This is nuts.

[molson]

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.

I'm hearing more and more parents who have your view on that and its SO refreshing. Germaphobia is a mental illness. People aren't killed from touching doorknobs and eating something that fell on the floor. It's an irrational fear. And it can have disastrous results. I'm glad so many younger parents are realizing this.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

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.

Not sure if you were talking about my cousin, but I was speaking more about kids getting sick because of over sanitation, not allergies.

And yes, I would do anything to keep my kid safe.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Not sure if you were talking about my cousin

No, I wasn't referencing anything in the thread in particular.

I'm just amazed at how many people will try to third- or fourth-hand anecdotes in these sorts of discussions. I appreciate that those stories may be interesting or even true, but I'm still going to take the word of my doctor who's studied the issue for 30 years instead.

[Easy Mac]

I remember watching some documentary from the 80's about some kid with peanut allergies, so its not like its some new-hippie made up thing.

Let me see if I can find a clip.

Found it.

[jeff061]

For the record I grew up in filth. I think I've taken 2 legit sick days in the last decade. I've always attributed one to the other.

Edit: I understand that's nothing to do with allergies. Was just born lucky on that one.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

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.

I feel this too, though I know when it's presented the wrong way, or if people don't really understand or believe the seriousness, it's easy to not give a rat's ass.

But the fact that we take a lot of extra care to make things safe for our friend is a fantastic lesson for my kids. They learn every week that there are things that are more important than their food preferences, and ways to be flexible and adapt to the situation. I mean there's a lot of backlash against the sort of parents who want us all to adapt to their kids. But I'll take teaching my kid that inconveniencing himself for the good of someone else can be a wonderful, kind, gracious thing.

[stevew]

I can't believe that you guys can send snacks with your kid to school(for the class). We haven't been able to do that for 4-5 years at least.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

No, I wasn't referencing anything in the thread in particular.

I'm just amazed at how many people will try to third- or fourth-hand anecdotes in these sorts of discussions. I appreciate that those stories may be interesting or even true, but I'm still going to take the word of my doctor who's studied the issue for 30 years instead.

OK, cool. I just didn't want you to think I was being insensitive to the topic. My son is actually allergic to eggs. We have to be very clear with our day care provider about him, he has an epi pen, etc...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

I can't believe that you guys can send snacks with your kid to school(for the class). We haven't been able to do that for 4-5 years at least.

We've been pretty much required, or at least "strongly urged" to do so until this year when it kind of got played out after a couple of months. That's into gr SEVEN.

I was likewise amazed, but to a person the teachers damned near insisted upon it {shrug}

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

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.

That line seems so obvious to me that I'm flabbergasted that your own words didn't highlight it: avoid putting them in those situations. How did you say it wouldn't you do anything you could to help keep your child safe?

Sending them into a mainstream environment while asking that question completely fails to compute for me.

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.

Hey, we agree. I also feel sorry for those of us who are forced to deal with the situation due to the selfishness of the parents who insist on putting their children into apparently dangerous situations, common sense be damned.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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.

Kids are being treated like pussies today. Friend of mine had a baby and they have a bottle of hand sanitizer with them at all times before they even go near the kid. They bought these weird pillows that won't get bacteria and are paranoid about feeding the child anything "processed".

Then we wonder why all these kids have huge problems with basic things later in life. Not saying that's the case with all, but it seems pretty clear that overprotecting kids at an early age causes long term negative effects. As a kid, I was outside all the time, playing in the dirt, building forts in trees, and touching everything I could in public places. Just about every other kid did the same and lived to tell about it. We didn't evolve from a species that had a bottle of Purell in their purse at all times, I'd wish people would realize that more. Our bodies were built to encounter things, fight them off, and grow a resistance to them.

As for the peanut issue and how it relates, studies are showing that giving your kids peanuts early in life will lead to much lower risk of developing a peanut allergy. Big fucking surprise! Yet we have people telling parents not to give their kids peanut butter and peanuts.

