Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would probably homeschool my child with a life-threatening allergy. I homeschooled to eliminate other perils, so easy choice.
Learning to be personally responsible is the only thing that will keep the child/person safe.
Yes let's put a burden of personal responsibility typically reserved for adults on kindergarteners. Damn selfish 5 yos expecting the adults in their lives to help protect them.
If a child has a contact allergy, then that school should ban the allergen. I have never heard of a life-threatening contact allergy to anything other than nuts.
I am a teacher and a parent (although none of my kids have allergies). And I am absolutely infuriated when parents blatantly disregard a ban on nuts in my classroom (during those years when I have an allergy). It teaches your children that it's OK to ignore the rules. It teaches them that we don't need to be considerate of other children. And it could literally kill someone. It's really not any harder to pack a ham and cheese sandwich than it it so pack a PB & J. It's also just as easy to toss a bag of Goldfish crackers into a back pack as it is to throw in a PB granola bar.
Honestly, I wish my school would jut go nut free.
Yes, people are allergic to all kinds of things - dairy, wheat, pollen, perfumes, etc. The difference is that those people won't die from just being in the same room as those things. So you can't compare the two.
I am lucky I teach older kids and for the most part don't have to deal with this. But one year I had to literally scream in the cafeteria to stop eating. A parent had brought in a cake to the senior feast, which due to he issues of several students needed to be gluten free or labeled as wheat containing. This was In all the literature sent home and reiterated when parents brought in food. I had a piece and told the parent how good it was especially for gluten free and she winked at me! This freaked me out, and I asked her if it was really gluten free and she says, and I quote "the gluten free thing is BS". I had to go swat a fork out a students hand. Luckily she had only had one bite but we had to make her throw up. She and another student who had not had any both have celiac disease and we had another senior who was had a wheat allergy, like anaphylactic allergic. Unfortunately we no longer have those sorts of events were parents bring in food since apparently some of them will lie.
Yes let's put a burden of personal responsibility typically reserved for adults on kindergarteners. Damn selfish 5 yos expecting the adults in their lives to help protect them.
I don't want to speak for the poster but I agree that the child with the allergy is the only one who can really save themselves. Not that a 5 year old SHOULD need to bear the sole responsibility, but that it is the only way to try to be safe. And seeing how the peanut situation was handled in public school, there is absolutely no way I would send my child with a life threatening allergy until they were older. I can't even imagine the stress because that's certainly not a choice everyone can make. Look at what's being said in some of these posts. Even people who actually care could make a life ending mistake. And most people DO NOT CARE if it's not their child.
I don't want to speak for the poster but I agree that the child with the allergy is the only one who can really save themselves. Not that a 5 year old SHOULD need to bear the sole responsibility, but that it is the only way to try to be safe. And seeing how the peanut situation was handled in public school, there is absolutely no way I would send my child with a life threatening allergy until they were older. I can't even imagine the stress because that's certainly not a choice everyone can make. Look at what's being said in some of these posts. Even people who actually care could make a life ending mistake. And most people DO NOT CARE if it's not their child.
Actually no, being safe includes educating the people around the child, having a school wide plan (and whether or not that includes bans should be decided by each school or situation) and teaching the child how to keep them self safe. Or do you think any life threatening medical condition should be ignored by school? What about diabetes, should those kids be resonbible for testing and administering insulin on their own or kept out of schools? Or kids with physical issues like the boy in my daughter's elementary school who was missing a bone in his skull? He wore a helmet, but the kids in his class were taught not to throw thing near him, and ball games were limited to one particular part of the courtyard during recess and gym. Should he have instead been denied his fundamental right to a public education?
The only reason people are pushing the angle of self care is because it is an inconvenience to them. If whatever th medical condition is isn't an inconvenience to them than they all understand the need to have the school, teachers, other adults and even other kids participate.
Having kids with these concerns in a school or a class is an incredible opportunity to teach children things like compassion, empathy, the importance of community, self-sacrifice, gratitude, and how to be responsible. All things regarding character education that so many bemoan the lack of when kids are teens or young adults. But instead of teaching kids these skills people are instead blaming other kids for not being able to manage medical conditions that many adults struggle with. Instead giving lessons on selfishness, pettiness, and so on. No wonder we are becoming a nation of whiners when kids see their parents witch and moan about a sandwich filling and how inconvenienced they are instead of taking part in caring for a community member and classmate. Talk about snowflake syndrome, "but my right to eat pb&j!!!"
