Parents protest 6-year-old with peanut allergy

[Puppycow]

Because their kids' rights are being violated by being forced to do things like wash their hands. Oh, the humanity!

Parents picket girl with peanut allergy, ask her to withdraw from school (http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/24/parents-picket-girl-with-peanut-allergy-ask-her-to-withdraw-from-school/)

:(

[Meadmaker]

I think that the multiple daily mandatory mouth-rinsings drove a lot of parents over the edge.

[RPG Advocate]

I agree 100% with the protesting parents on this one. Subjecting first-graders to invasive searches for the benefit of another student goes well beyond the bounds of "reasonable accommodation."

The school is acting like peanut products emit death rays that can kill this girl even if she doesn't actually consume them. Let's get some perspective on the actual danger here.

If her parents want her to live a bubble, they should have to provide that environment, not the school.

[I Ratant]

Back in the Middle Ages when I was in grade school, peanut butter allergies weren't even heard of.
PB&J sammiches were part of the school lunches.
Kids weren't swelling up and dropping like flies.
Why is it now a problem?

[bluesjnr]

Back in the Middle Ages when I was in grade school, peanut butter allergies weren't even heard of.
PB&J sammiches were part of the school lunches.
Kids weren't swelling up and dropping like flies.
Why is it now a problem?

This.

[geni]

Why is it now a problem?

Unknown. So far research into the question has made only limited progress but research is ongoing.

[Kid Eager]

Unknown. So far research into the question has made only limited progress but research is ongoing.

Hmmm... the possibilities.

The science has caught up: Now that we know what to look for, we can see it.
The children that used to die from it survive, so it's more apparent
People with the allergy not longer die from it, so pass on the sensitivity to the next generation
Peanuts weren't as readily available, so the sensitivity to peanuts was not triggered
correlation with the presence or absence of peanuts during gestation
correlations with the presence or absence of breastfeeding
correlation with consumption of other foodstuffs


and so on and so on...

[Puppycow]

I agree 100% with the protesting parents on this one. Subjecting first-graders to invasive searches for the benefit of another student goes well beyond the bounds of "reasonable accommodation."

The school is acting like peanut products emit death rays that can kill this girl even if she doesn't actually consume them. Let's get some perspective on the actual danger here.

If her parents want her to live a bubble, they should have to provide that environment, not the school.

Where does it say anything about "invasive searches"?

Washing the hands and rinsing the mouth are good ideas anyway. They prevent colds and tooth decay.

[Gawdzilla]

Back in the Middle Ages when I was in grade school, peanut butter allergies weren't even heard of.
PB&J sammiches were part of the school lunches.
Kids weren't swelling up and dropping like flies.
Why is it now a problem?

Because most of them died before they got to school.

[Checkmite]

I agree 100% with the protesting parents on this one. Subjecting first-graders to invasive searches for the benefit of another student goes well beyond the bounds of "reasonable accommodation."

Invasive searches here meaning "washing their hands after lunch".

[Puppycow]

Because most of them died before they got to school.

And life would be so much more convenient for everyone else if this one would just die too.

[RPG Advocate]

Where does it say anything about "invasive searches"?

Washing the hands and rinsing the mouth are good ideas anyway. They prevent colds and tooth decay.

Invasive searches here meaning "washing their hands after lunch".

I'm talking about the peanut-sniffing dog inspections (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110324/lf_ac/8137520_call_off_the_peanutsniffing_dogs).

Edgewater Elementary shifted any burden it may have to third parties. The non-disabled classmates are required to refrain from bringing peanut products into school, required to undergo mandatory mouth and hand washes and dog-sniffing inspections.

[Checkmite]

Fine - drop the dog; everything else is 100% reasonable. Children should be taught to wash their hands and rinse their mouths after eating anyway.

[Puppycow]

Getting sniffed by a dog. Wow, that's just an intolerable inconvenience.

[Oualawouzou]

Getting sniffed by a dog. Wow, that's just an intolerable inconvenience.

It is a ridiculous and humiliating inconvenience.

[Checkmite]

Boy, do I need to have a conversation with my neighbor.

[Damien Evans]

Back in the Middle Ages when I was in grade school, peanut butter allergies weren't even heard of.
PB&J sammiches were part of the school lunches.
Kids weren't swelling up and dropping like flies.
Why is it now a problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphylaxis

[Puppycow]

It is a ridiculous and humiliating inconvenience.

I disagree. Your threshold for "humiliation" is pretty low.

[Travis]

The dogs are unnecessary. The other kids should be able to eat peanuts if they choose. It's not like the kid is going to explode just if they are in the same room as them. I have a friend with a peanut allergy. He never died when I ate a sandwich in front of him.

[Puppycow]

I have a friend with a peanut allergy. He never died when I ate a sandwich in front of him.

Are all peanut allergies exactly the same?

[Meadmaker]

I'm talking about the peanut-sniffing dog inspections (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110324/lf_ac/8137520_call_off_the_peanutsniffing_dogs).

I missed that part.

The principal (or whoever ordered the dog) should be fired. Immediately. Yes I'm serious.

ETA: Although, I might also be knee-jerking a bit. A quick google suggested that the students themselves were not subject to peanut sniffing dog searches, but that the school itself may have been gone over by a peanut sniffing canine. If that's the case, then there's nothing wrong with that. I had the impression from the previous link that kids entering the classroom had to be inspected by the peanut-sniffer. I would raise holy hell if someone tried to do that to my kid. (And the fact that he happens to be allergic to dogs would have nothing to do with it.)

[lionking]

The school is being eminently sensible and saving itself from damaging lawsuits. My wife works in a child care centre, and bringing any peanuts of food with traces of peanuts is prohibited.

BTW, I would bet a large amount of money that when the risks are precautions are explained to the kids, they would have no problem with it. Unlike "my kid's rights are being violated" parents.

[samanthakayee]

My husband can not eat peanut buter but he make them for my kids all the time. He just does not eat them and washes his hands.

[Irony]

There are no cases of anyone ever being killed by merely breathing in a few peanut particulates. The case of the girl who died by kissing a guy who just ate a peanut sandwich is notable because such a thing is very very unlikely. The child is at no credible risk so long as she does not eat anything containing peanuts. Instead of all this hyper paranoia, the school staff and the child should educate themselves on the actual risks and avoid them rather than going on like merely being within a 100 meter radius of a peanut will cause her to spontaneously combust.

[Meadmaker]

There are no cases of anyone ever being killed by merely breathing in a few peanut particulates. The case of the girl who died by kissing a guy who just ate a peanut sandwich is notable because such a thing is very very unlikely. The child is at no credible risk so long as she does not eat anything containing peanuts. Instead of all this hyper paranoia, the school staff and the child should educate themselves on the actual risks and avoid them rather than going on like merely being within a 100 meter radius of a peanut will cause her to spontaneously combust.

To be fair, there are some people who really have a life threatening allergy, and ingestion is not required. I knew someone whose son stopped breathing on the playground one day after his hand landed on a spot on the monkey bars where a previous kid had been eating a peanut butter sandwich, had peanut residue on his hands, and left peanut oil residue on the monkey bars. His epi-pen and an alert teacher saved his life.

I have some sympathy for the parents and children involved in these cases. This woman, who I met when she was about 50 and her son was in his late twenties, said she lived with constant anxiety that stray peanuts really could end her son's life.

Nevertheless, there are limits on how much other people should have to go to in order to accomodate people like her son. It appears that the Florida school district may have crossed that line, although news reports are somewhat conflicting on which things actually happened, and which things were rumored.

[Puppycow]

Nevertheless, there are limits on how much other people should have to go to in order to accomodate people like her son. It appears that the Florida school district may have crossed that line, although news reports are somewhat conflicting on which things actually happened, and which things were rumored.

In this case the limit seems to be any slightest inconvenience whatsoever.

[gumboot]

I'm of the mind that if someone is so allergic to peanuts that using a sniffer dog on the school grounds and prohibiting anyone from bringing peanut products to school is considered a reasonable precaution, that person should probably be exposed to peanuts before they have time to breed and pass on their genes.

There's a limit to the "as long as it doesn't infringe on the welfare of others" principle. Some people draw the short straw in life and are born with insanely rare and volatile disabilities. That really sucks, but the rest of humanity should not be required to accommodate them. If the parents want their child to live, and their condition really is that extreme, they shouldn't be sending their child to school.

Alternatively, the child's condition isn't extreme enough to warrant such measures.

Either way, I cannot see a reasonable justification for the school's response.

[gumboot]

In this case the limit seems to be any slightest inconvenience whatsoever.