Early consumption of peanuts in infancy is associa... [J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008] - PubMed result

[RainMaker]

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.

And no one is dying from peanut dust or oil residue. The reactions from such things are miniscule and at its absolute worst a local one. Yet we're treating this stuff like it's Anthrax.

I understand there are kids with nut allergies and it sucks, but I think the social hysteria created around it is much worse. Peanuts (and nuts in general) are actually quite healthy for a large percent of the population. They should be a part of a kids diet (especially considering how cheap and calorie dense it can be). And while I understand making sure certain kids don't get peanuts, this hand washing and other extremes is nothing more than pseudo-science bullshit that helps feed the hysteria of these overprotective parents.

The comparision to lighting and accidents is showing that the likelihood of a kid dying from his nut allergy in school is ridiculously miniscule. And that there are much worse things out there that we should be protecting children from.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Kids are being treated like pussies today. Friend of mine had a baby and they have a bottle of hand sanitizer with them at all times before they even go near the kid. They bought these weird pillows that won't get bacteria and are paranoid about feeding the child anything "processed".

Then we wonder why all these kids have huge problems with basic things later in life. Not saying that's the case with all, but it seems pretty clear that overprotecting kids at an early age causes long term negative effects. As a kid, I was outside all the time, playing in the dirt, building forts in trees, and touching everything I could in public places. Just about every other kid did the same and lived to tell about it. We didn't evolve from a species that had a bottle of Purell in their purse at all times, I'd wish people would realize that more. Our bodies were built to encounter things, fight them off, and grow a resistance to them.

As for the peanut issue and how it relates, studies are showing that giving your kids peanuts early in life will lead to much lower risk of developing a peanut allergy. Big fucking surprise! Yet we have people telling parents not to give their kids peanut butter and peanuts.

Early consumption of peanuts in infancy is associa... [J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008] - PubMed result

There are a lot of different opinions on introducing peanuts and other foods. I have heard most of them since we have been introducing different foods to our son. The peanut allergey is the big one people worry about. Basicaly there are studies that fall on both sides of the fence and it becomes a personal preferance for the parents and their doctor.

I agree with almos everything else you said except for the processed food part. If we can find something orgamic we prefer to give that to our son over the same food that isn't organic. We arent opposed to giving him processed foods, and aren't obsessive about it, but if there are healthier options then why not. It is an expense we are willing to make

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

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.

My bad. When you brought up homeopathic I was thinking more along the lines of those people who open up shops and are basically modern day witch doctors. I have a relative who is older and has been scammed by one for years. Believe she's paid in 20-30k over the last few years for whatever "magic potions" this lady has concocted for her. The "doctor" has told her how she's allergic to all sorts of stuff that apparently was fine for the previous 70 years of her life.

My gluten rant isn't for people who are legitimately allergic to it. It's more toward the people who have turned it into a marketing gimmick. Sort of like "low fat" or "low carb". There are people out there who have no allergies to it who are being suckered into believing that gluten is the cause for minor problems they have. A local pizza place has recently started advertising their Gluten-free dough as a healthy choice on their menu. It should be an option for those with an allergy, but it's not healthier for those who don't have one.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And no one is dying from peanut dust or oil residue. The reactions from such things are miniscule and at its absolute worst a local one. Yet we're treating this stuff like it's Anthrax.

I understand there are kids with nut allergies and it sucks, but I think the social hysteria created around it is much worse. Peanuts (and nuts in general) are actually quite healthy for a large percent of the population. They should be a part of a kids diet (especially considering how cheap and calorie dense it can be). And while I understand making sure certain kids don't get peanuts, this hand washing and other extremes is nothing more than pseudo-science bullshit that helps feed the hysteria of these overprotective parents.

The comparision to lighting and accidents is showing that the likelihood of a kid dying from his nut allergy in school is ridiculously miniscule. And that there are much worse things out there that we should be protecting children from.

