are finally exposed to germs, only makes sense their reaction is more severe.

There was at least one study that showed that hospitals who switched away from those and back to forcing nurses / doctors to full hand-washing when going from patient to patient cut infection numbers in half. Those things can kill germs, but they can't get the spores and the like, plus they don't actually CLEAN the hands.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

My daughter's school segregates lunch tables...I would assume this is normal practice. Lucy LOVES peanut butter, takes it virtually every day for lunch. She can't sit with one of her friends who has another allergy (escaping me right now), and therefore sits at the segregated table, which also has kids with peanut allergies.

Das raciss.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

David Dunn disagrees.

Ok, this one, I have to admit, went over my head.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Das raciss.

I thought this as I typed it...I hoped I'd at least get a 'WELP, I'm done here' out of it

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

And, related to Lathum's point, aren't there studies regarding the affect of anti-bacterial gels and their OVERuse now? A certain amount of germs are good, for building antibodies to fight those. When you have kids who are bathed in anti-bacterial and decontaminated as soon as they touch dirt, when they are finally exposed to germs, only makes sense their reaction is more severe.

I can't speak of any studies but I have seen it first hand. My cousin was a germ freak with her kid. Had to use sanatizer before picking the kid up, toy on the floor had to be wipped off, spill on the clothes had to be changed, fell down outside had to wash the kids hands. The kid is now sick ALL THE TIME.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I can't speak of any studies but I have seen it first hand. My cousin was a germ freak with her kid. Had to use sanatizer before picking the kid up, toy on the floor had to be wipped off, spill on the clothes had to be changed, fell down outside had to wash the kids hands. The kid is now sick ALL THE TIME.

And unfortunately, they see this as they are not doing enough, instead of easing up on trying to outdo Monk.

[Maple Leafs]

Just a few observations from the parent of a child with a life-threatening peanut allergy:

There's a ridiculous amount of bad information out there about food allergies. I've given up reading the comments on articles on the subject. The number of people who have extremely strong feelings on a subject they know little to nothing about is, to be honest, frightening. If you do want to know about food allergies, please avoid getting your information from anecdotal stories or your personal experiences. They're nice, but those of us who deal with this every day don't have much choice but to take our lead from actual doctors and scientists.

I don't doubt for a second that some parents push the issue too far. I know why they do it -- wouldn't you do anything you could to hhelp keep your child safe? -- but in the long run it's not helpful to anyone. In the (rare) cases where an allergy is so severe that even the slightest exposure is life-threatening, then I'm honestly not sure what the right approach is. There has to be a line somewhere. I don't know where it is.

But if you literally can't be bothered to spend a few minutes a week to help prevent one of your child's classmates from dying in front of them, then I honestly feel sorry for you and for your child.