Prohibiting anyone from bringing peanut products onto school grounds is pretty extreme. Peanuts are a nutritious, delicious, and healthy snack, enjoyed by millions of people the world over.

If the kid really is this allergic it's irresponsible for the parents to send them to school. There's no way any school can ensure a peanut-free environment. To expect them to do so is totally unreasonable. The child needs to be home-schooled in a controlled environment.

[Alan]

I'm of the mind that if someone is so allergic to peanuts that using a sniffer dog on the school grounds and prohibiting anyone from bringing peanut products to school is considered a reasonable precaution, that person should probably be exposed to peanuts before they have time to breed and pass on their genes. [...]

Oh my.

If I was a parent of this child, I might consider homeschooling her if her allergies were as severe as they seem.
If I was a parent of another child at the school, I would not object to what the school is doing.

[lionking]

Oh my.

I agree. That was a disgusting post from an otherwise sensible member. Eugenics here we come.

[gumboot]

Oh my.

What can I say? Evolution is cruel.

[lionking]

What can I say? Evolution is cruel.

Please tell me you're joking. Why not just put new born babies out in the forest and see who survives?

[gumboot]

I agree. That was a disgusting post from an otherwise sensible member. Eugenics here we come.

I didn't mean deliberately expose them. That would be murder. I also wasn't being entirely serious. But hey.

On a more serious note I do think our living environments are far, far too sanitised. To our detriment. We could all do with a little more exposure to dirt and bacteria and other nasty things in this world. Sure, a few people will die because of it, but hey. People die all the time.

I can't condone efforts to further sanitise the environment of children.

Also, it sounds really, really sad that this child has to sit alone eating lunch while the rest of the kids are all together. That seems really cruel. Better if they were home-schooled, I think.

[gumboot]

Please tell me you're joking. Why not just put new born babies out in the forest and see who survives?


All mammals are dependent on their parents in the initial stages of their life. This allows the animal more time to develop and has a clear evolutionary advantage. I can't think of any evolutionary advantage that a nut allergy provides.

And yes, I was joking.

[lionking]

And yes, I was joking.

Thank you. Smilies help.

[Puppycow]

Prohibiting anyone from bringing peanut products onto school grounds is pretty extreme.I haven't read that this is the case. My understanding was that they can't bring it into the classroom. The cafeteria is OK, AFAIK.
Another article (http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979160174)

[gumboot]

Thank you. Smilies help.


But then you would know I was joking, and where's the fun in that? :p




Actually, in all seriousness, for your sake I apologise for my comments. As a general rule I'm pretty okay with offending, disgusting and upsetting posters here with my "sense of humour", but you're one of the posters I hold in the highest regard and I don't actually like the thought of upsetting you.

In the meantime I did some more digging and it seems like those more extreme "measures" aren't true (I have no real issues with kids washing their hands and mouths), so all is well.

I still feel pretty bad that this girl has to eat her lunch alone. :(

[gumboot]

I haven't read that this is the case. My understanding was that they can't bring it into the classroom. The cafeteria is OK, AFAIK.
Another article (http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979160174)


Yeah I've noticed a couple of articles that indicate along these lines. Interesting bit of extra info in that article seems to suggest the school is obligated to take these measures under US Law. If true, and assuming the actual measures are unreasonable by my measure (that remains unclear), I can't really fault the school in that case. It would seem the law is at fault.

I don't know about the US but here in NZ anyone whose disability is deemed beyond what a regular school should reasonably be expected to cope with is required to go to a special school with trained personnel and a much, much more controlled environment.

My sister worked at such a school for a while actually. The kids there all had really acute and awful disabilities of various types, and while it was gut-wrenching hearing their stories it was also pretty awe-inspiring how "normal" a life the staff were able to provide these kids, given the circumstances.

[Accidental Martyr]

There are no cases of anyone ever being killed by merely breathing in a few peanut particulates. The case of the girl who died by kissing a guy who just ate a peanut sandwich is notable because such a thing is very very unlikely. The child is at no credible risk so long as she does not eat anything containing peanuts. Instead of all this hyper paranoia, the school staff and the child should educate themselves on the actual risks and avoid them rather than going on like merely being within a 100 meter radius of a peanut will cause her to spontaneously combust.

The teenage girl who was first reported to have died from a "peanut butter kiss" actually died from an asthma attack.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500486_162-1614851-500486.html

[JWideman]

Back in the Middle Ages when I was in grade school, peanut butter allergies weren't even heard of.
PB&J sammiches were part of the school lunches.
Kids weren't swelling up and dropping like flies.
Why is it now a problem?

Probably because all the kids who would have had peanut allergies died of other things before reaching school age.

[Professor Yaffle]

My kids aren't allowed to bring in any peanuts to school because one of the kids has a severe allergy. Once a parent sent in their kid with a peanut butter sandwich, and that kid later touched the allergic kid on the arm. The kid ended up in hospital.

Not all allergies are of the same severity.

[gumboot]

My kids aren't allowed to bring in any peanuts to school because one of the kids has a severe allergy. Once a parent sent in their kid with a peanut butter sandwich, and that kid later touched the allergic kid on the arm. The kid ended up in hospital.

Not all allergies are of the same severity.



Do you think it's reasonable to enforce the above conditions, rather than make the child with the allergy attend a special school or be home-schooled? Would such measures prepare a child appropriately for surviving in the real world?

[Darat]

I'm of the mind that if someone is so allergic to peanuts that using a sniffer dog on the school grounds and prohibiting anyone from bringing peanut products to school is considered a reasonable precaution, that person should probably be exposed to peanuts before they have time to breed and pass on their genes.

...snip....

Alternatively, the child's condition isn't extreme enough to warrant such measures.

Either way, I cannot see a reasonable justification for the school's response.

I would say if the child's allergy is so extreme to justify such precautions then the child will have to be kept away from other children for their own safety; a school environment is simply too dangerous for them.


ETA: The other article does give further details and it sounds as if the precautions are more reasonable.

[Cactus Wren]

Back in the Middle Ages when I was in grade school, peanut butter allergies weren't even heard of.
PB&J sammiches were part of the school lunches.
Kids weren't swelling up and dropping like flies.
Why is it now a problem?

Because the kids who were going to, already had.

And the kids who were at risk had to stay away from public schools, like blind kids and kids with cerebral palsy. Oh for the good old days, right?

(I can't help but wonder what it's like for that little girl, to pass the school and see her schoolmates' parents shouting and brandishing signs demanding she be excluded because of a health problem she can't help, because it's just so HARRRRRRRRRRD for THEIR chilllllldrun to wash their hands.)

[ThunderChunky]

This school board is totally overreacting... Lots of people have peanut allergies, but society does not revolve around keeping them safe. People with the allergy will learn to take care of themselves. The peanut allergy is in my family and no one has died from it yet...no school ever took special precautions that affected other kids. Keep some anti histamine on hand...things will be okay, take them to the hospital if you want to be uber safe. The girl and peanuts can coexist in the school.

There is now treatment for the peanut allergy..a tolerance can be built up to the point where you can eat the equivalent of one peanut per day.

[Cactus Wren]

Getting sniffed by a dog. Wow, that's just an intolerable inconvenience.
It is a ridiculous and humiliating inconvenience.

But there's nothing ridiculous or humiliating about being six years old and having several dozen adults gang up and demand you be denied your right to an education.

[Cactus Wren]

I'm of the mind that if someone is so allergic to peanuts that using a sniffer dog on the school grounds and prohibiting anyone from bringing peanut products to school is considered a reasonable precaution, that person should probably be exposed to peanuts before they have time to breed and pass on their genes.

There's a limit to the "as long as it doesn't infringe on the welfare of others" principle. Some people draw the short straw in life and are born with insanely rare and volatile disabilities. That really sucks, but the rest of humanity should not be required to accommodate them. If the parents want their child to live, and their condition really is that extreme, they shouldn't be sending their child to school.

Alternatively, the child's condition isn't extreme enough to warrant such measures.

Either way, I cannot see a reasonable justification for the school's response.

Please, feel free to post again, explaining this in the terms you would use when speaking to the child.

Imagine it. The child has a life-threatening allergy. Explain to her that she needs to die quickly and get her genes out of YOUR precious genetic pool.

[ThunderChunky]

But there's nothing ridiculous or humiliating about being six years old and having several dozen adults gang up and demand you be denied your right to an education.