I don't doubt one bit that this kid has food allergies or that other kids and adults have them. It just bothers me that this family imposes that allergy on an entire school and I wouldn't be surprised if they were quick to sue the school if anything happened to their kid. If I was the school administrator, I'd have the parents sign a liability waiver if they wanted to keep their kid in that school.

Yup, it's the histrionics that get in the way of common sense that seem to get all of the attention. Kind of like the whole, vaccines cause autism thing. My best friend had a daughter a few years ago, the mom refused to take the baby outside for the first 30 days or something like that. As far as I know, she was a healthy baby girl when she was born, so I see no reason why there was this 30 day thing other than paranoia about the kid getting sick.

I just thought the comparison was a very apple to oranges one. The bee stings comparison made more sense, but, I do see what you're saying.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

As for the peanut issue and how it relates, studies are showing that giving your kids peanuts early in life will lead to much lower risk of developing a peanut allergy. Big fucking surprise! Yet we have people telling parents not to give their kids peanut butter and peanuts.

Early consumption of peanuts in infancy is associa... [J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008] - PubMed result

Some studies say that. Others report the opposite. There's nothing approaching a consensus (although most doctors still seem to prefer waiting).

It's a source of huge confusion and frustration for parents.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sending them into a mainstream environment while asking that question completely fails to compute for me.

If by "them" you mean a child who is as senstive as this kid in Florida apparently is, then maybe you're right. But understand that the overwhelming majority of allergic kids don't fall into that category. When you child comes home with a note about not bring peanut products to school, they're almost certainly not referring to a child with that level of sensitivity.

Over 1% of kids are now being diagonosed with peanut allergies, and the number is growing. They should all be pulled out the school system?

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hey, we agree. I also feel sorry for those of us who are forced to deal with the situation due to the selfishness of the parents who insist on putting their children into apparently dangerous situations, common sense be damned.

I let my kids play sports, and presumably you do too. That's an apparently dangerous situation. We don't forfeit the right to expect that there will be some basic protections in place to keep them as safe as realistically possible.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I understand there are kids with nut allergies and it sucks, but I think the social hysteria created around it is much worse.

Agree 100%, actually.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The comparision to lighting and accidents is showing that the likelihood of a kid dying from his nut allergy in school is ridiculously miniscule.

Also true, in a sense. The actual death rate for peanut allergy kids is extremely low. But, and this is important, it's extremely low because of the precautions schools are taking.

Put it this way: The overwhelming majority of kids who get into car accidents don't die. That's not a reason to stop using seatbelts.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And that there are much worse things out there that we should be protecting children from.

No doubt. But why does it have to be either/or?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

If by "them" you mean a child who is as senstive as this kid in Florida apparently is, then maybe you're right.

What I had in mind was something that carried a significant amount of "life threatening".

We don't forfeit the right to expect that there will be some basic protections in place to keep them as safe as realistically possible.

Virtually none of those that I can think of intrude on the routine activities of the other 99%.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And while I understand making sure certain kids don't get peanuts, this hand washing and other extremes is nothing more than pseudo-science bullshit that helps feed the hysteria of these overprotective parents.

I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Nut allergies very clearly can be spread from second hand contact. As I've said before, I've seen my friend's son go into shock by touching someone who had touched a nut or dairy hours before in a different environment. Washing your hands doesn't seem extreme to me, and I don't see any reason to consider it pseudo-science. It's washing the food off of your skin.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Virtually none of those that I can think of intrude on the routine activities of the other 99%.

That's simply because we know who is allergic to nuts and who isn't, we don't know which kid is going to get a concussion if they're not wearing a helmet, or kicked in the balls. The fact is you could not wear a helmet in baseball and probably be fine. We ask all the kids to wear batting helmets to help the statistical one kid who might have got hurt if they didn't.

Clearly it's not a perfect analogy, but it seems to me that we're willing to ask everyone to go to great extents to protect a kid from a theoretical danger that probably won't affect them. But we're not willing, I guess, to go to some extent to protect one particular kid from a danger that most likely would affect them.