I don't want to speak for the poster but I agree that the child with the allergy is the only one who can really save themselves. Not that a 5 year old SHOULD need to bear the sole responsibility, but that it is the only way to try to be safe. And seeing how the peanut situation was handled in public school, there is absolutely no way I would send my child with a life threatening allergy until they were older. I can't even imagine the stress because that's certainly not a choice everyone can make. Look at what's being said in some of these posts. Even people who actually care could make a life ending mistake. And most people DO NOT CARE if it's not their child.
And every single child with an allergy that I have come across (and being a teacher, that's a lot) has been EXTREMELY vigilant when it comes to what they eat. They would never accept food from someone else that they didn't know was "safe" (like a parent, etc.). But these kids can not control what other parents send to school. Yes, some kids can really have a life-threatening reaction just by being NEAR peanuts. They have no control over the kid next to them decides to bust open a bag of peanut butter crackers or granola bar.
And like another poster mentioned with the cake example, people will actually lie and say something is dairy or gluten free or whatever. I guess they figure that if someone doesn't just drop dead on the spot, that it's not that big a deal. What they don't see is that person vomiting, having diarrhea, and in so much pain they go to the emergency room a few hours after ingesting something they were TOLD was safe.
I have a friend (in his 40s) who has a legit gluten allergy - like can stop breathing, needs to carry an epi-pen allergy. He has had people tell him that something was gluten free when it really wasn't. And more than once. Because they thought it wasn't that big a deal.
You can see from this thread that people don't think they should ban something that could kill a child, why in the world do you think they would be jumping at the chance to ban something that only causes discomfort?
It's already been said on here that if someone approached the school about a perfume allergy or something along those lines, the school would more than likely try to accommodate the student.
But the point is that is not how the real world works. That is a big part of the premise of this thread. The other part of it is how many people would support a full ban on perfumes, hairsprays, flowers, etc. inside and keeping kids in from recess during warm weather months due to those allergic to bee stings (which kill much more than a peanut butter allergy does).
If a child has a contact allergy, then that school should ban the allergen. I have never heard of a life-threatening contact allergy to anything other than nuts.
I am a teacher and a parent (although none of my kids have allergies). And I am absolutely infuriated when parents blatantly disregard a ban on nuts in my classroom (during those years when I have an allergy). It teaches your children that it's OK to ignore the rules. It teaches them that we don't need to be considerate of other children. And it could literally kill someone. It's really not any harder to pack a ham and cheese sandwich than it it so pack a PB & J. It's also just as easy to toss a bag of Goldfish crackers into a back pack as it is to throw in a PB granola bar.
Honestly, I wish my school would jut go nut free.
Yes, people are allergic to all kinds of things - dairy, wheat, pollen, perfumes, etc. The difference is that those people won't die from just being in the same room as those things. So you can't compare the two.
Yes, I can and will compare the two because even if an allergy doesn't cause death it impedes the educational process - something ALL children are supposed to be guaranteed. Stop thinking in extremes. Life isn't that way; nor should an intelligent, mature conversation of opposing viewpoints.
Nut allergies are a life threatening medical condition no matter what you seem to think but being unpopular is not. But since you bring it up, schools also have anti bullying policies that are getting more and more extensive all the time. They may not be 100% effective the same way a nut ban is not 100% effective, but they are certainly geared towards making sure no child is miserable in school.
Btw, a kindergartener in Australia died when a parent (who rolled their eyes at the ban at their local school), gave a peanut butter sandwich to their own child despite the nut ban This child who died,did not eat peanut butter but simply injested oils from peanuts.
This is the scenario that explains why nut bans exist. Five year old Bobby has a yummy pb&j for lunch, doesn't wash his hands, and touches things transferring the oils all over the school. Then Robby who is also 5 years old, touches those surfaces, and then transfers those oils to himself and dies. Nut bans are nothing more or less ban another, simple layer of protection. Assuming a hole parents follow the school rules.
Honest to God, if my child had an allergy that severe (which sounds downright horrifying), I'd homeschool him or her. I know this is a personal choice but I simply would not trust anyone else with such a fragile child.
Don't you think itching, sneezing, swollen eyes, feeling out of it, etc. is unfavorable to the educational process?
I'm not saying accommodations shouldn't be made. I'm just pointing out that it's not comparable to death.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