They are protesting because the school board (possibly at request of the parents of the allergic child) are forcing unreasonable accommodations on the other children. In fact, these accommodations may reasonably interfere with the other childrens' education and diet. These parents are having the rights of their children infringed upon. Peanut allergy is not a disability, and even if it was, it does not warrant such accommodations. That is the issue at hand.

[Darat]

But there's nothing ridiculous or humiliating about being six years old and having several dozen adults gang up and demand you be denied your right to an education.

That is not what has happened.

[Cactus Wren]

They are protesting because the school board (possibly at request of the parents of the allergic child) are forcing unreasonable accommodations on the other children. In fact, these accommodations may reasonably interfere with the other childrens' education and diet. These parents are having the rights of their children infringed upon. Peanut allergy is not a disability, and even if it was, it does not warrant such accommodations. That is the issue at hand.
You're right, of course. Handwashing is completely unreasonable. So is bringing bologna instead of peanut butter. And a possibly lethal health condition can't possibly be considered a disability.

That is not what has happened.
And you too, of course, are absolutely right. They're perfectly willing to concede this child's right to an education, as long as she's carefully SEGREGATED from the other, "normal" children.

[Darat]

...snip...

And you too, of course, are absolutely right. They're perfectly willing to concede this child's right to an education, as long as she's carefully SEGREGATED from the other, "normal" children.

You seem to be arguing from a matter of principle? If so I can understand that and pretty much agree with you but in the real world we have to drawn lines even when the matter is not black and white. For example I am sure that you would not say that the other children should all have to wear forensic style coveralls, gloves and face masks so as to allow the child to attend school?

It's all about where we decide to draw the line not whether there should be a line.

The second article would seem to indicate that the precautions are not as draconian and invasive as the first article suggested, so from the limited knowledge I have I would say that the parents that are complaining are over-reacting.

[geni]

Probably because all the kids who would have had peanut allergies died of other things before reaching school age.

Peanuts are native to south america. I can't see an allergy to them being to much of a problem anywhere else in the time period covered by the middle ages.

[Belz...]

Getting sniffed by a dog. Wow, that's just an intolerable inconvenience.

Well, it does give one the impression that he is being searched for drugs or something. ONE student doesn't justify such a measure. Washing hands, however, I'm all for.

And life would be so much more convenient for everyone else if this one would just die too.

That's very harsh, Puppycow !

[Belz...]

On a more serious note I do think our living environments are far, far too sanitised. To our detriment.

Agreed. Some people try their best for their child to NEVER be exposed to any kind of microbe. I think that's a mistake. The immune system needs to hone itself.

[excaza]

Agreed. Some people try their best for their child to NEVER be exposed to any kind of microbe. I think that's a mistake. The immune system needs to hone itself.

Kids need to start going outside and eating dirt again. Worked wonders for me!

[Darat]

Kids need to start going outside and eating dirt again. Worked wonders for me!

I never went out of my way to eat dirt but I played out a lot as a kid and I am riddled with allergies!

[Dancing David]

I think that the multiple daily mandatory mouth-rinsings drove a lot of parents over the edge.

I don't get that one, it is not what my shools do. We ask that students not bring peanut products to the class. I wonder who made that recomendation?

My guess is there is some wooness here.

[Belz...]

Kids need to start going outside and eating dirt again. Worked wonders for me!

You do whatever you want, Removed breach.. Excuse me now while I go take a swim in an erupting volcano.

[Dancing David]

This school board is totally overreacting... Lots of people have peanut allergies, but society does not revolve around keeping them safe. People with the allergy will learn to take care of themselves. The peanut allergy is in my family and no one has died from it yet...no school ever took special precautions that affected other kids. Keep some anti histamine on hand...things will be okay, take them to the hospital if you want to be uber safe. The girl and peanuts can coexist in the school.

There is now treatment for the peanut allergy..a tolerance can be built up to the point where you can eat the equivalent of one peanut per day.

My shools, ask one thing, that students not bring peanut products to the classroom. That is reasonable.

[Cainkane1]

Poor kid.

[Dancing David]

My kids aren't allowed to bring in any peanuts to school because one of the kids has a severe allergy. Once a parent sent in their kid with a peanut butter sandwich, and that kid later touched the allergic kid on the arm. The kid ended up in hospital.

Not all allergies are of the same severity.

One of my wife's students has this truly bizzare contact allergy, it is more like contact dermatitis (they get hives everywhere), they ask that the whole school be peanut free how ever, and believe me that kid is very cautious.

[Dancing David]

Back in the Middle Ages when I was in grade school, peanut butter allergies weren't even heard of.
PB&J sammiches were part of the school lunches.
Kids weren't swelling up and dropping like flies.
Why is it now a problem?

Your lack of awareness does not mean it did not happen.

[Dancing David]

Invasive searches here meaning "washing their hands after lunch".

Some schools have talked about using dogs, my gues is that sometimes a student's backpack is searched.

[Dave Rogers]

Getting sniffed by a dog. Wow, that's just an intolerable inconvenience.

It is if you have a dog allergy.

Dave

[Meadmaker]

Well, it does give one the impression that he is being searched for drugs or something. ONE student doesn't justify such a measure. Washing hands, however, I'm all for.


But it turns out that's not the case. During spring break, when no students were in the school, the dog went through searching for peanut residue.

The dog was "borrowed" from a local family who owned it and had it trained because they have a child with a severe peanut allergy.

[Emet]

Two things:

1. I suspect the loudest complaining parents would be complaining even louder if it was their child, and said child was not being protected.

2. Missed opportunity to teach children such things as empathy, compassion, understanding, and living in a society where we sometimes make small sacrifices to prevent harm to others.

But I don't have children... ;)

[Oualawouzou]

Stupid question: would it be an exaggeration to ban peanuts in buses, subways, trains, planes, shopping malls, public playgrounds, stadiums and such? Going by statistics, I probably meet, however briefly, at least a few people with severe food allergies every single day of the year. What if I accidentally have some peanut butter on my sleeve, or if I neglected to wash my hands after having a peanut butter sandwich?

Where do you draw the line as far as "sacrifices" are concerned?

[Dancing David]

Stupid question: would it be an exaggeration to ban peanuts in buses, subways, trains, planes, shopping malls, public playgrounds, stadiums and such? Going by statistics, I probably meet, however briefly, at least a few people with severe food allergies every single day of the year. What if I accidentally have some peanut butter on my sleeve, or if I neglected to wash my hands after having a peanut butter sandwich?

Where do you draw the line as far as "sacrifices" are concerned?

Asking students to not bring peanut products into the classroom of a sensitive student.

[I Ratant]

Because the kids who were going to, already had.

And the kids who were at risk had to stay away from public schools, like blind kids and kids with cerebral palsy. Oh for the good old days, right?

(I can't help but wonder what it's like for that little girl, to pass the school and see her schoolmates' parents shouting and brandishing signs demanding she be excluded because of a health problem she can't help, because it's just so HARRRRRRRRRRD for THEIR chilllllldrun to wash their hands.)
.
The zero-tolerance response is overkill.
Punishing everyone for the foibles of a single person.
Sounds like barracks justice in the army.
The situation shouldn't have escalated to that point.
The allergic child needs to separated from the rest of the world, not have the rest of the world stop doing something that might annoy it.
Should the child survive, and get arrested, are all those other inmates going to have to -not- get those tasty PB&a taste of jelly sammiches for the mid-day meal?

[I Ratant]

But there's nothing ridiculous or humiliating about being six years old and having several dozen adults gang up and demand you be denied your right to an education.
.
There is a right/duty to be educated.
But not forcing rules on everyone to suit a unique situation that can be handled without interfering with everyone.

[I Ratant]

You're right, of course. Handwashing is completely unreasonable. So is bringing bologna instead of peanut butter. And a possibly lethal health condition can't possibly be considered a disability.


And you too, of course, are absolutely right. They're perfectly willing to concede this child's right to an education, as long as she's carefully SEGREGATED from the other, "normal" children.
.
The segregation is needed for everyone's benefit.
It's a "typhoid mary" situation, where the sufferer is affected by everyone else.
Imposing restrictions on everyone to avoid an inconvenience for a single person is wrong.

[I Ratant]

Agreed. Some people try their best for their child to NEVER be exposed to any kind of microbe. I think that's a mistake. The immune system needs to hone itself.
.
Reading Scientific American this month on the spread of the KPC virus, the immune system for everyone is lacking in resistance, and really some help!:eek:

[I Ratant]

Your lack of awareness does not mean it did not happen.
.
Yeah, but the subject -never- came up, ever!
Why was that?
Is the legume allergy something new to advanced societies?