We do lots of things routinely to keep kids safe, curtailing their freedoms or inconveniencing them or ourselves to avoid danger. Why should we not do it just because we happen to know it's someone else's kid and not ours that would be the victim of the danger?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The comparision to lighting and accidents is showing that the likelihood of a kid dying from his nut allergy in school is ridiculously miniscule. And that there are much worse things out there that we should be protecting children from.

Those statistics are absolutely meaningless. Yes, a theoretical person has a very statistically low chance of dying of a peanut allergy. They also have a very low chance of *having* a peanut allergy. But once you have one, your chance of dying, or having a severe and dangerous reaction, goes up dramatically.

It's like telling a diabetes patient they shouldn't take meds, because most people don't die of diabetes. Once you're diagnosed, the statistics for the general population don't mean anything any more really.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My bad. When you brought up homeopathic I was thinking more along the lines of those people who open up shops and are basically modern day witch doctors. I have a relative who is older and has been scammed by one for years. Believe she's paid in 20-30k over the last few years for whatever "magic potions" this lady has concocted for her. The "doctor" has told her how she's allergic to all sorts of stuff that apparently was fine for the previous 70 years of her life.

My gluten rant isn't for people who are legitimately allergic to it. It's more toward the people who have turned it into a marketing gimmick. Sort of like "low fat" or "low carb". There are people out there who have no allergies to it who are being suckered into believing that gluten is the cause for minor problems they have. A local pizza place has recently started advertising their Gluten-free dough as a healthy choice on their menu. It should be an option for those with an allergy, but it's not healthier for those who don't have one.

Yeah she specialized in internal medicine but she just believed in either using natural remedies or exploring what might be causing the problem naturally before suggesting her patients take some kind of pills. We really try not to overmedicate our kids because we believe the same way as some others in this thread - we think its bad to over sanitize them or just continually pump them full of meds because then they're not effective later on. It was refreshing to find a doctor who actually felt the same way rather than the others we saw who just wanted to rush to their next appointment and give us some cream.

As for the gluten thing yeah there are alot of people who are doing it because its the trendy thing now I guess. Personally I like the taste of foods with gluten and my wallet does not like the prices of the gluten free foods so for everyone else in the family we're sticking with gluten

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Also true, in a sense. The actual death rate for peanut allergy kids is extremely low. But, and this is important, it's extremely low because of the precautions schools are taking.

Is it really based on the precautions? I don't remember a huge epidemic of children dying in school from peanut allergies decades ago when there were no precautions. So we've gone from virtually no kids dying from peanut allergies with no precautions to virtually no kids dying from peanut allergies with tons of precautions.

That 150-200 number comes from a study of one county in Minnesota that had one death from a 4 year period. The researcher then used some fuzzy math to estimate the numbers across the country annually. These numbers were also from the 80's when we had no precautions.

It's also worth adding that there is no reported cases of a kid dying from peanut dust in the air, or from touching the hand of someone with some oil on their hands. That the very few documented deaths (so low the CDC doesn't even report it) all involved someone ingesting the actual peanut.

Junk science and paranoid parents make a bad mix. Just look at vaccines.

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Put it this way: The overwhelming majority of kids who get into car accidents don't die. That's not a reason to stop using seatbelts.

No doubt. But why does it have to be either/or?

It doesn't have to be either or. But it's worth pointing out that we are putting an awful lot of resources into something that really isn't a problem. We don't have infinite resources at these schools.

And listen, I'm all for protecting the kids. If they have a peanut allergy, we should do our best to make sure they aren't eating a meal with it. We should make sure there are proper medical procedures in place if something happens. But if a kid really can't be in a room unless the whole class is sanitized, he probably shouldn't be going to a public school.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

If by "them" you mean a child who is as senstive as this kid in Florida apparently is, then maybe you're right. But understand that the overwhelming majority of allergic kids don't fall into that category. When you child comes home with a note about not bring peanut products to school, they're almost certainly not referring to a child with that level of sensitivity.

