Nut Allergies and Children: How Others React Is Causing a Call for Increased Regulation.

[slim 1,525]

And the waters get even more murky with yet more irrelevant analogies.

1) If you have no legs - they put in wheelchair ramps and lifts.

2) If you have a disability that requires a special school - it's because you need specialised teaching and a different curriculum to what you would receive in a regular school.

The situation with the nut allergy is closer to 1) than 2).

But your fix isn't adding ramps. Your fix is making sure all schools are one story.

If health issues were about laws of natural selection, where would that have left you when you were in need of a heart bypass?

It would leave him with the procedures he could afford.

All these allergies we see now we didn't used to see. It's not incomprehensible to imagine a world where touching everyday objects could kill any one of us. Well, that is, if we keep letting the allergy kids grow up and breed.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If health issues were about laws of natural selection, where would that have left you when you were in need of a heart bypass?

I require no special accomodation to survive, I have no physical restrictions, I require that no one else be restricted to accomodate me and my condition is not a genetic mutation that will be promoted by accomodation.

[slim 1,525]

I require no special accomodation to survive, I have no physical restrictions, I require that no one else be restricted to accomodate me and my condition is not a genetic mutation that will be promoted by accomodation.

PWNAGE!

[Kathryn41 3,205]

I appreciate that this issue seems polarized but you need to stop the personal attacks in your disagreements with each other's positions. As well, I have removed several posts with denigrating epithets that violate the TOS along with posts quoting same, edited them and returned them to the conversation below. Please avoid such denigrating labels in future discussions.

Why is it acceptable to make the mentally retarded kids go to special school or special class but not a kid with special allergies?

I find it amazing that you "he should be able to sit with all the other kids too" folks aren't simultaneously jumping on the bandwagon to get mentally retarded kids put back into regular classes. Why shouldn't they be included as well?

A few pages ago a poster said something to the effect of "is it too much to ask that parents don't allow their children to take peanut products to school" and I'd have to agree with that poster. It is not too much to ask. However, they took it a step further. "They should do whatever it takes, up to and including legal action to prevent their child's school from having peanut products."

That's where I draw the line. Asking is one thing. Infringing upon everyone else's rights is quite another.

Mentally retarded kids" as you put it in your typically classless and intellectually deficient way, require a specialised curriculum and specialised teaching that are outside of what can be delivered at schools for pupils who don't have disabilities and learning difficulties.

A person with extreme allergies does not.

I find your comments ironic, being that you don't differentiate between the intellectual, academic, and health issues being discussed here.

In other words, some honest context.

It's not outside. We could take legal action to make sure every mentally retarded kid was taught right alongside all the "normal" kids. They have just as much of a right to be there as the "normal" kids, don't they?

Why should they be differentiated?

If the goal of public school is to get "as many kids as possible" through a minimum standard of education, but we're going to require "special rules" for one kid, then how come we don't require special rules for all?

I'm all for having separate schools for mentally retarded kids, smarty-pantses (or smarty-pantsi if they study Latin), kids in wheel chairs and anyone else. But, like all those other kids that aren't 100% "normal" the burden of assimilation is on them, not on the school itself. If they can't be integrated into the "normal" curriculum, they're required to attend school elsewhere or, in some cases, the school is required (by law) to accomodate them in a "special" program.

A kid with allergies is no different than a blind kid. He's not "normal" like the rest of the kids at public school and therefore requires a "special" program. The problem we have nowadays is people who name their kids Skylar have enough money to get legal injunctions against schools and require the "normal" kids - and society in general - to accept their abnormal kid into the mainstream.

This is different than equal access. This is special treatment. And none of us are free to do that.

It depends on the disability/learning difficulty. Some students can learn at the same speed as the able-bodied/unimpaired kids, others cannot. For those who can't there are schools specifically designed to cater to their needs and abilities - why would you take legal action against that?

If we make it acceptable to ban peanuts because "someone doesn't like them" then we also make it acceptable to ban pork because "someone doesn't like it."

This kind of reminds me of allowing the government to surveil certain people but then getting all upset when, "Hey, they're surveilling me too! Not fair!"

When you give an inch, you set the legal precedent for them to take a mile.

So the mentally retarded kids are behavioral as well? How about the kid with no legs? Is that his fault?

.... yet, they have special schools.

And the waters get even more murky with yet more irrelevant analogies.

1) If you have no legs - they put in wheelchair ramps and lifts.