[Emet]

Update:

Florida School Nut Allergy Restrictions 'Went Too Far'

A Florida elementary school has changed their newly-introduced requirements that children must rinse their mouths out twice daily at school to avoid spreading peanut residue to a first-grade student that is highly allergic to the nut.
(...)
Parents who sparked the protest say they just wanted some cooperation, which they are now getting. Also, school district spokeswoman Nancy Wait said recently that a review of the first-grader's medical plans showed the mouth-rinsing wasn't a necessary precaution.


http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212356386.shtml

[I Ratant]

It is if you have a dog allergy.

Dave
.
And they poke their noses in "unusual" places... giggle.. ;)

[Corsair 115]

EDIT: Never mind, someone beat me to it.

[Corsair 115]

Your lack of awareness does not mean it did not happen.


Seems to me there's a way to check that. Look at newspapers from thirty or forty years ago and see if there were any articles on peanut allergies causing restrictions on foods being brought into schools. One might be able to find statistics on severe allergies to food from various health organizations from that time as well.

[Meadmaker]

Imposing restrictions on everyone to avoid an inconvenience for a single person is wrong.

Well, the "inconvenience" in this case happens to include death.

I see your point, but let's call it what it is.


How far are we willing to go in changing our own routine so that another person might live? My own answer to that is that I will not do "whatever it takes", but I would suffer a certain degree of inconvenience in order to allow that child to attend school classes. I can ( and do) put up with a "no nuts" policy. (My child's school has such a policy.)


One of my thoughts on the subject is that if the measures imposed are truly necessary, then they cannot be truly adequate. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that this child could die if a different child eats a peanut butter sandwich and then touches her with an unwashed hand. If that is the case, then by imposing a handwashing requirement, you are creating a situation where the girl's life depends on the personal hygiene habits and general sense of responsibility of a six year old child. If a kid does a lousy job of handwashing, or heaven forbid sneaks a handful of nuts or a snickers bar into class, the allergic child could die. Do you really want a six year old to have that sort of burden of responsibility? And do you want to put a six year old life at risk in such a situation?

If these sorts of policies are needed, then they won't work.

[I Ratant]

Well, the "inconvenience" in this case happens to include death.

I see your point, but let's call it what it is.


How far are we willing to go in changing our own routine so that another person might live? My own answer to that is that I will not do "whatever it takes", but I would suffer a certain degree of inconvenience in order to allow that child to attend school classes. I can ( and do) put up with a "no nuts" policy. (My child's school has such a policy.)


One of my thoughts on the subject is that if the measures imposed are truly necessary, then they cannot be truly adequate. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that this child could die if a different child eats a peanut butter sandwich and then touches her with an unwashed hand. If that is the case, then by imposing a handwashing requirement, you are creating a situation where the girl's life depends on the personal hygiene habits and general sense of responsibility of a six year old child. If a kid does a lousy job of handwashing, or heaven forbid sneaks a handful of nuts or a snickers bar into class, the allergic child could die. Do you really want a six year old to have that sort of burden of responsibility? And do you want to put a six year old life at risk in such a situation?

If these sorts of policies are needed, then they won't work.
.
If the situation is that critical, then not exposing the child to it is the solution.
Instead of thousands of children having to be excessively clean, the child should be in a controlled environment.
This is not possible in any public venue, now, is it?

[truethat]

My sister's daughter has a peanut allergy. On the one hand I do think you have to be super protective. Peanuts show up in all sorts of things you wouldn't expect. When you send items to school it isn't only "peanut butter" that causes the problem. Snacks and candies made in factories that use peanuts can trigger the allergies.

The thing to keep in mind about peanut allergies (IIRC) is that they get worse each time you have a reaction. So the ideal is to limit the reactions as much as possible.

That said, my sister does tend to go too far in asking people to accommodate my niece. In fact she's rude about it. In general when she visits she insists that no one eat any peanuts including my son, or any candy that has peanuts in it "in case he breathes on her."

Even if he washes his hands she acts like if he touches her she'll have an attack. It's a bit much. Some people are jerks about putting other people out, they actually seem to get off on it. It seems to me that people feel the parents are just doing this "because they can."

And that's annoying.

[Meadmaker]

My sister's daughter has a peanut allergy. On the one hand I do think you have to be super protective. Peanuts show up in all sorts of things you wouldn't expect. When you send items to school it isn't only "peanut butter" that causes the problem. Snacks and candies made in factories that use peanuts can trigger the allergies.

M&Ms are a classic case. The plain ones have peanut oil in them.



That said, my sister does tend to go too far in asking people to accommodate my niece. In fact she's rude about it.

I have a feeling that this Florida case had something like that happening. I got to wondering what an odd time of year it was for this to come up. What happened? Did the girl transfer in? I noticed that the ADA came up in a lot of stories. Was there threatened litigation? Did the girls' parents suddenly start making demands and threatening lawsuits?

Another possibility is that the child was recently tested, and showed positive for a peanut allergy. Now, there's no real way to tell just exactly how severe the allergy is without risking a fatal reaction, so, now what? A doctor tells the mother, "We can't really be sure, but many allergies of this sort are so severe that exposure could prove fatal." This scares the bejeebus out of the woman, who freaks out and makes all sorts of demands. The school, rather than calmly presenting the case simply demands that kids start leaving lunches outside the classroom, washing hands all at once before parading in and out of the classroom, and mouth rinsing (except that might have just been a rumor).

I'm guessing, though, that somehow this could have been handled a bit better. It takes a lot for people to start picketing against accommodations made on behalf of a six year old girl.

[ThunderChunky]

You're right, of course. Handwashing is completely unreasonable. So is bringing bologna instead of peanut butter. And a possibly lethal health condition can't possibly be considered a disability.

Sarcasm as a substitute for an argument? It's more than just handwashing (strawman noted). Peanuts are a healthy food, much healthier than bologna. People have lived with and coped with having peanut allergies for a long time. The school should keep some benadryl and an epi pen on hand for emergencies, rather than impose accomodations on on to the other children. The girl in question should practice proper hygeine for her condition and if her parents are so concerned they have the option to get her treatment for the peanut allergy. (ETA: looks like the treatments are not widely available yet, so forget that point)

Like I said, the peanut allergy is in my family, it has never been considered a disability.

[truethat]

Sarcasm as a substitute for an argument? It's more than just handwashing (strawman noted). Peanuts are a healthy food, much healthier than bologna. People have lived with and coped with having peanut allergies for a long time. The school should keep some benadryl and an epi pen on hand for emergencies, rather than impose accomodations on on to the other children. The girl in question should practice proper hygeine for her condition and if her parents are so concerned they have the option to get her treatment for the peanut allergy.

Like I said, the peanut allergy is in my family, it has never been considered a disability.

Peanut allergies can be fatal though. And as I posted before the more times that a child has an allergy the worse the reaction becomes for subsequent allergy attacks.

What treatment do you know of for peanut allergies. I'm sure thousands of frightened parents would be happy to know what to do.

I do agree that it is a potentially lethal illness. In other words the kid could be dead within a half an hour. That's slightly different than having a "disability"

[fuelair]

Are all peanut allergies exactly the same?

No - but as an educator I know this is not bright or right - and way beyond any legal requirement. I am hoping the other kid's parents bring a class action on the school about this - there is a limit to modifications (not as much as I would prefer, but there is one) and this is way past it.:mad::mad::jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

[fuelair]

M&Ms are a classic case. The plain ones have peanut oil in them.





I have a feeling that this Florida case had something like that happening. I got to wondering what an odd time of year it was for this to come up. What happened? Did the girl transfer in? I noticed that the ADA came up in a lot of stories. Was there threatened litigation? Did the girls' parents suddenly start making demands and threatening lawsuits?

Another possibility is that the child was recently tested, and showed positive for a peanut allergy. Now, there's no real way to tell just exactly how severe the allergy is without risking a fatal reaction, so, now what? A doctor tells the mother, "We can't really be sure, but many allergies of this sort are so severe that exposure could prove fatal." This scares the bejeebus out of the woman, who freaks out and makes all sorts of demands. The school, rather than calmly presenting the case simply demands that kids start leaving lunches outside the classroom, washing hands all at once before parading in and out of the classroom, and mouth rinsing (except that might have just been a rumor).

I'm guessing, though, that somehow this could have been handled a bit better. It takes a lot for people to start picketing against accommodations made on behalf of a six year old girl.

The mouth rinsing is not a rumor - I see the news reports here.

