This is nuts.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by 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.

Did you just call Freaks and Geeks "some documentary from the 80's"?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

Hmm, yeah I meant from home. I thought I'd seen, for instance, a number of posters on FOFC say it had been a long time since their kids were allowed to bring food in to school.

[JonInMiddleGA]

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.

A by-product of the transient nature of American society. As far back as the 60's, up to 20% of the population relocates in a given year. Even as the trend slows a bit during the recession, it's still 1 in 7.

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.

But that's a big part of the issue I think: these aren't people the majority of any school/community know or care about.

I think the difference is we now have this layer between us and everyone else.

At the risk of taking this into an amateur sociology sidebar, I believe you're overestimating the impact of this. On the whole, I think I've liked the various principals/headmasters I've dealt with at least equally well as random parent X, and in at least 2 of 3 schools my son has attended it's very easy to say I've liked the average administrator considerably more than I like the average parent (possibly due to their ability to charm/politic their way into those positions in the first place but that's neither here nor there I guess).

More than that though, I think you're underestimating the change in sheer size we've undergone in the U.S. in a fairly short period of time. We've grown by 9% in the past decade, by 50% since 1970, and more than doubled since 1950 (a reasonable benchmark for the more idyllic community-oriented environment you're talking about). Not only have we grown, we've become steadily more diverse ... which by it's very nature removes more of that sense of community you're talking about.

So we move around a lot, there's a gigantic truckload more of us, and we have less in common than ever before. Those things all seem likely to have more impact on the reaction than who is making the request.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by wade moore

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.

First of all, I don't think Jon's going nuts. His answers, in particular, have been raw but honest. There were a number of people in thread who seemed rather upset by the idea of having to go this far. I also know through my friend that she constantly gets really angry and sometimes heartless responses from people about her son's allergies. Someone was just saying in here they'd wash their kid in peanut soap to force the issue. These things just seem to indicate a level of outrage that I don't think needs to be there.

And my response was stepping away from this issue and talking on a more global level about the way our society works these days. Once upon a time you'd deal with people face to face over this, and I daresay most people would respond differently. They'd say, "This would be a real problem for me, not being able to send in homecooked food cooked in peanut oil." And the other person would say, "Oh, I see that. I'm really worried about how to keep my son safe though." And they'd maybe come up with a solution that worked for both of them. The difference between that and what we actually do these days is striking.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At the risk of taking this into an amateur sociology sidebar, I believe you're overestimating the impact of this. On the whole, I think I've liked the various principals/headmasters I've dealt with at least equally well as random parent X, and in at least 2 of 3 schools my son has attended it's very easy to say I've liked the average administrator considerably more than I like the average parent (possibly due to their ability to charm/politic their way into those positions in the first place but that's neither here nor there I guess).

More than that though, I think you're underestimating the change in sheer size we've undergone in the U.S. in a fairly short period of time. We've grown by 9% in the past decade, by 50% since 1970, and more than doubled since 1950 (a reasonable benchmark for the more idyllic community-oriented environment you're talking about). Not only have we grown, we've become steadily more diverse ... which by it's very nature removes more of that sense of community you're talking about.

So we move around a lot, there's a gigantic truckload more of us, and we have less in common than ever before. Those things all seem likely to have more impact on the reaction than who is making the request.

No, you're pointing out exactly what I meant, I just didn't have the energy and brains to put it so well today. Those are the exact things I mean, I just think that metaphorically there's a layer there, people think of the school and the government and the town as things separate from them. Even in small groups this is common sociology. I lived in a relatively small communal group, and people treated things the "community" owned or did very differently than things that were privately owned or done, even though they were clearly a part of that community. Because of all the factors you list up there, that's how we treat nearly everything these days. Thank you for describing it so well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I thought I'd seen, for instance, a number of posters on FOFC say it had been a long time since their kids were allowed to bring food in to school.

If so, I've missed those entirely. Over 2/3rds of my son's (private) school brings their lunches. By her estimate, roughly 20% of my niece's very public HS brought theirs (random anecdote courtesy of an unrelated discussion last year about the quality/lack thereof of school food).

As wademoore said, anything like that around here would cause one hell of a fight (due to both the intrusive nature of such a move as well as the financial burden it would place on some families).

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If so, I've missed those entirely. Over 2/3rds of my son's (private) school brings their lunches. By her estimate, roughly 20% of my niece's very public HS brought theirs (random anecdote courtesy of an unrelated discussion last year about the quality/lack thereof of school food).

As wademoore said, anything like that around here would cause one hell of a fight (due to both the intrusive nature of such a move as well as the financial burden it would place on some families).

And Jon hit the nail on the head. If you're going to tell me my hypothetical kid can't bring food from home, you'd better make some DRAMATIC changes to the school food options.

I don't see that happening.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

First of all, I don't think Jon's going nuts. His answers, in particular, have been raw but honest.

I appreciate that, since that was my intent. Yeah, the blunt parts were very much intentional (actually toned down a lot of my first phrasing choices) but that seemed to be the most productive route to take for any decent discussion on this. Tap dancing certainly didn't seem particularly useful nor interesting to me.

Someone was just saying in here they'd wash their kid in peanut soap to force the issue. These things just seem to indicate a level of outrage that I don't think needs to be there.