Over 1% of kids are now being diagonosed with peanut allergies, and the number is growing. They should all be pulled out the school system?

I have to agree with Jon - if this girl's situation is that severe I certainly would not be sending her into situations that have the possibility for contamination as large as an entire school.

The thing is though do you draw the lines at certain allergies? I skipped a few responses but has anyone answered the earlier question of what happens if there are children with a gluten allergy? Sure its easy enough to avoid peanuts but how do you avoid gluten? With children seemingly becoming more and more sensitive and sicker as time goes on (due to whatever factors) how do you accommodate everyone or are only certain children important enough to change policies and procedures for?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Those statistics are absolutely meaningless. Yes, a theoretical person has a very statistically low chance of dying of a peanut allergy. They also have a very low chance of *having* a peanut allergy. But once you have one, your chance of dying, or having a severe and dangerous reaction, goes up dramatically.

It's like telling a diabetes patient they shouldn't take meds, because most people don't die of diabetes. Once you're diagnosed, the statistics for the general population don't mean anything any more really.

There are over 11 million people with a peanut allergy and none have died from inhaling some dust or touching the hand of someone. So I guess there is a difference. People die from getting struck by lightning, they haven't from inhaling the dust in the air.

The other difference is that we don't remove all sugar products from a school if a kid has diabetes. We don't pat down every child entering the classroom to make sure he hasn't smuggled in some Skittles. There is a proportional approach. We train staff and do our best to make sure the kid doesn't do anything he shouldn't.

[tarcone]

We have a child who has this severe form of peanut allergy coming to our school next year. To the point that we wont be allowed to order Pizza Hut, because they use peanut oil. Im not sure how our school will handle this yet.
We segregate kids who bring peanut butter from the general population, now. But Im not sure how you enforce 500 kids to not bring any peanut type foods or foods made with peanut oils, etc.
We have kids that cant afford to bring more then a cheese sandwich for lunch. Are you going to limit them? What if they dont want to change the way they live or cant or dont know how.

I feel so bad for these kids. What a bad thing to have an allergy. But at what point do we stop helping? What of the kid whose Mom is always out and has to make his/her own lunch and breakfast and the only thing in the house is a jar of peanut butter and a loaf of bread? Sorry, you cant come to school or you have to starve. Is that fair?

Sure thats dramatic, but it is a reality. I dont know the answer. We have adapted for my daughters school. Ice cream sandwiches are peanut free. Thats what we do on their birthdays. But not everyone can or will adapt.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Nut allergies very clearly can be spread from second hand contact. As I've said before, I've seen my friend's son go into shock by touching someone who had touched a nut or dairy hours before in a different environment. Washing your hands doesn't seem extreme to me, and I don't see any reason to consider it pseudo-science. It's washing the food off of your skin.

Find me deaths caused by peanut dust and hand contact.

[stevew]

Poor kids get free lunches.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Yeah she specialized in internal medicine but she just believed in either using natural remedies or exploring what might be causing the problem naturally before suggesting her patients take some kind of pills. We really try not to overmedicate our kids because we believe the same way as some others in this thread - we think its bad to over sanitize them or just continually pump them full of meds because then they're not effective later on. It was refreshing to find a doctor who actually felt the same way rather than the others we saw who just wanted to rush to their next appointment and give us some cream.

As for the gluten thing yeah there are alot of people who are doing it because its the trendy thing now I guess. Personally I like the taste of foods with gluten and my wallet does not like the prices of the gluten free foods so for everyone else in the family we're sticking with gluten

Old doctors are the best, especially when it comes to kids. They've seen it all, don't panic, don't overprescribe.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by stevew

Poor kids get free lunches.

Not if they dont fill out the paperwork.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I feel bad for the little girl. I'm sure in her mind the whole uproar isn't about what everybody else has to do, but about her. And why nobody likes her. What is going to happen later in life? How will she be able to have a regular job? If you're a boss looking to hire someone and you have two qualified candidates, but one has this long list of things that you need to change in your workplace in order for her to work there... Guess who gets the job.