[fuelair]

And, since no one (as far as I have seen) has mentioned it, the child is going to be very unpopular with the other kids. (I do, btw, feel bad for the child (and the children) - but have no sympathy for the school or the child's parents. They are acting stupidly - unless you can show me where else the problem is handled this way (and I will want a lot of examples, not just a hundred or so)and where any legal rulings have forced it.)

I am, btw, also certain this is not remotely an ADA approved method of handling this or any other allergy.

[ThunderChunky]

Peanut allergies can be fatal though. And as I posted before the more times that a child has an allergy the worse the reaction becomes for subsequent allergy attacks.

Yes, it can be fatal if it is not treated. The school should have antihistamines and epinephrine on hand in case of an emergency. The children should all know who to tell if the girl gets exposed to peanuts. The girl should know avoid peanuts. Knowing where the peanuts are is key, assuming there are no peanuts around is dangerous.

What treatment do you know of for peanut allergies. I'm sure thousands of frightened parents would be happy to know what to do.

There are desensitizing treatments that have had great success including double blind trials, but it looks like they are not widely available (I have edited my above post to note that).

I do agree that it is a potentially lethal illness. In other words the kid could be dead within a half an hour. That's slightly different than having a "disability"

Kids can die from reactions to a bee sting, milk, or seafood too. These aren't illnesses, they are allergies. I agree that it is a condition that is potentially lethal, but that doesn't mean society revolves around these conditions. The chances of dying are very low and precautions can be taken that don't affect everyone else.

The lethal peanut allergy is in my immediate family, yet we still kept peanut butter in the fridge.

[dropzone]

Kids need to start going outside and eating dirt again. Worked wonders for me!When my wife was in nursing school the only students who passed the, "exposed but healthy," tests were her, who ran around barefoot in Chicago, and the students who did the same in Jamaica. There's a level of exposure to pathogens that is healthy.

[truethat]

I believe the mouth rinsing. My sister has insisted on it. Once we were in the neighborhood and someone gave my son a snickers mini, she was positively offended that I allowed him to eat it and then I had him go to the bathroom to wash his hands and rinse out his mouth.

The doctor in the clip says that mouth rinsing is unnecessary and he didn't seem to feel it was necessary.

I think the parents are concerned because it is so uber vigilant for kids at such a young age. It's probably easier to keep the kid out and bring her into the school system when she gets older and kids are more mature.

But they school is trapped by the ADA law. And so they are required to make accommodations.

[truethat]

When my wife was in nursing school the only students who passed the, "exposed but healthy," tests were her, who ran around barefoot in Chicago, and the students who did the same in Jamaica. There's a level of exposure to pathogens that is healthy.

I got slammed on here for being "Woo" but one of the things I've always done with my kids is NEVER give them amoxicillin. Seems like so many of my friends always had the kids anti bioticked up the gills, and their kids are always sick.

My kids ate dirt and relied on their own immune system and they have been perfectly healthy.

Not a cold, not a flu in years.

[ria_rokz]

compassion

[ThunderChunky]

My sister has insisted on it.

May I ask how your sister survived elementary school?

[truethat]

May I ask how your sister survived elementary school?


My sister doesn't have a peanut allergy. But the school her daughter attends doesn't do the mouth washing but makes accommodations for her daughter in other ways.

No peanuts are allowed for lunch. Some parents complained at first but ya gotta do what you gotta do.

[LTC8K6]

compassion

For peanut eaters?

Personally, I think it's way too far to tell me I can't have anything to do with anything peanut related, because you have an allergy to peanuts, and we happen to be in the same room sometimes.

Maybe that's just me.

I think the irritation may have begun with the labels on peanuts, saying that they contain traces of peanuts...or that they were processed in a facility that processes peanuts...it seems to me that such labels smacked of "too far", and WTF?, and just who has this allergy?, and encouraged quite a few derogatory thoughts about the thinking surrounding this allergy... :D

[Dats]

I'd name the sniffer dog Snoopy.

[PhantomWolf]

I have a friend who is seriously allergic to Polyester, just brushing against it can and has put her in hospital. Just wondering how those against peanuts and for the mouthwashing would feel if their kids were told that they weren't allowed to wear anything synthetic to school due to someone's allergies to polyesters?

[truethat]

For peanut eaters?

Personally, I think it's way too far to tell me I can't have anything to do with anything peanut related, because you have an allergy to peanuts, and we happen to be in the same room sometimes.

Maybe that's just me.

I think the irritation may have begun with the labels on peanuts, saying that they contain traces of peanuts...or that they were processed in a facility that processes peanuts...it seems to me that such labels smacked of "too far", and WTF?, and just who has this allergy?, and encouraged quite a few derogatory thoughts about the thinking surrounding this allergy... :D

I'm not sure what part of "Fatal nut allergy" is so confusing for people to understand. You are aware that the child could potentially die if exposed to peanuts?

I think that someone's life is more important than my desire to eat a Reese's peanut butter cup. :boggled:

[Jensen]

Shocking that these kids might learn that sometimes you have to give up something in order to accommodate someone else. How are they supposed to grow up to be good tax-denying health-care-refusing citizens?

[Puppycow]

But it turns out that's not the case. During spring break, when no students were in the school, the dog went through searching for peanut residue.

The dog was "borrowed" from a local family who owned it and had it trained because they have a child with a severe peanut allergy.

Thanks for the clarification!

Now who turned that into "invasive searches of students"? :rolleyes:

[gumboot]

I have a friend who is seriously allergic to Polyester, just brushing against it can and has put her in hospital. Just wondering how those against peanuts and for the mouthwashing would feel if their kids were told that they weren't allowed to wear anything synthetic to school due to someone's allergies to polyesters?


One of the girls at my sister's school had Aquagenic urticaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquagenic_urticaria). Talk about awful. Another girl experienced horrific muscle spasms over her entire body dozens of times a day. I can't even think about her without tearing up.

I am of the opinion that it is cruel to send children with disabilities this rare and severe to public schools. Aside from it being inherently dangerous (you simply cannot control a public school to that degree), the child will suffer horrible social ostracisation that can cause psychological and emotional problems.

[Autolite]

I must agree with Gumboot's last post. "No-Peanuts" rule or not, It seems to me that the affected child's parents are being irresponsible and unrealistic by allowing their daughter's life to depend on the diligence of other six year olds...

[Rasmus]

I must agree with Gumboot's last post. "No-Peanuts" rule or not, It seems to me that the affected child's parents are being irresponsible and unrealistic by allowing their daughter's life to depend on the due diligence of other six year olds...

Exactly.

And even the teachers and other parents shouldn't be held responsible.

What happens in the no-peanuts scenario of the child does die? Who will be blamed and who will lose a multi million dollar lawsuit?

If the child is so allergic that it risks death should it come near peanuts and if the child cannot be trusted to be careful enough then, sad as it may be, that child shouldn't be in a public school. (How does it get there? Does the child ever go outside unsupervised? Visit friends? The world at large is far from being peanut free, after all ...)

[Aepervius]

Back in the Middle Ages when I was in grade school, peanut butter allergies weren't even heard of.
PB&J sammiches were part of the school lunches.
Kids weren't swelling up and dropping like flies.
Why is it now a problem?

You probably never heard again of the children after they ate their (last) PBJ...

But it seems to be a growing phenomenon too :

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/18233

[mediocrity511]

Just out of interest?
Who here uses the hand sanitiser, as requested, when entering a hospital ward?
I mean, how dare those sick people infringe on your right to swan around with grubby hands and spread pathogens?!!
Asking kids to wash their hands before and after meals is hardly the most honerous of tasks and it has advantages to them aswell, such as reducing the spread of illnesses such as diahorrhea. I think there's also useful social lessons about compassion and about community. I'd hate to be part of a society that encouraged selfishness to the point where it was acceptable for someone to be at risk of dying over something as trivial as a sandwich filling.

[Eddie Dane]

I disagree. Your threshold for "humiliation" is pretty low.

Lucky bastard.

Do you have any idea what I have to pay for a good session of humiliation?

[Rasmus]

Just out of interest?
Who here uses the hand sanitiser, as requested, when entering a hospital ward?
I mean, how dare those sick people infringe on your right to swan around with grubby hands and spread pathogens?!!

A hospital services the patients - the school is for all children and not build specifically for those with peanut allergies. If they had such a special school, things would be different.

Asking kids to wash their hands before and after meals is hardly the most honerous of tasks and it has advantages to them aswell, such as reducing the spread of illnesses such as diahorrhea. I think there's also useful social lessons about compassion and about community.

Infringing on someone's right should usually not be justified on ground that it's for their own good.