Eh, with what's described in the initial article, I'd say forcing the issue is well past due. The peanut soap bath isn't the route I'd go personally, but I'd definitely be looking for ways to make life as miserable as possible for the parent(s) of this particular kid with everything from social ostracization to boycotting their employer/business, pretty much whatever it takes to break their will to fight this. Failing that, to ensure they pay an extremely heavy price for their choice. Hell, I was annoyed just reading the story from a distance, I'd probably be a prime target for a bail bond company if this was something I was actually dealing with up close.

Once upon a time you'd deal with people face to face over this, and I daresay most people would respond differently. They'd say, "This would be a real problem for me, not being able to send in homecooked food cooked in peanut oil." And the other person would say, "Oh, I see that. I'm really worried about how to keep my son safe though." And they'd maybe come up with a solution that worked for both of them. The difference between that and what we actually do these days is striking.

My argument would be that f2f would be more likely to produce a heated suggestion that someone, umm, do something virtually anatomically impossible. If anything, having the layer in between has probably kept this more civil than it otherwise would have been. Goes right back to what you were talking about, take two average people at random & neither particularly cares whether the other lives, dies, fucks, or flies.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My argument would be that f2f would be more likely to produce a heated suggestion that someone, umm, do something virtually anatomically impossible. If anything, having the layer in between has probably kept this more civil than it otherwise would have been. Goes right back to what you were talking about, take two average people at random & neither particularly cares whether the other lives, dies, fucks, or flies.

If you pull them out of their lives as they are right now, sure. But I'm saying in a different context, when you remove the distance between people, I think they're more likely to deal with each other in a reasonable way. When some fuckwad shows up at school and starts telling you to change your snacks, you're going to get your dander up. When someone you slightly know sits down with you and explains the problems their kid is facing, you're more likely to look for solutions. That's my experience with people at least.

[Gary Gorski]

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.

You're right - people are willing to go out of their way for someone they care about just as you are for your friend - but you're wrong in saying that people don't go out of their way for someone they don't care about. How many people will rifle through their purse to come up with a couple of bucks for the Salavation Army guy or the Veteran collecting on the streets? How many people donate their time and money to soup kitchens and shelters and how many people donate money for relief efforts all over the world as well as in their own communities? We had a text sim developer who passed away suddenly leaving his wife and kids behind and I took my college basketball game and cut the price in half and came here as well as to other places and asked people to buy the game even if they didn't want the game just so we could collect money to send to his family and people bought it. This community especially is well known for helping people who are going through tough times or tragedies.

The difference is that people are willing to step up and help and in some cases give the shirt off their back when its their choice to do so. It's also not a forced change in their daily rituals - its a one time or a couple of times things just like the examples you pointed out here. There's plenty of people in the world who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves but there's still alot of good people out there and many of the people on this forum fall into that category it seems. But even the good people don't live in Mayberry - they don't come home to June Cleaver. They get up, bust their ass at work, come home and deal with bills, kids, life, try to squeeze out a few minutes of enjoyment out of some form of entertainment and go to bed to do it all again the next day. Some don't even have the luxury of getting a break - they come home from job one and go to job two. People are busier than ever because things are more expensive and it costs more to live and they're worried about how to pay the gas bill next month - you can't blame them that some girl's peanut allergy is not at the top of their list of everyday concerns.

I also think you can use the community argument the other way too. Shouldn't the parents be mindful of the fact that they're forcing everyone in the community to take this on and simply homeschool her so as not to put that burden on everyone else? Honestly if her allergy is that sever she should not be in school and if its not I bet they would get a ton more support if they and the school simply setup peanut-free tables or whatnot and just explained to parents that there is a girl in the school with a severe allergy so please try and be mindful of the snacks they send in or whatever.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

When someone you slightly know sits down with you and explains the problems their kid is facing, you're more likely to look for solutions. That's my experience with people at least.

We're probably down to one of those fundamental differences in how we view people (which is fine). More often than not, the better I know someone the more I'm reminded of a great line from songwriter Lucinda Williams "The more I see of these cowboys, the more I think of their horse".

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I also think you can use the community argument the other way too. Shouldn't the parents be mindful of the fact that they're forcing everyone in the community to take this on and simply homeschool her so as not to put that burden on everyone else? Honestly if her allergy is that sever she should not be in school and if its not I bet they would get a ton more support if they and the school simply setup peanut-free tables or whatnot and just explained to parents that there is a girl in the school with a severe allergy so please try and be mindful of the snacks they send in or whatever.

Sure, that's what I'm suggesting, that if there was a real conversation between that parent and the other parents, both would have to work on a solution. Maybe the parents would decide to keep their kids home. Maybe the group would work out a different solution. The result would grow from them, and it certainly would require work and compromise from both sides.

There's something that makes us not expect that though, give and take. We assume the parent of the kid with an allergy is going to make irresponsible demands on the rest of us, and we assume the parents in the school are going to be outraged at having to be inconvenienced. I suppose it's a parallel to the sort of reactionary polarity we see in politics too. There's reasons for it - we've already heard a lot of examples of parents being an ass about their kids allergies, we know that happens. And we've seen the other side as well. We don't hold much space open for the idea that people could be reasonable though, and take our needs into account as well as their own. Probably because it doesn't happen often. . The trouble is, once you stop expecting it, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We're probably down to one of those fundamental differences in how we view people (which is fine). More often than not, the better I know someone the more I'm reminded of a great line from songwriter Lucinda Williams "The more I see of these cowboys, the more I think of their horse".