As for the whole severe allergy thing being a new matter, it's my uneducated guess that severe allergies to everyday things have been around for thousands of years. We just weren't as aware of what they were and missed the people that died for whatever unknown reason.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

I feel bad for the little girl. I'm sure in her mind the whole uproar isn't about what everybody else has to do, but about her. And why nobody likes her. What is going to happen later in life? How will she be able to have a regular job? If you're a boss looking to hire someone and you have two qualified candidates, but one has this long list of things that you need to change in your workplace in order for her to work there... Guess who gets the job.

As for the whole severe allergy thing being a new matter, it's my uneducated guess that severe allergies to everyday things have been around for thousands of years. We just weren't as aware of what they were and missed the people that died for whatever unknown reason.

Or is it Pharmas telling doctors that they have a new drug to sell. And they want the docs to label people a certain way?

Coincidence or conspiracy?

[Uncle Briggs]

This whole thread makes me sad.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

Have you considered that if you devoted the time you spent reading this and posting about why you shouldn't have to do it to actually flipping over a few boxes and looking at the allergen warnings you would have had more than enough time to select nut-free snacks for the rest of the school year? Plus, your blood pressure would be lower.

And I don't mean to single out John. Come on people, do you not ever do something you find inconvenient or stupid just to benefit another person or make them happy? Out of all the screwed up things that you have to deal with in life every day, this is where you draw the line?

It's a small act of sacrifice to help another person out. Whoever said that earlier had exactly the right idea. Even the example in the intial post; does it take that much out of us to wash hands and gargle so a child can actually have a semi-normal life?

Alright, rant over. I've violated my arguing on the internet policy. But, just dang, people.

[lighthousekeeper]

1. We can all agree that due to human nature, there are inevitably going to be a few parents, kids, teachers or aides who will either intentionally or through unintentional oversight ignore the warnings that they are given regarding peanut allergy prevention. This is a sad but unavoidable truth.
2. Knowing this fact to be true, any parent whose child has peanut allergies so severe that he or she may die, who still insists in exposing their child to a public school setting (and the inherent life-threatening danger it certainly poses as agreed on in point #1) should be charged with negligence for endangering the welfare of a child. Perhaps to the point of removing the child from parental custody.

(I think this is the gist of Jon's argument - if not, I'll claim it.)

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

I feel bad for the little girl. I'm sure in her mind the whole uproar isn't about what everybody else has to do, but about her. And why nobody likes her.

Yeah, that's pretty much my biggest reaction to this thread.

Other than that, I think people just like to have things to be outraged by.

[stevew]

It would be hilarious irony if the girl in question was named Reese.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Uncle Briggs

Have you considered that if you devoted the time you spent reading this and posting about why you shouldn't have to do it to actually flipping over a few boxes and looking at the allergen warnings you would have had more than enough time to select nut-free snacks for the rest of the school year?

Have you considered that available time is not an on-demand item? That the time I had today (or other days) to spend here is not transferable to getting a kid out the door with a snack in hand? Or simply how fucking annoying I find it to be forced to give serious consideration to every label on everything I might send my kid to school with? Surely we'd both agree that doing a half-assed job isn't sufficient, you miss a day & send the wrong thing & all previous efforts are for naught. It becomes a full-time "have-to" to be successful & tbh I've got more than my own share of "have-to" items on the list already, I'm simply not the least bit interested in adopting someone else's have-to.

It's a small act of sacrifice to help another person out. Whoever said that earlier had exactly the right idea. Even the example in the intial post; does it take that much out of us to wash hands and gargle so a child can actually have a semi-normal life?

And gargling before re-entering a room is part of "a normal life" for the vast majority of people? For that matter, adopting the persistent stress of worrying about extreme instances like the one in this case is part of "a normal life"? For someone you aren't closely connected to? That sounds closer to a mental/emotional condition that needs treatment than it does to "normal life".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

It would be hilarious irony if the girl in question was named Reese.

Not as good as if her name were Skippy.

