akarunway 1 #26 August 21, 2008 Quote I'm alergic to douche bags. Dear Sangiro, could you please ban.... Birdlike? PLEEESE Alas. sangiro sold out. I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 897 #27 August 21, 2008 THE solution. SIUCC. Life is risky. We can't protect everyone. Next thing you know, swoopers will want their own landing area. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VTmotoMike08 0 #28 August 21, 2008 That really is the solution. In high school, my friend had a brother who was allergic to perfume and just about every other cosmetic product. He had a multitude of unbearable symptoms, ranging from annoyance to difficulty breathing. Some days were better than others, and he has been generally able to hold a steady job that involves working outside. He (and his parents) did not go demanding that no one at the school wore perfume, they pulled him out and home schooled him. And when it was time for him to take the SAT, well, he got a big goofy filtration mask and a medical waiver to wear it during the test, went in and took it. Yes, people made fun of him. Life is tough. Get a helmet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #29 August 21, 2008 Seems like, we are always having to bend-over backwards for some 'minority' cause. Why, can't those 3-kids sit at a separate table, away from the PB&J's? Why does the majority have to do without, just because of 3 kids with a 'special' problem? When the peanut scare hit the airlines, Southwest Airlines just made an announcement that they would continue to serve peanuts on their planes. That gives fair warning to those who are allergic to peanuts, to fly with another airling. I can 'feel' for those kids but their parents need to do something about it and not force the school to do something about it. I think, too many parents are pawning-off their problems and kids on the rest of the world. The parents are the ones who need to take responsibility. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #30 August 21, 2008 Bingo!! And as for where to draw the line that was mentioned above. There are people who are allergic to perfume,wheat, milk,shell fish, grass & plants and on and on. Do we stop serving milk and bread too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #31 August 21, 2008 I'd hate to think what would happen if, someone steps-up and says they are allergic to beer and Copenhagen! If, someone is allergic to milk and bread, I'm sorry but, that don't mean I am or a majority of others are. There's always soy milk and bread! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #32 August 21, 2008 You're obviously from the "entitlement trumps logic and reasoning" crowd ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #33 August 21, 2008 Good for them! They dealt with it and didn't force others to have to deal with it. Home schooling isn't that bad, according to people I know who have homes schooled their kids, for one reason or another. Some school districts (Texas) have internet high school classes. There's always another way of handling things without inflicting it on the rest of the world! I value human life but, this thinking that 'everyone is special' is getting on my nerves! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #34 August 21, 2008 Peanuts allergies are airborne in the case of peanut shell dust if someone brings a bag of peanuts to school. Milk and most other allergic triggers are only airborne if someone throws it in a lunch room. Perfume allergies rarely cause inflamation of the lungs to the point that the victim is unable to breathe, Peanut allergies can cause this and now the school is able to say they have completed their due diligance in warning parents so if a kid drops dead since someones parents packed them peanuts the schools liability is lessened and the other parents liability is increased in the wrongful death suit that is sure to follow. This is the same reason that food manufactors print "This is packaged in places that might have came in contact with nuts" warnings on foods. I'm not saying I agree with the idea but from a pure liability stand point this is the easiest thing for the school to do. If they deny entry to the students on the inconvience placed on the rest of the student body then they opened themselves up for loss of federal funding due to the No Child Left Behind act and the lawsuit from the parents. I they did not warn the parents then they could have been shown to be negliant in a suit since it would have only taken a letter to warn the other parents of the situation. Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 897 #35 August 21, 2008 I interviewed at a company one time - during the interview I was told they had a VERY strict "No-fragrance" policy as well as a "Zero rumor" policy. I laughed and left. I was afraid I would unknowingly offend or injure someone. Fucking attorneys have fucked up the US0fA.It's ALWAYS someone else's fault. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #36 August 21, 2008 I have a friend who is allergic to nuts. When he is unlucky enough to find nut traces in something he has eaten, his head bloats up like a beach ball and turns bright purple. It isn't much fun watching him choke and puke himself close to death on the way to ER. The guy has been on a resus table more than once. Now if you put me in a position where I am responsible for the safety and welfare of a bunch of kids with nut allergies in a place where other kids are gonna smear their PB&J sandwiches all over the worktops, I'm gonna do one of several things. Either quit and get another job where I'm less likely to have dead kids on my hands, ban kids with nut allergies from entering the place or ban nuts. Banning nuts seems like the least drastic measure and a completely acceptable one to me. I don't see the big deal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiver30960 0 #37 August 21, 2008 Quote I have a friend who is allergic to nuts. When he is unlucky enough to find nut traces in something he has eaten, his head bloats up like a beach ball and turns bright purple. It isn't much fun watching him choke and puke himself close to death on the way to ER. The guy has been on a resus table more than once. Then your buddy needs an EpiPen. If it's a legitimate anaphylactic reaction, epinephrine is the only medication that will stabilize his immune system. He'll still need to go to the ER if exposed, but the EpiPen will keep his reaction well under control until he can get there. If he doesn't have one, ask him why not. If he gives you an excuse, whatever excuse, tell him it's bullshit and to get the damn EpiPen. Before I was a healthcare provider, before I understood such things, I had a friend who had such a reaction to macadamias. Had I known then what I know now, I'd have slapped him until he came to his senses. Quote Banning nuts seems like the least drastic measure and a completely acceptable one to me. I don't see the big deal. You're right. It's just one small step. Just one small step, that in conjunction with a thousand other such small steps, will have me walking down the streets one day as a gray-haired old man, wondering how we managed to let our country get so fucked up. Teach kids responsibility. Teach kids with and without allergies the risks. Teach teachers and school nurses how to safely administer an EpiPen (it's not that tough). Require that the parents of all children with peanut allergies maintain an in-date EpiPen at the school. Really, I dug around and found very little data about how many people die from this issue. One source states about 150 people of all ages die of all different food allergies each year. Another source (wikipedia, I know, I know ) says anywhere between 12-27 kids die a year of peanut allergies (not just at school, but everywhere). (Not providing sources since I'm really not impressed with them anyhow) So yeah, it sucks. But on the scale of the other things that are killing kids (violence, traffic crashes, underage smoking) how do these numbers match up? Could our efforts be better spent? ESPECIALLY if most of the deaths could be avoided with proper medical management? Elvisio "liberty and security" Rodriguez Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Synapse 0 #38 August 21, 2008 The school doesn't have to deny students with extreme allergies entry, just as Southwest didn't forbid those same people from flying on their airline. The school could simply notify the parents of those special cases that they cannot guarantee an environment free from the allergens that affect their children. Whether or not to send the child to that school is a decision left to the parents... as is the ultimate responsibility to protect that child in general. The threat of litigation should not hamper logic and reasoning. Additionally, taking actions like this sets the tone for these young individuals lives. It instills the mentality, which seems to be all to common place now, that "since I'm different everyone should change to suit my needs". This is -how- you end up in an environment where people feel the world somehow owes them something and that they should be filing lawsuits anytime it doesn't measure up. Should these same students expect to leave high school and have their college also ban these foods? How about every job they ever have... going to fight to have it banned there too? Sure why not, that's what mom & dad taught them to do right? While we're at it, lets ban it in any federally or state funded buildings and facilities. ...hope you didn't like eating nuts while you watch your son play baseball, the state funds that park. Oh and forget buying trail mix in any of the PX's or gas stations on DoD bases, obviously those are federally funded. ...wouldn't want to cause that .005% of the population to be exposed to any undue dangers, much easier for us to change right? No. -synThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Synapse 0 #39 August 21, 2008 QuoteYou're right. It's just one small step. Just one small step, that in conjunction with a thousand other such small steps.... You are absolutely correct. Society rarely takes a massive step in the wrong direction b/c the people will appose it. Rather, it is the culmination of many small steps in the wrong direction that ultimately lead to an unfortunate end. That is the big deal. QuoteBanning nuts seems like the least drastic measure and a completely acceptable one to me. I don't see the big deal. See above. -synThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #40 August 21, 2008 Quote I'm not saying I agree with the idea but from a pure liability stand point this is the easiest thing for the school to do. The same as banning "tag." My real problem with this is that peanut butter is often the cheapest source of protein around. I grew up with several kids who, if there was no peanut butter in their lunch, there would be no protein at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #41 August 21, 2008 QuoteThen your buddy needs an EpiPen. He's got one now. 20 years ago at the height of his bloaty headedness, they hadn't been invented. QuoteYou're right. It's just one small step. Just one small step, that in conjunction with a thousand other such small steps, will have me walking down the streets one day as a gray-haired old man, wondering how we managed to let our country get so fucked up. Well I agree but there are much bigger things to get bent out of shape about than having to wait for your PB&J sandwich. Personally, I'd rather waste my time opposing something that really is removing civil liberties. Something like a government DNA database or forcing your ISP to give them all your surfing habits and email correspondence. Peanuts just seem like, well, peanuts in comparison. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #42 August 21, 2008 Quote I'm wondering if I call our county and tell them I am allergic to assholes if I can get rid of our county commissioners. If you're allergic to assholes, you shouldn't be in Speakers Corner. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 897 #43 August 21, 2008 Freedom is sacrificed one nut at a time. This is a perfect example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Synapse 0 #44 August 21, 2008 QuotePeanuts just seem like, well, peanuts in comparison. It is insignificant, but it sets the mood. It is this same type of "oh it doesn't really matter" attitude that has allowed the things you mentioned to come to fruition. And I don't want to set that mood in our society, in fact, I want to do everything I can to unset the degree to which that way of thinking has already set in. I'm pretty sure my signature sums up my feelings on liberties... -synThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #45 August 21, 2008 QuoteTeach kids responsibility. Teach kids with and without allergies the risks. Teach teachers and school nurses how to safely administer an EpiPen (it's not that tough). Require that the parents of all children with peanut allergies maintain an in-date EpiPen at the school. Hang on a minute. You're against the idea of a school requesting that kids don't bring nuts to school because it infringes someones freedoms, but you're OK with schools requiring other kids to keep intravenous adrenalin on them? So regulation instead of a voluntary code of conduct is your way to maintain freedoms. That's a bit backwards isn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Synapse 0 #46 August 21, 2008 The school didn't seem to be just requesting, they may as well have said, don't bring peanuts or you're going to get sued for wrongful death, not us. Also, it didn't sound like he wanted the school to require the children to have an EpiPen to me. It sounded as if he wanted the parents to ensure the school had in-date EpiPens for their staff members and that teachers and nurses be trained in using them, which takes all of about 2 minutes. That isn't giving up any of their freedoms, it is requiring them to know how to deal with potentially dangerous situations. -synThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #47 August 21, 2008 QuoteSeems like, we are always having to bend-over backwards for some 'minority' cause. Why, can't those 3-kids sit at a separate table, away from the PB&J's? Why does the majority have to do without, just because of 3 kids with a 'special' problem? When the peanut scare hit the airlines, Southwest Airlines just made an announcement that they would continue to serve peanuts on their planes. That gives fair warning to those who are allergic to peanuts, to fly with another airling. I can 'feel' for those kids but their parents need to do something about it and not force the school to do something about it. I think, too many parents are pawning-off their problems and kids on the rest of the world. The parents are the ones who need to take responsibility. Chuck The parents do obviously take responsibility. The kids haven't died from their allergies yet. It's not necessarily as easy as having the kids sit separately in the lunchroom. (The severity of the allergy has not been mentioned, so I'm assuming that at least one kid has a very severe version.) Like I said, the proposed solution sounds a ot easier on taxpayers than their own new school so everyone else can continue eating peanuts at the old one. The kids have a right to a safe environment to learn in. The school has a responsibility to provide that safe environment. Yeah, it sucks, but the other kids and their parents need to SIUCC and recognize that we don't live in a communist society, we live in a society that prides itself on individual rights.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #48 August 21, 2008 Quotewe live in a society that prides itself on individual rights. So to celebrate this you want to put an individual above a bunch of individuals?You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #49 August 21, 2008 QuoteYou're obviously from the "entitlement trumps logic and reasoning" crowd ... Right. Because building and operating a new peanut free school would be so much cheaper. Apparently you missed the part about the school's legal obligations to provide a safe learning environment. The school was placed between a rock and a hard place, due to circumstances beyond anyones (reasonable) control. They chose the lesser of evil options.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #50 August 21, 2008 QuoteQuotewe live in a society that prides itself on individual rights. So to celebrate this you want to put an individual above a bunch of individuals? Banning peanut products hardly raises one individual above others. The schools reaction has been blown WAY out of proportion.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