Well, there's that too, definitely. I guess the difference is then maybe we can say, "I'm not changing my snack's for Frank's kid. Frank's an asshole." Versus "I'm not changing my snacks for that guy's kid. That guy's probably an asshole." ;-)

[JediKooter]

I think the idea of 'if we lived in communities, the world would be a better place', is kind of not true. What happens when you start having a more communal environment, then you start getting into the various cliques, just like high school. Whether it be because one group doesn't share the same religion, race, background, etc...

Yes, it's nice to think that a community would rally around to help someone in need, but, the reality of the world is, unless they are in your 'group' or their ideals and beliefs are close to yours, the odds of that happening are rather diminished in my opinion.

[albionmoonlight]

My grandparents' generation: Fought WWII. Didn't complain.

My generation: Walks around with protest signs because someone made their precious princess wash her hands at school to save another kid's life.

Fuck my generation.

[Ben E Lou]

Either three or four weeks ago today (not 100% sure which), I got a call on my cell phone from my daughter's school saying that she was running a fever and had had diarrhea three times in the last 25 minutes. I was out eating lunch at the time. I had phone appointments with three different clients scheduled that afternoon, one of which was critical, need-to-happen-today stuff, and my wife was out of town for a quick work overnight--left Thursday morning, returning Friday evening.

So in the next 25 minutes it took to get from the restaurant to the school, I am trying to call...

• our pediatrician to see if I can bring her in quickly
• my wife to let her know what's going on
• my father-in-law (pediatrician) to see if he thinks I *need* to take her in or should just take her home and let her sleep
• my boss to let him know I'm out for the day
• our work's resource management team to see if they can schedule someone else for the need-to-happen-today client
• my other two clients to push those appointments back to the following Monday.

As I said, I was at lunch. It happens that I was eating a steak at the nearby grill on that day. But what if I'd been eating at my favorite Thai place??? And what if I had ordered my favorite appetizer and meal at that place??? That would be chicken satay appetizer (peanut-based dip) and jumbo shrimp masaman curry entree (also has quite a bit of peanut in it.)

Look at those six bullet points above. Are you going to stake your child's very LIFE on the hope that a stranger is even going to remember in the midst of all that chaos "oh, I just ate peanuts...better do something." And if said stranger's brain does even click, are you going to stake your child's very LIFE on the hope that a stranger is going to remember in the midst of all that chaos to...what, exactly? Stop off at Wal-Mart and buy sweatpants and a t-shirt before he goes into the school? (Surely in that Thai dive my clothes have peanut oil all in them, and I may have spilled some curry sauce or the appetizer dip on my clothes.)

There is a child at my daughter's school with peanut allergies strong enough that it has been requested that we not send peanut butter, peanuts, etc. in lunches. It's not life-threatening, and that's the end of the "inconvenience" for everyone. I think that's reasonable.

But if my kid had a life-threatening peanut allergy, there's simply no way that I'm staking her life on a near-stranger remembering to stop and consider her in the midst of their chaos. I'm all about community and knowing neighbors and all of that. My wife and I are main catalysts of frequent neighborhood gatherings, oftentimes hosted in our home. But I'm also realistic. A thousand different variations of the scenario I mention above could occur, and I'm not risking my kid's life on any of them.

So, yeah. Put me in the camp of "it's grossly negligent to put your child in the situation to rely on the ability of hundreds of other people to follow instructions to protect her."

Yes, it sucks for the kid. Yes, it sucks for the parent. I feel terribly for them. But put me in their shoes, and I'm not relying on the thought recall of the dumb masses out there to keep my kid alive. Period.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

My grandparents' generation: Fought WWII. Didn't complain.

That same generation would have laughed their asses off at a story as absurd as this & told the parents & the administrators to go to hell while cracking roasted peanuts & dropping the shells at their feet.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

But if my kid had a life-threatening peanut allergy, there's simply no way that I'm staking her life on a near-stranger remembering to stop and consider her in the midst of their chaos.... So, yeah. Put me in the camp of "it's grossly negligent to put your child in the situation to rely on the ability of hundreds of other people to follow instructions to protect her."

Every peanut allergy is a life-threatening one. That's what makes them so difficult to manage.

So you're saying that, if your child was one of the hundreds of thousands with this relatively common condition, you would... what, exactly? Never let them out of the house? And you're framing this as some sort of appeal to practicality?

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Yes, it sucks for the kid. Yes, it sucks for the parent. I feel terribly for them. But put me in their shoes, and I'm not relying on the thought recall of the dumb masses out there to keep my kid alive. Period.

You rely on the "dumb masses" to keep your kid alive every day. You rely on them to not drive through red lights, or fall asleep during their shift as a lifeguard, or remember that they're not supposed to let the kids drink from the beaker in chemistry class. You "stake your child's very LIFE" on other people all the time. Nobody tells you to keep your kid at sealed up at home until you can figure out a way to reduce the risk to absolute zero.

Parents of kids with allergies can't win. If we ask for some basic help from the community, we're over-protecting our kids and living in fear. If we try to make reasonable compromises, we're negligent parents endangering our children.

(And as far as the specific scenario you outlined, it's really not difficult. You go to the school and get your sick child. You're making this out to be some sort of terrible dilemma. It's not. Go get your kid.)