[Uncle Briggs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And gargling before re-entering a room is part of "a normal life" for the vast majority of people? For that matter, adopting the persistent stress of worrying about extreme instances like the one in this case is part of "a normal life"? For someone you aren't closely connected to? That sounds closer to a mental/emotional condition that needs treatment than it does to "normal life".

It's not as if they wanted a pint of blood every time. I understand you in principle, but I believe we disagree slightly on the scale of the problem. And, even were I to agree with you 100%, that's what a sacrifice is. Love your neighbor as yourself. Do unto others. If you won't do it for others, do it as a gift for God.

But anyways. This is one of those things where if we knew each other in real life, we would have to just each agree that we think the other is wrong (or has a mental/emotional condition that needs treatment) and not bring it up anymore. I give you the last word on the subject (if you care) and I shall speak of it no more.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Uncle Briggs

But anyways. This is one of those things where if we knew each other in real life, we would have to just each agree that we think the other is wrong (or has a mental/emotional condition that needs treatment) and not bring it up anymore. I give you the last word on the subject (if you care) and I shall speak of it no more.

Nah, I'm good. (unless ya wanna count that as "last word")

[Blackadar]

Shit...I actually have to agree somewhat with JIMG. I feel so...dirty.

My kid is allergic to cat dander. Sorry, you're going to have to put little Fluffy to sleep so my kid doesn't sneeze. If a kid has no immune system, should we make everyone else walk around in bubbles to prevent the spread of germs?

I really don't mean to belittle the kid because she can't help it. But I sure mean to belittle the parents who are putting her in danger. It's one thing to ask for consideration, it's entirely another to severely inconvenience everyone and this crosses that line for me. My wife cooks with peanut oil because it's one of the "healthier" oils and burns well at very high heat (which necessary for cooking Oriental food). My son loves peanut butter. Now he can't have home-cooked food because little Missy is THAT allergic to peanuts? To hell with that.

I have no patience for that kind of bullshit. I'd tell the school that I'm sending peanut butter sandwiches every frickin' day for lunch (and God pity them if they try to make my kids go hungry) and washing my kid in every peanut-based soap/shampoo I can find on the market. I'd force the issue so that they have to find a better solution than severely inconveniencing everyone. And yeah, I think not being able to eat home-cooked food, gargling after every meal, being exposed to caustic cleaning chemicals (my daughter breaks out in rashes from Clorox), getting less of an education and denying snacks to 6 year olds every single frickin day is getting into the severely inconvenienced territory.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I kinda agree with Jon also... I don't think anybody wants to be an unfeeling bastard, but when does it end? Do we all need to wear hazmat suits and disinfect everything in society so the boy in the bubble can walk around and feel "normal?" (And sue if someone on the third floor of a building down the block didn't get the memo, deciding to enjoy some delicious Emeralds nuts to stave off Robert Goulet.)

[Autumn]

Unfortunately all this says to me is how far we've come from real communities, where we felt a real connection to the other people in our town and school. I'm not saying it's a good idea to send this kid to school. But the reactions people have to needing to go out of their way for someone else, I can't imagine they'd have these reactions if it was for someone they know and care about. Community is all about inconvenience - spending your time making meals for someone who just had a baby, or changing your clothes when you visit your friend with a cat allergy, taking the time to shovel your sidewalk that other people use, stopping what you're doing to help someone whose car just broke down. It's all inconvenient.

I think the difference is we now have this layer between us and everyone else. It's not talking with your child's classmate's parent, and finding out they need you to send in a different snack. It's hearing at a school meeting the principal tell you to bring in different snacks because Mr. Whatchamacallit wants you to. We've gotten big enough and divorced enough from each other that we don't really interact in a real way any more. And nobody likes to be told what to do by some authority figure or some annoying person we don't know. I'd like to think if it wasn't so we wouldn't quite so upset that's someone asking us to go out of our way to help them.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I have no patience for that kind of bullshit. I'd tell the school that I'm sending peanut butter sandwiches every frickin' day for lunch (and God pity them if they try to make my kids go hungry) and washing my kid in every peanut-based soap/shampoo I can find on the market. I'd force the issue so that they have to find a better solution than severely inconveniencing everyone. And yeah, I think not being able to eat home-cooked food, gargling after every meal, being exposed to caustic cleaning chemicals (my daughter breaks out in rashes from Clorox), getting less of an education and denying snacks to 6 year olds every single frickin day is getting into the severely inconvenienced territory.

