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.
There are only 13 REPORTED cases. The reason for that is because no one is required to report allergy deaths. The actual number is probably closer to 150-200 a year in the US.
It is estimated that food allergies cause approximately 150 to 200 fatalities per year, based on data from a five year study of anaphylaxis in Minnesota from the Mayo Clinic. Fatal food anaphylaxis is most often caused by peanuts (50-62%) and tree nuts (15-30%).
It is estimated that food allergies cause approximately 150 to 200 fatalities per year, based on data from a five year study of anaphylaxis in Minnesota from the Mayo Clinic. Fatal food anaphylaxis is most often caused by peanuts (50-62%) and tree nuts (15-30%).
Thank you.
Not trying to be a pain but the link shows up as 404 Not Found ??
I have seasonal allergies and so do my husband and son. My daughter has a shellfish allergy. The two types of allergies do not compare.
If my husband (who has the worst pollen allergy of all of us) forgets his meds and we go out for the day, he's sneezy and gets a headache.
If my daughter is accidentally exposed to shellfish, she could die.
So yes, we take more extreme measures to protect my daughter from shellfish than we do to protect my husband from pollen. We don't eat in seafood restaurants, but we do go to the park. We don't cook shrimp in the house, but we do walk from the house to the car, even during pollen season. If my husband forgets his meds, we wouldn't turn around and drive 15 minutes back home. If my daughter forgot her epi-pen, we would turn back to get it.
The deaths in the articles don't include the kids who suffered an anaphylactic reaction without dying. I suspect the incidence is many, many times greater than the number of deaths. An anaphylactic reaction is no small thing: it involves severe, life-threatening symptoms and a ride in an ambulance. As far as I'm aware, no one has experienced this type of reaction to hay fever.
We've already discussed that accommodations are made for kids with other types of allergies. What more do you want? It's about reasonable accommodation: it's reasonable to say "no peanuts in this classroom." It's also reasonable to say "no perfume at this school." It's not reasonable to say "no children can go outside because those with pollen allergies have to choose between sneezing and staying indoors." Or "everyone must shower and change into clean clothes after coming in from the carline each morning, lest they bring pollen into our sterile school." That would be the extent schools would need to go to if they had pollen-free classrooms to prevent sneezing.
Last edited by AnotherTouchOfWhimsy; 07-26-2017 at 09:32 AM..
His immunity is increasing and he is close to being ready for some food challenges. One thing we realized is that each kid/adult with a food allergy is very different from each other....have the person's bloodwork done for allergens once per year is crucial. He is entering grade 7 and his immunity is high enough so that his doctor in LaCrosse believes he could handle an accidental peanut ingestion without reaction. In the earlier grades, his rooms were peanut and dairy free and his lunch table where he sat was peanut free as well.
This is excellent advice. Many children DO outgrow food allergies, or their allergies become less severe over time. My husband's niece and nephew, who still have peanut and tree nut allergies, also used to have a serious egg allergy. As teens, they've completely outgrown it and can eat any amount of eggs with no problem at all. But if they hadn't gone back in for regular testing, they wouldn't know that, and would still be scrupulously avoiding eggs for no reason.
But driving so fast is not allowed. Peanuts are. It would be the same thing if people were saying, "Well, I want to drive fast, it's my right. So there should be no rules against it. If you don't like it, don't drive."
Driving too fast is against the law because it endangers other people. Peanuts should not be allowed in school for the same reason.
Then there should be no problem in limiting by design all vehicles to no more than 60mph right?
It's like the health insurance debate. Those affected (to whatever degree) seem to have no problem in making their problem into everyone else's problem and expect everyone else not affected to provide the solution. We're humans, not bees or ants living in a colony with behavior dictated by the hive-mind.
Like it or not, life's not fair, folks. Can't change it.
Tailcoating onto another post, by your logic if 321,370,00 people would sacrifice driving so fast so that 35,092 people would not be killed in traffic-related accidents, it's worth it, don't *you* think?
We have speed limits for just that reason, and they are generally accepted by society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnivalGal
But driving so fast is not allowed. Peanuts are. It would be the same thing if people were saying, "Well, I want to drive fast, it's my right. So there should be no rules against it. If you don't like it, don't drive."
Driving too fast is against the law because it endangers other people. Peanuts should not be allowed in school for the same reason.
This
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnivalGal
The difference is that ALL kids are entitled by the constitution to a free education. Pretty sure there's no mention of shopping malls or restaurants in the constitution.
This
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
Would you support school bans on perfume, hairspray, fresh flowers as well as bans on outdoor activities in warm weather to help protect children from their allergens as well? Why or why not?
Yes, if not having it was keeping a child from a free and appropriate education. But why do you keep ignoring the fact that peanut allergies can kill. These others not so much?
Yes, if not having it was keeping a child from a free and appropriate education. But why do you keep ignoring the fact that peanut allergies can kill. These others not so much?
Please re-read the thread. I've addressed this point numerous times.
Then there should be no problem in limiting by design all vehicles to no more than 60mph right?
It's like the health insurance debate. Those affected (to whatever degree) seem to have no problem in making their problem into everyone else's problem and expect everyone else not affected to provide the solution. We're humans, not bees or ants living in a colony with behavior dictated by the hive-mind.
Like it or not, life's not fair, folks. Can't change it.
Well, there are 80 mph speed limits here, so.... And cars capable of going over a certain speed ARE illegal. So is operating cars deemed unsafe for other reasons (hence the reason for inspections).
Also, being deathly allergic to nuts is not a choice. Driving is. Pretty much by definition, if it's not a choice, it's discrimination. That's why it's illegal to discriminate against someone based on race or gender, but not illegal to discriminate against someone who has tattoos.
Then there's that whole pesky constitutional right thing. Last I checked, driving was not a constitutional right. Education is.
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.