[Glengoyne]

If the thought is that most if not all of these children with severe allergies will eventually grow out of them, is it believed that they develop immunities or a tolerance for their respective allergens? What is the mechanism for the improvement?

On another note: earlier in the there was someone asking if there were documented cases of a death due to peanut allergy passed by touch. Didn't a high school student die after kissing her boyfriend who had eaten a peanut butter cracker or some such?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

On another note: earlier in the there was someone asking if there were documented cases of a death due to peanut allergy passed by touch. Didn't a high school student die after kissing her boyfriend who had eaten a peanut butter cracker or some such?

Isn't that a little more than a touch? That's pretty much ingesting if you're swapping saliva, right?

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

If the thought is that most if not all of these children with severe allergies will eventually grow out of them, is it believed that they develop immunities or a tolerance for their respective allergens? What is the mechanism for the improvement?

On another note: earlier in the there was someone asking if there were documented cases of a death due to peanut allergy passed by touch. Didn't a high school student die after kissing her boyfriend who had eaten a peanut butter cracker or some such?

Asthma.

A Canadian coroner confirmed Thursday that a teenager — once believed to have died from a peanut allergy after kissing her boyfriend — died from an asthma attack.

Coroner Michael Miron said Christina Desforges, 15, died from cerebral anoxia, or lack of oxygen to the brain, triggered by a severe asthma attack.

In a preliminary report in March, Miron rejected a peanut allergy as the cause of death, saying he suspected cerebral anoxia. But he provided no further details.

The 15-year-old girl stopped breathing on Nov. 20 after kissing her boyfriend, who had eaten a peanut butter snack. Official findings at the time linked the death to a peanut allergy, drawing widespread media attention.

But Miron said the initial report that lingering peanut allergens from that kiss triggered an allergic reaction was wrong.

"Nine hours passed between the time when the young man ate his two toasts (with peanut butter) and 3 a.m., when he kissed Christina," Miron said. "A recent study shows at the end of an hour, there is no allergen left in the saliva."

He said she had spent hours at a party with smokers when her breathing problems began. Around 3 a.m., Desforges said she was having trouble breathing and collapsed shortly after.

She was taken to the hospital, but the coroner estimates her brain was deprived of oxygen for 25 to 30 minutes. She was taken off life support nine days later.

Miron explained that in March [he] broke the usual silence preceding the full release of a coroner's report to clarify the erroneous reports about the allergy. He said the reports were triggering suspicions that injections used to treat allergic reactions were ineffective.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

If the thought is that most if not all of these children with severe allergies will eventually grow out of them, is it believed that they develop immunities or a tolerance for their respective allergens? What is the mechanism for the improvement?

Actually, the "outgrow" rate for peanut allergies is only about 20%. (It's higher for other foods.)

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

On another note: earlier in the there was someone asking if there were documented cases of a death due to peanut allergy passed by touch. Didn't a high school student die after kissing her boyfriend who had eaten a peanut butter cracker or some such?

Yes, but that case is in some dispute if I'm remembering it right. The girl also had asthma and that was thought to be a bigger factor than the kiss.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

If we all grew up watching a friend writhing in pain and dying on the classroom floor, or heard stories of our children's classmates doing the same, if we saw a bully stick a peanut in a kid's mouth and stood helplessly as he died before us, there would be absolutely no resistance to a strict and cumbersome preventative actions. No one wants children to suffer.

But none of us have seen that

Sure. But the "where was this when I was a kid?" argument doesn't get you very far. Nobody is disputing that food allergy diagnosis are much more common now than they were when we were kids. We don't know why. It's possible that they're now being overdiagnosed. It's possible that they were previously underdiagnosed. It's possible that something has changed in our environment or culture that's triggered the rise (diet? processed food? maternal habits? hygeine hypothesis? something else? some combination?)

I didn't know any autistic kids when I was growing up. That doesn't mean the 1-in-70 boys being diagnosed now are all faking it. Diagnosis rates change.

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

... and no one here has done a scientific study verifying the real severity of these allergies.

None of us are qualified to do that. Doctors and scientists are, and there's not a lot of dissent among them as to the severity of the problem.

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

So we're all forced to take on faith what a doctor, parent, the internet or our anecdotal evidence tells us. And for many of us, what doctors and parents may say doesn't jive with our anecotal experience, so therein lies the conflict.

I hope you'll take me at my word when I say that I don't mean this as a wiseass, but... if you're experiencing a conflict because the scientific consensus doesn't match with your anecdotal experience, you should probably rethink things. It's not a big leap from there to winding up staking out a position with the Jenny McCarthy crazies.

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

So I think a lot of us, when trying to resolve this mental conflict, probably instead believe (correctly or not) that most allergy diagnoses are either incorrect or overstated. There is a small minority for which this is serious business, but for most it is simply overkill.

That absolutely makes sense and you're actually probably right. It's probably true that most kids with peanut allergies do not have an allergy serious enough to make these sorts of measures worthwhile (and I'm talking about the standard school response, not extreme cases like the one in the original article).

But the catch is that, with today's science, there's no way to know which kids are at risk and which aren't. We can only get a yes/no diagnosis, not one that measures severity. The day we can get that test, a lot of this will go away.