I'd hate to be part of a society that encouraged selfishness to the point where it was acceptable for someone to be at risk of dying over something as trivial as a sandwich filling.

I don't think telling me what I can and cannot eat is trivial at all. More importantly, it is not as trivial as just out-ruling one or two particular sandwich filings. It means I have to start watching my diet as if I was highly allergic to peanuts.

[Dancing David]

.
Yeah, but the subject -never- came up, ever!
Why was that?
Is the legume allergy something new to advanced societies?

What continent is the origin of the peanut? When did it become a wide spread food stuuf?

Do you know what the actual allergen is? (it isn't the peanut.)

[Dancing David]

The school should keep some benadryl and an epi pen on hand for emergencies, rather than impose accomodations on on to the other children.



Um, who does what when?
Untrained, non-medical staff?

[Dancing David]

No - but as an educator I know this is not bright or right - and way beyond any legal requirement. I am hoping the other kid's parents bring a class action on the school about this - there is a limit to modifications (not as much as I would prefer, but there is one) and this is way past it.:mad::mad::jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

Not bring peanut products to class is a reasonable accomodation. :)

The other stuff, especially the mouth rinsing sounds woo.

[Dancing David]

And, since no one (as far as I have seen) has mentioned it, the child is going to be very unpopular with the other kids. (I do, btw, feel bad for the child (and the children) - but have no sympathy for the school or the child's parents. They are acting stupidly - unless you can show me where else the problem is handled this way (and I will want a lot of examples, not just a hundred or so)and where any legal rulings have forced it.)

I am, btw, also certain this is not remotely an ADA approved method of handling this or any other allergy.

And in reality I do not think that the ADA would apply, the key being 'reasonable' in the accomodation. Asking students to not bring products with express content of peanut butter, reasonable. Mouth rinsing, unreasonable.

[I Ratant]

What continent is the origin of the peanut? When did it become a wide spread food stuuf?

Do you know what the actual allergen is? (it isn't the peanut.)
.
I asked about that.

[Dancing David]

.
I asked about that.

The peanut as a commercial food product did not become wide spread until after 1884 or so, the allergen is actually a fungus from storage.

[AmandaM]

As I understand it from parents not living IN that school district, but at a nearby one, a lot of the fuss was over the time-consuming nature of having the children spend what was estimated to be 25-30 minutes a day on the mouth-rinsing and hand washing.

An adult has to supervise the children's washing efforts. There are only so many sinks. The children were to be lined up in the hallway, and in small numbers, I think 6-8, brought into the bathroom, twice a day, for this washing ritual, which because the procedure, would take about 12-15 minutes each time.

If you multiply 30 minutes by the required 180 something days of school, you can see how many hours of class time would be missed by this procedure. What was discussed was how these hours would be made up, and at time of the controversy they were considering either a longer school year or cutting back on vacation days, neither of which the teachers contracts would have accepted.

This situation got "spun" in the media as being about a bunch of parents who were mad they couldn't send their kids to school with peanut butter sandwiches, but the reality as I understand it was much different. Plus there WAS the issue of lawsuits and legal responsibility, as was mentioned upthread. I don't think this was ever about a lack of compassion, but about a fundamental failure of the administration to discuss the procedure with parents. Closed door policy decisions are often met with resistance from those the policies affect. That doesn't mean the affected are without compassion.

[Emet]

The peanut as a commercial food product did not become wide spread until after 1884 or so, the allergen is actually a fungus from storage.

What about Ara h 1 and others?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=peanut%20allergen

[ria_rokz]

For peanut eaters?

Personally, I think it's way too far to tell me I can't have anything to do with anything peanut related, because you have an allergy to peanuts, and we happen to be in the same room sometimes.

Maybe that's just me.

I think the irritation may have begun with the labels on peanuts, saying that they contain traces of peanuts...or that they were processed in a facility that processes peanuts...it seems to me that such labels smacked of "too far", and WTF?, and just who has this allergy?, and encouraged quite a few derogatory thoughts about the thinking surrounding this allergy... :D

It was just an observation. Make of it what you will.

[MatildaGage]

Because their kids' rights are being violated by being forced to do things like wash their hands. Oh, the humanity!:(
Oh, the humanity is right!

Kinda reminds me of Ryan White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White#Battle_with_schools).

:(

[MatildaGage]

Another girl experienced horrific muscle spasms over her entire body dozens of times a day. I can't even think about her without tearing up.
Had you teared up, she would have had more horrific muscle spasms.

/evil joke, I know:blush:

[Dancing David]

What about Ara h 1 and others?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=peanut%20allergen

I don't know, I am just repeating the media impression I received. You look like you went to a real source.

[I Ratant]

You probably never heard again of the children after they ate their (last) PBJ...

But it seems to be a growing phenomenon too :

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/18233
.
The number of child deaths when I was in school was so low, to be unrememberable at this late date.
I can only recall two from college. One a epileptic who died during freshman orientation, and another drowned in the St. Lawrence river scuba diving.
This peanut phenomena may be a result of earlier detection, or more improved detection methods.
Like ADHD. Something else never mentioned 65 years ago.

[Emet]

There are many theories for the increase.

Multiple choice question: Why are more American kids allergic to foods, particularly peanuts?

A) Their immune systems are confused by increasingly clean homes.

B) Nervous parents wait too long to feed their children peanuts.

C) We roast peanuts rather than boil them.

D) Maybe one of the above, and/or something else.

Unfortunately, the answer is "D."

But whatever biological mysteries are at work, U.S. children are more likely to be allergic to peanuts than kids in China, in Israel and in many underdeveloped nations, experts say.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060111/news_lz1f11allergy.html

[Travis]

You're right, of course. Handwashing is completely unreasonable. So is bringing bologna instead of peanut butter. And a possibly lethal health condition can't possibly be considered a disability.


And you too, of course, are absolutely right. They're perfectly willing to concede this child's right to an education, as long as she's carefully SEGREGATED from the other, "normal" children.

Do you think mentally retarded children should also be schooled in regular schools as a matter of fairness? What about a child with an allergy to light (yes they do exist)? What about a child in an iron lung (if there still were any)?

There are reasonable levels of segregation in schools. There has to be. If this child is indeed just one peanut particle away from death then that sounds like a reason to segregate her.

[tesscaline]

The thing I've found incredibly annoying in this thread is the conflation of "an education" with "a traditional public school experience". There are any number of ways to provide a child with a perfectly viable education. Only one of them is a traditional public school experience. And there is no law that says the gov't must provide traditional public school experiences. Equal education opportunity does not mean identical education related experiences (if it did, just about everyone I know could sue the gov't for failure to provide exactly the same experiences to jocks as geeks got out of the whole deal...).

Personally, I have a life threatening allergy (to dust mites). Because of it, there are things that I cannot do, and places that I can't really go without risking my health (autoimmune pneumonia is baaaad, mmkay?). This is MY problem, not the problem of every other human being on the face of the earth. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that every friend, relative, employer, store, public building be kept 100% dust free in order to avoid irritating my allergy. Hell, I can't even keep my OWN house 100% dust free, so why should I expect it of anyone else? Instead of making outrageous demands of the world around me, I take steps myself to minimize my problems. And if those steps aren't enough, it's my own damned fault.

If my allergy were severe enough that the smallest particle of dust could cause anaphylaxis (it isn't, thank goodness), I don't think it would be reasonable to expect a school to try and keep their premises or other students dust free. I also don't think it's reasonable to expect any attempts to accommodate my health issues to be undertaken without regard for how they impact other people. If doing something to help me would negatively impact other people without their direct consent, I don't want it done. Period.

And this is the case with this school's situation. Going to the lengths described to "accommodate" this single child's health issue was going to negatively impact an entire class of other students, if not an entire school's worth (hundreds?), as well as tax payers, teachers, and other staff. That's simply not reasonable. At all.

If the child is SO sensitive to peanuts that a single bit of peanut dust can cause anaphylaxis, then her parents are irresponsible in sending her to a normal school environment. She should be in a strictly regulated environment, either at home or somewhere else more suited to handling those sorts of environmental controls. If her parents don't like that, or she doesn't like that, that's their problem. She's not being denied "an education" because she cannot attend conventional public school. There are a myriad of alternative schooling environments that she could (and probably was) offered instead.