Three points. One, you just rinse your mouth once when you get to school. Two, don't all public schools provide food for the kids? And don't most of them not allow outside food anymore? So this is simply something for the school to research and make the right decisions on. Three, what if they used Clorox wipes to clean the school for germs. Should they stop because your kid is allergic to them? Should the rest of the kids be in more danger from germs because of your kid, or should you keep your kid home? Where does it stop indeed.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

I kinda agree with Jon also... I don't think anybody wants to be an unfeeling bastard, but when does it end? Do we all need to wear hazmat suits and disinfect everything in society so the boy in the bubble can walk around and feel "normal?" (And sue if someone on the third floor of a building down the block didn't get the memo, deciding to enjoy some delicious Emeralds nuts to stave off Robert Goulet.)

Maybe it ends before we let kids with peanut allergies in, or maybe it ends somewhere after there. But the slippery slope argument doesn't really tell us anything other than that there should be a line somewhere. There's about a thousand examples upslope of ways kids inconvenience the rest of us somehow, but we don't stop doing all those things just because a slippery slope exists.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Maybe a school should be established somewhere that is for students with severe peanut allergies. Then, instead of hundreds of parents worrying that their child may have stepped through a waft of nut dust on the way to school, the parents of a child with this condition would have a place to go. They may be inconvenienced a bit in having to move somewhere they don't necessarily want to, but I think that's what it comes down to... who gets inconvenienced, one family that actually has an issue to deal with, or everybody else?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Two, don't all public schools provide food for the kids? And don't most of them not allow outside food anymore?

I've never-ever heard of this. I know for sure that this isn't the case in at least 3 school divisions around here.

Completely foreign concept to me, but maybe I'm missing the boat. I'm very pro-public school, but a rule like this honestly would potentially force my kids (if I had any) into private school.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Unfortunately all this says to me is how far we've come from real communities, where we felt a real connection to the other people in our town and school. I'm not saying it's a good idea to send this kid to school. But the reactions people have to needing to go out of their way for someone else, I can't imagine they'd have these reactions if it was for someone they know and care about. Community is all about inconvenience - spending your time making meals for someone who just had a baby, or changing your clothes when you visit your friend with a cat allergy, taking the time to shovel your sidewalk that other people use, stopping what you're doing to help someone whose car just broke down. It's all inconvenient.

I think the difference is we now have this layer between us and everyone else. It's not talking with your child's classmate's parent, and finding out they need you to send in a different snack. It's hearing at a school meeting the principal tell you to bring in different snacks because Mr. Whatchamacallit wants you to. We've gotten big enough and divorced enough from each other that we don't really interact in a real way any more. And nobody likes to be told what to do by some authority figure or some annoying person we don't know. I'd like to think if it wasn't so we wouldn't quite so upset that's someone asking us to go out of our way to help them.

I think you're being a bit extreme here. Yes, Jon is going a bit nuts. But, I think the idea is that there has to be a line somewhere. This school seems to be over or approaching that line.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

And don't most of them not allow outside food anymore?

By "outside food", do you mean like fast food takeout? Or lunches from home?

Most of the ones I'm familiar with (both public & private) wouldn't dream of touching lunches from home & have few/no restrictions on what constitutes "from home". For example, my son takes a spare doublecheeseburger from McD or BK once in a while (they reheat great) or leftover pizza from wherever or leftover pasta from a local Italian place. Policy on having takeout delivered fresh by the parents (or even by delivery) has varied from school to school, from wide open to not at all.