But until then, we're stuck with the overkill option. Just like it will almost certainly turn out to be a waste of time for you to do up your seatbelt on your drive home home tonight, but you still will, because it just makes sense given the relatively minor effort compared to the risk involved.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i don't have a dog in this fight. but i was interested so i checked with the oracle. from wiki:

The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America estimates that peanut allergy is one of the most common cause of food-related death.

However, there is an increasing body of medical opinion that, while there definitely are food sensitivities, the dramatic uptick in frequency of nut allergies and more particularly the measures taken in response to the threat show elements of mass psychogenic illness, hysterical reactions grossly out of proportion to the level of danger:

"Dr. Christakis points out that about 3.3 million Americans are allergic to nuts, and even more — 6.9 million — are allergic to seafood. But of 30 million hospitalizations each year, just 2,000 are due to food allergies, and about 150 people die annually from serious allergic food reactions. That’s the same number of people killed by bee stings and lightning strikes combined. About 10,000 children are hospitalized annually with traumatic brain injuries from sports, 2,000 children drown each year, and about 1,300 die in gun accidents, he writes." ^[Media sensationalism has also been blamed.
...
In America, about 10 people per year die from peanut allergies.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I hope you'll take me at my word when I say that I don't mean this as a wiseass, but... if you're experiencing a conflict because the scientific consensus doesn't match with your anecdotal experience, you should probably rethink things. It's not a big leap from there to winding up staking out a position with the Jenny McCarthy crazies.

eh, I still think there's a middle ground there somewhere for us sane people to still practice doubt judiciously when listening to those that 'know more'. We all learn the hard way to not believe everything we're told, otherwise every trip to the mechanic would cost us $3,000, every real estate agent would get 6%, etc.

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

But until then, we're stuck with the overkill option. Just like it will almost certainly turn out to be a waste of time for you to do up your seatbelt on your drive home home tonight, but you still will, because it just makes sense given the relatively minor effort compared to the risk involved.

Actually I'm one of those complete dumbasses who doesn't; I also bristle at the idea of child safety seats, bike helmets, and any kind of insurance (health, life, car). Different people approach risk differently - some try to mitigate and avoid as much as possible, others take the opposite approach, revelling in the tiny gains realized at each ignored risk avoided. Not defending my stupidity here - just pointing out different outlooks. Taken to a silly extreme: A peanut nazi would force me to do more for another person than I would even do for myself or my own loved ones.

[Autumn]

And our society forces Christian Scientists to do more for their children than they would otherwise choose. There are many occasions where we govern risk as a society rather than as individuals.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Every peanut allergy is a life-threatening one. That's what makes them so difficult to manage.

So you're saying that, if your child was one of the hundreds of thousands with this relatively common condition, you would... what, exactly? Never let them out of the house? And you're framing this as some sort of appeal to practicality?

Maybe I'm missing something here then. I got the impression from this thread that some children have such severe allergies that if they were to be exposed to a parent who had just spent 45 minutes in a heavy peanut environment that death is quite likely, so extreme measures like the ones in the article are necessary for survival. And I got the impression that others' allergies are more mild (like the kid at my daughter's school,) so all that's necessary is that the parents in his specific class don't send their kids to school with a peanut butter sandwich. If that's not the case, then yes, it's more difficult than that. But I stand by my statement that if my kid had such an allergy where minimal exposure would put her at very high risk for death, then yeah, we're figuring out some different ways to do life.

You rely on the "dumb masses" to keep your kid alive every day. You rely on them to not drive through red lights, or fall asleep during their shift as a lifeguard, or remember that they're not supposed to let the kids drink from the beaker in chemistry class. You "stake your child's very LIFE" on other people all the time. Nobody tells you to keep your kid at sealed up at home until you can figure out a way to reduce the risk to absolute zero.

See above. It's all about the *level* of risk involved. Again, if I've misinterpreted the level of risk (or if the level of risk has been misrepresented,) then my assessment of the situation would be different.

Parents of kids with allergies can't win. If we ask for some basic help from the community, we're over-protecting our kids and living in fear. If we try to make reasonable compromises, we're negligent parents endangering our children.

Hate to sound like a broken record, but it's again back to the thought that all levels of allergy aren't the same. Basic help such as I've outlined previously is reasonable. Anyone who states otherwise is wrong.

(And as far as the specific scenario you outlined, it's really not difficult. You go to the school and get your sick child. You're making this out to be some sort of terrible dilemma. It's not. Go get your kid.)

You're not following me, then. No dilemma at all. My point is that I'm going to the school to get my kid, and it's very likely in that scenario that so much is on my mind that I completely forget that there's another kid that I'm putting in death's way when I walk in those doors. I'm saying that it doesn't take someone being insensitive or rude or malicious or even thoughtless to introduce a deadly substance into the environment; it just takes the wrong set of circumstances. And the circumstances I'm talking about aren't particularly far-fetched. As I'm sure you're very well aware, there are tons of places out there with tons of parents eating in them with a high concentration of peanut products.

[B & B]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Actually I'm one of those complete dumbasses who doesn't; I also bristle at the idea of child safety seats, bike helmets, and any kind of insurance (health, life, car). Different people approach risk differently - some try to mitigate and avoid as much as possible, others take the opposite approach, revelling in the tiny gains realized at each ignored risk avoided. Not defending my stupidity here - just pointing out different outlooks. Taken to a silly extreme: A peanut nazi would force me to do more for another person than I would even do for myself or my own loved ones.