Growing up, I had schoolmates -- some of them friends -- who had severe medical issues (one with sickle cell anemia, one with cystic fibrosis, one with leukemia). At times they were unable to attend conventional school for long periods of time due to those medical issues. The one with leukemia ended up not being able to be in conventional school at all due to chemotherapy and the ongoing risk of infection. I see this situation no differently than I saw his -- it was not safe for him to be in a conventional school, so he didn't go. His parents didn't throw temper tantrums about how the school should have accommodated his need to be isolated from any and all germs/fungi, or fight to keep him in a regular class despite risks to his health. He was home schooled (at the time, home schooling was called "independent study", and a district approved tutor would visit him once or twice a week to assist his parents). That's a perfectly reasonable thing for a school district to help with, and enable, given the situation. Making the entire class, or school (some of the restrictions addressed in the news articles I've seen affect the whole school), "disinfect" is not.

[ponderingturtle]

One of the girls at my sister's school had Aquagenic urticaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquagenic_urticaria). Talk about awful. Another girl experienced horrific muscle spasms over her entire body dozens of times a day. I can't even think about her without tearing up.

I am of the opinion that it is cruel to send children with disabilities this rare and severe to public schools. Aside from it being inherently dangerous (you simply cannot control a public school to that degree), the child will suffer horrible social ostracisation that can cause psychological and emotional problems.

Yep the good old days you lock them in an institution and forget about them. A simpler time...

[ponderingturtle]

Do you think mentally retarded children should also be schooled in regular schools as a matter of fairness? What about a child with an allergy to light (yes they do exist)? What about a child in an iron lung (if there still were any)?

Don't worry, thanks to Jenny McArthy the last will soon be relevant again.

[Puppycow]

I don't think telling me what I can and cannot eat is trivial at all. More importantly, it is not as trivial as just out-ruling one or two particular sandwich filings. It means I have to start watching my diet as if I was highly allergic to peanuts.

But that's not what they were saying. They were not saying kids can't eat peanuts or even that they can't bring them to school, only that they can't bring them into the classroom. They could eat them for lunch in the cafeteria.

As I understand it from parents not living IN that school district, but at a nearby one, a lot of the fuss was over the time-consuming nature of having the children spend what was estimated to be 25-30 minutes a day on the mouth-rinsing and hand washing.

An adult has to supervise the children's washing efforts. There are only so many sinks. The children were to be lined up in the hallway, and in small numbers, I think 6-8, brought into the bathroom, twice a day, for this washing ritual, which because the procedure, would take about 12-15 minutes each time.

If you multiply 30 minutes by the required 180 something days of school, you can see how many hours of class time would be missed by this procedure. What was discussed was how these hours would be made up, and at time of the controversy they were considering either a longer school year or cutting back on vacation days, neither of which the teachers contracts would have accepted.

That, I admit, is a legitimate concern. If it's cutting into class time.

[bluesjnr]

Yep the good old days you lock them in an institution and forget about them. A simpler time...

Well at least nowadays they'd get 24 hour care and palliative treatment. Hell we might even give 'em access to a PC.

[pgwenthold]

But that's not what they were saying. They were not saying kids can't eat peanuts or even that they can't bring them to school, only that they can't bring them into the classroom.


This is why I am wondering why this is such a big deal.

Who DOES bring peanuts into a classroom?

I can see it if someone has a peanut butter sandwich for lunch, but in that case, the directions are to leave it outside the classroom.

Oh the burden. We can't eat peanuts during class any more! We never did, but hey, better to whine about being oppressed.

[alex04]

Do you think mentally retarded children should also be schooled in regular schools as a matter of fairness?

'Mentally retarded' is an extremely loose term, but,

As the father of an autistic child (who is progressing very well in primary school), I would say that in many cases - yes.

There is a lot of value in a disadvantaged child getting a normal education if they are capable to a certain degree. My son has required a lot of extra assistance but has certainly reaped results.

If a disadvantaged child is clearly not going to get any educational value from a normal school curriculum then no.

The difficult thing - which is still faced by a lot of people now - where do we draw the line? Who makes the decision about it being 'too much work'?

It is not as simple as asking 'should mentally retarded children be schooled in regular schools as a matter of fairness?'

What about a child with an allergy to light (yes they do exist)? What about a child in an iron lung (if there still were any)?

There are reasonable levels of segregation in schools. There has to be. If this child is indeed just one peanut particle away from death then that sounds like a reason to segregate her.

Understand your point; I think it would be different in every case though. It's probably a matter of whether the school thinks that they can safely manage the risk in each case, and make a decision on that, rather than a blanket decision.


End the end though, I think that the school would have to justify why they could not (or would not) provide a safe environment for this girl, else face the possibility of litigation - not to mention the possibility of bigger headlines.

Personally, I like to think that they did it out of compassion.


I guess it's easy for any of us not in a position of responsibility to draw the line at what we 'think' is unreasonable - we don't have to answer to anyone for our opinions.

Yes it's an imposition; to say that it's too much of an imposition, is a call that's too easy for someone to make on the sidelines.

[truethat]

I teach special education classes to teachers. Mentally retarded children are taught in the public school. There is a term "least restricted environment." A student with disabilities has the right to a fair and free education. Students with mental retardation are usually educated in a CTT or self contained classroom (Special Education).

[DallasDad]

Has the term really changed from "least-restrictive environment" to "least restricted environment"?

I can understand (and mourn) the loss of the hyphen, but there really is a difference between "restrictive" and "restricted," especially when conjoined with "least" to make a compound adjective.

[Meadmaker]

This is why I am wondering why this is such a big deal.

Who DOES bring peanuts into a classroom?

I can see it if someone has a peanut butter sandwich for lunch, but in that case, the directions are to leave it outside the classroom.

Oh the burden. We can't eat peanuts during class any more! We never did, but hey, better to whine about being oppressed.

Under the original prohibitions, all students were required to leave all food items outside of classroom, and all students were required to wash hands (and rinse mouths? I think.) every time they entered the classroom. This process required teacher supervision that took about 30 minutes of class time per day. That's a pretty big deal.

I don't know about the current restrictions. I know lots of schools prohibit peanut products, and while people complain, no one sets up pickets. It was the extraordinary measures imposed that created the atmosphere of hostility.

[truethat]

Has the term really changed from "least-restrictive environment" to "least restricted environment"?

I can understand (and mourn) the loss of the hyphen, but there really is a difference between "restrictive" and "restricted," especially when conjoined with "least" to make a compound adjective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_Restrictive_Environment


Nah it was a typo. But the hyphen is apparently gone.

[Niggle]

One of the girls at my sister's school had Aquagenic urticaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquagenic_urticaria).

Snip

Aside from it being inherently dangerous (you simply cannot control a public school to that degree), the child will suffer horrible social ostracisation that can cause psychological and emotional problems.

And being thrown out of school and not allowed to associate with other children will NOT cause social ostracization?

This child is being turned into a leper because it's inconvenient for some parents to make something other than PB&J for their kids for lunch.

Isolate her and you'll make her too afraid to function normally ever again, even if they do come up with a cure for the condition (which is being worked on).

Sheesh.

[Niggle]

Another thought: There is a difference between chance encounters in public places with people that you'll never see again (such as airports and stores) and sitting in a classroom with the same kids every day for several months. While a public environment can't be controlled that tightly (and I agree that it shouldn't have to be), a classroom is easy enough to handle for the sake of the one student with the problem.

Especially since it sounds like the restrictions, once explained and as modified, are not all that unreasonable. The kids aren't being BANNED FOR LIFE from having peanut butter (OH NOES!!!); they're just being made to leave it outside the classroom itself and to eat it in the cafeteria instead (which is where a student should be eating lunch anyway).

[Emet]

Here's a recent article from ABC that presents both sides of the issue:

School Allergy Policies Can Go Too Far
Parents Complain That School 'Nut' Policies Can Become Expensive and Inconvenient
(...)
Food-Allergy Rules Can Become Inconvenient and Costly
(...)
Food-Allergy Policies Save Lives
(...)
Food Allergies on the Rise
(...)
"Anyone who has a serious food allergy risks having an anaphylaxis reaction when exposed to the allergen. Therefore, it's reasonable for schools to take the proper precautions," said Dr. Stanley Fineman, a board certified allergist and president-elect of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

Besides, under the Americans With Disabilities Act, schools are legally obligated to protect children who have allergies against discrimination. Fineman emphasized that policies must be reasonable and practical. Equally important, they need to have scientific validity.

"Rinsing out the mouth is not one of the typical recommendations," he said.


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/kids-food-allergy-policies-trigger-complaints/story?id=13247562

[DallasDad]

"Anyone who has a serious food allergy risks having an anaphylaxis reaction when exposed to the allergen. Therefore, it's reasonable for schools to take the proper precautions," said Dr. Stanley Fineman...