2) If you have a disability that requires a special school - it's because you need specialised teaching and a different curriculum to what you would receive in a regular school.

The situation with the nut allergy is closer to 1) than 2).

Edited August 18, 2011 by Kathryn41

[nane1104 146]

So why doesn't the allergy kid go to one of those schools?

Also, you can't read. The legal action is being taken by the "special" kid's family to make the school include their child, not the other way around. Nobody is trying to stop special kids from getting an education. What some of us are wondering is why this special kid gets to change the entire school instead of going to special school.

Divergent issues?

What isn't relative in the entire world, especially when we start talking about "public" things like schools?

So it's okay that special-ed kids can't bring there nut snacks or PBJ sanwiches to school but for a regular school, that's to much to ask for? Are you kidding me?

[Jenn! 918]

God forbid that children with no nut allergies are stripped of their right to a peanut butter sandwich at school. What a burden!

My mother is another one who likes to bang on the personal responsibility drum. And I don't think you would meet a child as mature as my sister, able to deal with her allergy like an adult for her whole life. But they sure did appreciate the common courtesy displayed by the other families at her school that didn't throw hissy fits over the nut-free policy.

[Zero Sum 305]

But your fix isn't adding ramps. Your fix is making sure all schools are one story.

It would leave him with the procedures he could afford.

All these allergies we see now we didn't used to see. It's not incomprehensible to imagine a world where touching everyday objects could kill any one of us. Well, that is, if we keep letting the allergy kids grow up and breed.

This assumes you are versed in the genetics of allergies. Many are developed, and hence, not hereditary.

So it's okay that special-ed kids can't bring there nut snacks or PBJ sanwiches to school but for a regular school, that's to much to ask for? Are you kidding me?

"Nut sacks"

God forbid that children with no nut allergies are stripped of their right to a peanut butter sandwich at school. What a burden!

My mother is another one who likes to bang on the personal responsibility drum. And I don't think you would meet a child as mature as my sister, able to deal with her allergy like an adult for her whole life. But they sure did appreciate the common courtesy displayed by the other families at her school that didn't throw hissy fits over the nut-free policy.

Hissy fits indeed.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

God forbid that children with no nut allergies are stripped of their right to a peanut butter sandwich at school. What a burden!

My mother is another one who likes to bang on the personal responsibility drum. And I don't think you would meet a child as mature as my sister, able to deal with her allergy like an adult for her whole life. But they sure did appreciate the common courtesy displayed by the other families at her school that didn't throw hissy fits over the nut-free policy.

it's hissy fits that caused the nut-free policy.

Again, why should everyone else conform to one person's personal problem.

[nane1104 146]

This assumes you are versed in the genetics of allergies. Many are developed, and hence, not hereditary.

"Nut sacks"

Hissy fits indeed.

I knew why I was hesitant to use those words..lol

[Zero Sum 305]

it's hissy fits that caused the nut-free policy.

Again, why should everyone else conform to one person's personal problem.

No, Paul, it saves lives.

[Jenn! 918]

it's hissy fits that caused the nut-free policy.

Again, why should everyone else conform to one person's personal problem.

They do it because it is a small sacrifice that results in a huge benefit for someone else. I don't know what else to day except that it's a nice thing to do, being sensitive to the fact that your peanut butter sandwich could kill the person sitting next to. Sure, maybe you shouldn't HAVE to be sensitive, as in you're not breaking the law to eat your peanut butter sandwich. It seems as though you would eat that sandwich and enjoy it all the more, because, well screw you peanut allergy little kid!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

They do it because it is a small sacrifice that results in a huge benefit for someone else. I don't know what else to day except that it's a nice thing to do, being sensitive to the fact that your peanut butter sandwich could kill the person sitting next to. Sure, maybe you shouldn't HAVE to be sensitive, as in you're not breaking the law to eat your peanut butter sandwich. It seems as though you would eat that sandwich and enjoy it all the more, because, well screw you peanut allergy little kid!

No, Paul, it saves lives.

[Jenn! 918]

I'm going to assume that some people just really don't understand the severity. The alternative is just too sad.

[HannahP 119]

I'm going to assume that some people just really don't understand the severity. The alternative is just too sad.

Oh honey, you forgot to add that THEIR TAX DOLL$$$RS will otherwise be spent educating said child.

/extra tax do$$ars

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I'm going to assume that some people just really don't understand the severity. The alternative is just too sad.

Rather better to assume some people care about their family's needs themselves and do not need to inflict impositions on other people to care for their own children.