This. At least to some extent. Live life. Dont worry about hedging every perceived risk, real or imagined. Do stupid shit every now and then to make sure youre still alive. If you cant remember a half dozen things you did as a kid that seem absolutely bat shit crazy now then blame your parents.

I dont like most folks with food allergies just like I dont like most people who cant order off the menu without making 14 changes and substitutions, or asking half a dozen questions. Stop trying to order the Thai peanut spring rolls if you have an allergy and have to ask about preparation, sauces, and peanut oil. Get a damn salad, or something else and make everyones life easier. Its a meal.

[BishopMVP]

I think 4 of the 6 elementary/middle schools in town are now peanut-free or nut-free environments. And I'm perfectly willing to draw the line where Ben (and others) have - if you have to ask parents not to send in any peanut-based products and want to make sure every teacher/administrator is educated on the matter, ok, but if the child is going to die from breathing in air from someone who has recently eaten a product with nuts in it, they should be home-schooled.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by B & B

This. At least to some extent. Live life. Dont worry about hedging every perceived risk, real or imagined. Do stupid shit every now and then to make sure youre still alive. If you cant remember a half dozen things you did as a kid that seem absolutely bat shit crazy now then blame your parents.

"Living life" is not really a binary choice- either you "live life" or you "live cautiously". For instance, I wear a seat belt because I make the call that the small amount of inconvenience is worth mitigating the risk. However, if I were given a choice between flying on Super Corporate Frisk-a-lot and Backscatter X-Ray Protection Airline vs Big Larry's All-We-Have-is-a-Metal-Detector Airline, I'd fly with Larry. Why? Because, in my mind, the risk/reward of a seat belt (a few seconds and 40K dead per year) is far different than the risk/reward of TSA policies (two hours of hassle for one 3K person incident 10 years ago).

I don't get to make that choice, tho. We all live in a social contract and, as a society, decide what is an acceptable risk. We elect people who write laws that, in theory, a majority of people agree with and if we don't like it- we vote for someone else to rewrite those laws. Or we elect or elect people who nominate judges to interpret these laws.

You can't just say "let me live my life" because there's always going to be that middle of the Venn Diagram where your life intersects someone else's and there has to be a mechanism in place so that's why we have laws.

SI

[CrimsonFox]

The question is ARE people actually more susceptible to life-threatening allergies nowadays and are allergy symptoms as a whole getting worse? Or have there always been these kinds of cases about?

I've always felt that medicine as a whole simply deals with odds. If MOST people react a certain way, then that's how doctors diagnose.

Allergies, though, there are mild cases and extreme cases. I think the way we treat illnesses has changed. When I was in high school it seemed teachers didn't give a crap about specific illnesses kids had and how doing specific activities would threaten their health. (especially the idiot P.E. teachers)

Now it seems people build monuments to people with strange illnesses.
I think, for the kid's own safety, they should have that kid eat their lunch in a different place than everyone else and allow their friends to eat with them. There's no way you can make sure people don't have peanut butter in the main lunchroom.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Actually I'm one of those complete dumbasses who doesn't; I also bristle at the idea of child safety seats, bike helmets, and any kind of insurance (health, life, car). Different people approach risk differently - some try to mitigate and avoid as much as possible, others take the opposite approach, revelling in the tiny gains realized at each ignored risk avoided. Not defending my stupidity here - just pointing out different outlooks. Taken to a silly extreme: A peanut nazi would force me to do more for another person than I would even do for myself or my own loved ones.

You don't want to wear a seatbelt and risk killing yourself that is your business, but child safety seats? You would really put your child at risk?

Also, not having insurance is a risk. The problem is when you can't pay for yout 70K appendix surgery the cost results in the rest of us having higher rates, which makes you kind of an ass IMO.

There is a difference between taking risks and being irresponsible. People who don't do things to keep their children safe or those who don't have insurance fall into the later catergory, IMO.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Lathum

... but child safety seats? You would really put your child at risk?

Again, common sense comes into play. The current proposal in Georgia is to raise the raise to EIGHT, which is one of the most idiotic fucking things I've ever heard.

[tarcone]

Schools allow food from home. But in a party situation (Bday, Christmas, etc.) parents have to bring store bought items. But they have to be nut-free. Or, if not, the peanut allergy student isnt in the room or is and doesnt eat. Most parents will bring nut-free. No one wants to leave a kid out.

But, if s child will die because my daughter decided to eat peanut butter toast for breakfast and she breathes on another child, or Ben eats a peanut based product and rushes to school to get his sick child and the deathly allergic child is in the nurses office also. The child needs to be at home in an environment that is safe and healthy for that child.

I dont know why it is so important that a school has to change its entire culture and atmosphere for one child. Sure its free public education for all. But is it worth it?

Or are the parents looking for a lawsuit?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Again, common sense comes into play. The current proposal in Georgia is to raise the raise to EIGHT, which is one of the most idiotic fucking things I've ever heard.

What about keeping children in rear-facing child seats until 2? My daughters would have been folded in half in one of those.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Again, common sense comes into play. The current proposal in Georgia is to raise the raise to EIGHT, which is one of the most idiotic fucking things I've ever heard.

One of the parents on my facebook feed recently posted some article suggesting kids stay in a booster seat until age 12 or 5 feet tall. I laughed.