One may either suffer anaphylaxis (noun) or have an anaphylactic (adj) reaction; one cannot have an "anaphylaxis reaction."

[Travis]

And being thrown out of school and not allowed to associate with other children will NOT cause social ostracization?

This child is being turned into a leper because it's inconvenient for some parents to make something other than PB&J for their kids for lunch.

Isolate her and you'll make her too afraid to function normally ever again, even if they do come up with a cure for the condition (which is being worked on).

Sheesh.

This isn't about the other kids not wanting to stop eating peanut products. The issue is that if this girl's life really depends on these measures she is obviously too fragile to be out in public in general. If that makes her feel like a Leper then....oh well. People with cancer don't ask for it either.

[Emet]

One may either suffer anaphylaxis (noun) or have an anaphylactic (adj) reaction; one cannot have an "anaphylaxis reaction."



Blame the reporter. :)







(I hope)

[I Ratant]

Well at least nowadays they'd get 24 hour care and palliative treatment. Hell we might even give 'em access to a PC.
.
Wait just a darn tootin' minute, pardner!
Look at all the trouble that access causes here! :)

[Prometheus]

The thing I've found incredibly annoying in this thread is the conflation of "an education" with "a traditional public school experience". There are any number of ways to provide a child with a perfectly viable education. Only one of them is a traditional public school experience. And there is no law that says the gov't must provide traditional public school experiences. Equal education opportunity does not mean identical education related experiences (if it did, just about everyone I know could sue the gov't for failure to provide exactly the same experiences to jocks as geeks got out of the whole deal...).

Personally, I have a life threatening allergy (to dust mites). Because of it, there are things that I cannot do, and places that I can't really go without risking my health (autoimmune pneumonia is baaaad, mmkay?). This is MY problem, not the problem of every other human being on the face of the earth. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that every friend, relative, employer, store, public building be kept 100% dust free in order to avoid irritating my allergy. Hell, I can't even keep my OWN house 100% dust free, so why should I expect it of anyone else? Instead of making outrageous demands of the world around me, I take steps myself to minimize my problems. And if those steps aren't enough, it's my own damned fault.

If my allergy were severe enough that the smallest particle of dust could cause anaphylaxis (it isn't, thank goodness), I don't think it would be reasonable to expect a school to try and keep their premises or other students dust free. I also don't think it's reasonable to expect any attempts to accommodate my health issues to be undertaken without regard for how they impact other people. If doing something to help me would negatively impact other people without their direct consent, I don't want it done. Period.

And this is the case with this school's situation. Going to the lengths described to "accommodate" this single child's health issue was going to negatively impact an entire class of other students, if not an entire school's worth (hundreds?), as well as tax payers, teachers, and other staff. That's simply not reasonable. At all.

If the child is SO sensitive to peanuts that a single bit of peanut dust can cause anaphylaxis, then her parents are irresponsible in sending her to a normal school environment. She should be in a strictly regulated environment, either at home or somewhere else more suited to handling those sorts of environmental controls. If her parents don't like that, or she doesn't like that, that's their problem. She's not being denied "an education" because she cannot attend conventional public school. There are a myriad of alternative schooling environments that she could (and probably was) offered instead.

Growing up, I had schoolmates -- some of them friends -- who had severe medical issues (one with sickle cell anemia, one with cystic fibrosis, one with leukemia). At times they were unable to attend conventional school for long periods of time due to those medical issues. The one with leukemia ended up not being able to be in conventional school at all due to chemotherapy and the ongoing risk of infection. I see this situation no differently than I saw his -- it was not safe for him to be in a conventional school, so he didn't go. His parents didn't throw temper tantrums about how the school should have accommodated his need to be isolated from any and all germs/fungi, or fight to keep him in a regular class despite risks to his health. He was home schooled (at the time, home schooling was called "independent study", and a district approved tutor would visit him once or twice a week to assist his parents). That's a perfectly reasonable thing for a school district to help with, and enable, given the situation. Making the entire class, or school (some of the restrictions addressed in the news articles I've seen affect the whole school), "disinfect" is not.

The school is legally required to provide reasonable accomodations. It seems plausible that they went a bit overboard in determining where to draw the line in this case, but they may well have been attempting to err on the side of caution in order to avoid an expensive lawsuit or a judgement that they would have to pay for the kid to attend some expensive private school out of an already strapped budget.

The protesting parents are right to be concerned about the lost class time caused by the school's policy, and about how that time ought to be made up, but that's it.

In my opinion, both the school and the parents (the protesters or the allergic child's) have not behaved irresponsibly. Several of the media outlets reporting the story have.

[Antiquehunter]

What would Jimmy Carter do?

[TragicMonkey]

What would Jimmy Carter do?

Choke in the peanutty fog of malaise?

[Beerina]

The thing I've found incredibly annoying in this thread is the conflation of "an education" with "a traditional public school experience".

FTW.


I'm still waiting for the lawsuit requiring roller coaster manufacturers to be able to accommodate people in iron lungs.


It's also long since been pointed out "society" would be better served, bang for the buckwise, devoting just a fraction of the money spent on accommodating pathologies to letting advanced students go off on accelerated courses. But that's using money for helping the "elite", a memetic evil, rather than the memetic good from the disasterbatory joy of helping chronic pathologies.

[KoihimeNakamura]

As I understand it from parents not living IN that school district, but at a nearby one, a lot of the fuss was over the time-consuming nature of having the children spend what was estimated to be 25-30 minutes a day on the mouth-rinsing and hand washing.

An adult has to supervise the children's washing efforts. There are only so many sinks. The children were to be lined up in the hallway, and in small numbers, I think 6-8, brought into the bathroom, twice a day, for this washing ritual, which because the procedure, would take about 12-15 minutes each time.

If you multiply 30 minutes by the required 180 something days of school, you can see how many hours of class time would be missed by this procedure. What was discussed was how these hours would be made up, and at time of the controversy they were considering either a longer school year or cutting back on vacation days, neither of which the teachers contracts would have accepted.

This situation got "spun" in the media as being about a bunch of parents who were mad they couldn't send their kids to school with peanut butter sandwiches, but the reality as I understand it was much different. Plus there WAS the issue of lawsuits and legal responsibility, as was mentioned upthread. I don't think this was ever about a lack of compassion, but about a fundamental failure of the administration to discuss the procedure with parents. Closed door policy decisions are often met with resistance from those the policies affect. That doesn't mean the affected are without compassion.

I dunno. Resisting for the sake of resistance without taking into affect why is pretty much non-compassionate.

Do you think mentally retarded children should also be schooled in regular schools as a matter of fairness? What about a child with an allergy to light (yes they do exist)? What about a child in an iron lung (if there still were any)?

There are reasonable levels of segregation in schools. There has to be. If this child is indeed just one peanut particle away from death then that sounds like a reason to segregate her.

1) They are.
2) Bit tricky, but sure.
3) .... Reduction to the absurd!

Also. [SHUN THE SICK]

And being thrown out of school and not allowed to associate with other children will NOT cause social ostracization?

This child is being turned into a leper because it's inconvenient for some parents to make something other than PB&J for their kids for lunch.

Isolate her and you'll make her too afraid to function normally ever again, even if they do come up with a cure for the condition (which is being worked on).

Sheesh.

Thank you. ^


FTW.


I'm still waiting for the lawsuit requiring roller coaster manufacturers to be able to accommodate people in iron lungs.

Reduction to the absurd. Or Strawman. Either way you know perfectly well that's not under debate and no one here advocates it.



It's also long since been pointed out "society" would be better served, bang for the buckwise, devoting just a fraction of the money spent on accommodating pathologies to letting advanced students go off on accelerated courses. But that's using money for helping the "elite", a memetic evil, rather than the memetic good from the disasterbatory joy of helping chronic pathologies.Strawman, moral judgements and ..

Wait, let me summarize.

We as a society feel a moral duty to help the weaker of us. Do you want to say that we should give them no help and instead pour into the advanced programs? (Where we pour money as -is/)

[TubbaBlubba]

That's actually a slippery slope fallacy, not a reduction to the absurd. A reduction to the absurd, or proof by contradiction, is an acceptable argument against overly sweeping statements.

[fuelair]

I teach special education classes to teachers. Mentally retarded children are taught in the public school. There is a term "least restricted environment." A student with disabilities has the right to a fair and free education. Students with mental retardation are usually educated in a CTT or self contained classroom (Special Education).
That's what we have here - and the kid's themselves are mostly friendly and outgoing - and any of the "normal" kids who give them any difficulty normally don't need to be disciplined by the admins - other kids work to adjust them.