[B & B]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Again, common sense comes into play. The current proposal in Georgia is to raise the raise to EIGHT, which is one of the most idiotic fucking things I've ever heard.

By age 8 I was learning to drive on dirt backroads.

Only 100 years ago less than 5% of the U.S. population was born in a hospital. Maybe if Uncle Bob or the midwife there in the house for the birthing had just eaten some peanut butter the kid doenst make it. They certainly werent wearing masks in that sterile environment and things worked out just fine. While harsh, maybe thats for the best. Theres something to be said about survival of the fittest. Just a few generations after common homebirthing and you cant breathe peanut dust on some allergic freakazoid kid without a near death experience.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

What about keeping children in rear-facing child seats until 2? My daughters would have been folded in half in one of those.

I'm not a fan of the car seats in general frankly, as I find them to be poorly conceived torture devices intended to create as much aggravation as possible for both parent & child, as well as to cause back problems for parents forced to find a way to wrangle children into them while working in a confined space that forces poor lifting techniques. One of the happiest days of my life in the past 12 years was when my son was finally legally free of the damned things.

They're one of only two things in my life that I've ever actually considered trying to find someone to help invent/engineer improvements in (the other being durable yet fashionable plastic clothes that make it easy to simply hose a child down after feeding time.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by B & B

By age 8 I was learning to drive on dirt backroads.

Only 100 years ago less than 5% of the U.S. population was born in a hospital. Maybe if Uncle Bob or the midwife there in the house for the birthing had just eaten some peanut butter the kid doenst make it. They certainly werent wearing masks in that sterile environment and things worked out just fine. While harsh, maybe thats for the best. Theres something to be said about survival of the fittest. Just a few generations after common homebirthing and you cant breathe peanut dust on some allergic freakazoid kid without a near death experience.

Fertility and Mortality in the United States | Economic History Services

Um... to be fair, the infant mortality rate in 1900 was 110/170 (depending on ethnicity) per 1000 compared to 5/14 now.

So, yeah, turns out that sterile environment takes the rate of your kid dying at birth from 1 in 10 (or 6) to 1 in 200 (or 100). So maybe that sterile environment helps just a smidge, you know, to the tune of, I dunno, 20 times as much.

So, yeah, out of every 1000 kids, 105 (or 154) kindof don't think the old way "turned out just fine".

SI

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Maybe I'm missing something here then. I got the impression from this thread that some children have such severe allergies that if they were to be exposed to a parent who had just spent 45 minutes in a heavy peanut environment that death is quite likely, so extreme measures like the ones in the article are necessary for survival. And I got the impression that others' allergies are more mild (like the kid at my daughter's school,) so all that's necessary is that the parents in his specific class don't send their kids to school with a peanut butter sandwich.

Fair enough. You framed your argument around kids with "life-threatening" allergies. All peanut allergies, even mild ones, can fall into that category.

You and several others in this thread say you're open to accomodating less severe allergies, but would balk at those like the one described in Florida. That's reasonable. Just be aware that when your child comes home with a note about a new kid in class with an allergy, there's a 99% chance they're talking about the former group.

That's why stories like this one from Florida are, ultimately, not all that helpful to parents of peanut allergy kids. I guarantee that next September, thousands of parents will think backto this story and immediately go on the defensive when their school starts talking about precautions.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by B & B

This. At least to some extent. Live life. Dont worry about hedging every perceived risk, real or imagined. Do stupid shit every now and then to make sure youre still alive. If you cant remember a half dozen things you did as a kid that seem absolutely bat shit crazy now then blame your parents.

Hey, if you believe that kids today are over-caudled and soft, wonderful, many people would agree with you. If you want to make it your mission to change that, then go ahead. But do it for your kids. Don't conveniently draw your line on an issue that impacts the safety of my child and not yours.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

The question is ARE people actually more susceptible to life-threatening allergies nowadays and are allergy symptoms as a whole getting worse? Or have there always been these kinds of cases about?

That's absolutely the right question.

Ultimately, my guess is it's a bit of both. There's no doubt that the criteria for diagnosis food allergies has widened, so in that sense there are definitely kids being diagnosed today who wouldn't have been a generation ago. And while some parents wouldn't agree with me, I think it's almost certainly true that there are kids being diagnosed today who are false positives, and don't really have an allergy worth worrying about.

But it doesn't seem to be just that. Something is making kids more susceptible to these allergies. The person who figures out what will probably end up very rich. But so far we don't have any answers.

Meanwhile, as much as the question is important, never forget to put yourself in the shoes of the parents. We've had a doctor look us in the eye and tell us our child has a life-threatening medical condition. Maybe the doctor's wrong. Let's hope he is. But what would you do if you were me? Do you want to take a chance that your kid might be one of the lucky ones?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

That's absolutely the right question.

Ultimately, my guess is it's a bit of both. There's no doubt that the criteria for diagnosis food allergies has widened, so in that sense there are definitely kids being diagnosed today who wouldn't have been a generation ago. And while some parents wouldn't agree with me, I think it's almost certainly true that there are kids being diagnosed today who are false positives, and don't really have an allergy worth worrying about.

But it doesn't seem to be just that. Something is making kids more susceptible to these allergies. The person who figures out what will probably end up very rich. But so far we don't have any answers.

Meanwhile, as much as the question is important, never forget to put yourself in the shoes of the parents. We've had a doctor look us in the eye and tell us our child has a life-threatening medical condition. Maybe the doctor's wrong. Let's hope he is. But what would you do if you were me? Do you want to take a chance that your kid might be one of the lucky ones?

Home school the child.

[Buccaneer]

Sorry to go back to a OT post but I had never heard of school not allowing outside food, in any grades. This would cover all of the experiences in Colorado, Arizona, Oregon and California.

Marginally related but last year, my son was in a hostile Jr. High school environment. Instead of trying to get everyone to conform, we changed his environment (to another school).

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Meanwhile, as much as the question is important, never forget to put yourself in the shoes of the parents. We've had a doctor look us in the eye and tell us our child has a life-threatening medical condition. Maybe the doctor's wrong. Let's hope he is. But what would you do if you were me? Do you want to take a chance that your kid might be one of the lucky ones?

I guess that's kind of the point. No...I wouldn't take that chance at all with my kid so I wouldn't put him/her in that environment with so many variables at play if I truly felt that trace elements of peanut dust could possibly kill them. I would, in no way, see changing the daily behaviors of every other person in their environment as an option...or a chance , if you will...that I could be comfortable with.

I don't think that is saying anything bad about people today. As Ben, Jon & others have said...people will make accommodations where common sense & reasonable levels of logic apply. I guess if you live in a 100 person village or something you could possibly get everybody to be aware & onboard (even then I'd have my doubts)...but not in a 10k + population town or larger. I simply wouldn't be able to take that risk on behalf of my kid...again, if I believed merely breathing the dust could trigger death.

It might also say something about different people as well. I tend to think that my problems (or by proxy, my family's) are mine to deal with and to the extent possible I don't want to ask others to do anything special for me. I simply don't like being a source of burden to others as I realize & respect they all have their own issues & burdens to deal with. I guess I kind of expect others to feel the same & not ask me to go to extreme levels of burden for them, especially when I do not know them.

Having said that...I do believe it is reasonable to ask kids/parents sharing classes with my child to not bring in peanut-sourced foods to the extent they can help it. I would like to think at least 1/5 of them will comply daily, and as such, would think it reasonable for my child to have a table where some of the 1/5 can eat with them. In return for such thoughtfulness of those parents/kids...I think I would be inclined to treat them to a peanut-free lunch once a week/month/bi-monthly or whatever I could afford to do as a sign of appreciation for what they have done to make things more comfortable for my child. Again...this assumes my child is not so severely allergic to the point that I believe they could die from simply being near trace amounts of peanut dust.

I guess its a bit of ...give respect/get respect in my mind. I respect that other families have burdens of their own to live with and for those who can make reasonable accommodations for my child, great. But I would never even consider the concept that everybody else should radically change their lives & eating habits to accommodate the issues/burdens I (and my family) have to deal with daily. Maybe I'm old school or something...but it's just disrespectful if you ask me.

[stevew]

They need to remake Macauley Caulkin's My Girl and this time have the adorable boy be allergic to peanuts. I'm foreseeing a slow mo cam where a vendor at Yankee stadium tosses a bag of nuts to someone on the upper deck....it breaks open and a nut falls from the sky into his soda and he dies.

Can I get a greenlight?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Sorry to go back to a OT post but I had never heard of school not allowing outside food, in any grades. This would cover all of the experiences in Colorado, Arizona, Oregon and California.

Marginally related but last year, my son was in a hostile Jr. High school environment. Instead of trying to get everyone to conform, we changed his environment (to another school).

In our case you can send a packed lunch. But they disallow food for parties/birthdays.

[RendeR]

Both of my kids attend public school. My sons Pre-K class is so small he usually has to take snacks in for the whole class 2 days out of the month (they rotate through the kids). My daughter's class is larger (Kindergarten) and she takes an all class snack once a month.

We've never been told NOT to send any tyupe of thing and the snacks we generally pick up are boxed varity packs of nabisco crackers/cookies which are guarenteed to have some peanut issues (Nutter butters anyone?)

That said, the school, teachers and assistants are aware of allergy issues in their classrooms and ensure that there are appropriate snacks and precautions in place for kids with allergies. I do not know if anyone in their school has a life threatening allergy so I can't really comment on teh severity issue and how they would deal with that.


As for MaleLeafs blanket statement that all peanut allergies are life threatening, umm..they're not. From direct consultation with multiple doctors, pediatricians and PA's Nurses etc during our kids growing stages.

Allergies to nuts in general can range from a simple rash to death and everything in between. Saying that all of them are life threatening is exactly the fear mongering hysteria that creates the division between people on this topic. Please stop spreading misinformation.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Both of my kids attend public school. My sons Pre-K class is so small he usually has to take snacks in for the whole class 2 days out of the month (they rotate through the kids). My daughter's class is larger (Kindergarten) and she takes an all class snack once a month.

We've never been told NOT to send any tyupe of thing and the snacks we generally pick up are boxed varity packs of nabisco crackers/cookies which are guarenteed to have some peanut issues (Nutter butters anyone?)

I sometimes wish I could climb into a time machine and travel back 20 years to present-day Buffalo.

[RendeR]

Are you wishing for the easier less anally retentive lifestyle that we enjoy here or are you being an asshole and insulting my home by saying its 20 years behind the times? You didn't properly notate your fascetiousness or sarcasm, depending on the PoV.