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

[Zero Sum 305]

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

If they actually had a sense of decency in them, no, I don't think they'd be acting like douche bags for kicks.

[nane1104 146]

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

That and there might be a problem with stubborness. Some people just can't admit that maybe, just maybe, they should look at the issue from a humane angle instead of insisting on what their rights or legal duties are.

My husband has a severe cat allergy. Some people don't believe HOW severe it is. Usually my question to them is " Do you need a demonstration? Well, on your way to get the cat, don't forget to call 911!"

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If they actually had a sense of decency in them, no, I don't think they'd be acting like douche bags for kicks.

The alternative is taking care of your own children. How is that sad?

Education is one of the best uses I can think of for tax $$$. In fact I believe that no person should collect ANY welfare unless thay ve a high school diploma or are attending equivilency classes and ANY person getting welfare of any type should be required to either be working or enrolled in school. Almost no one with a college degree is on welfare

Nut allergies have exactly -0- to do with education

How do you feel about requiring education for people on welfare?

[Jenn! 918]

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.

Not eating nuts doesn't feel like an imposition to me when the alternative would be the family not being able to send the child to the school at all. I'd rather pack lunches with no nuts and have the school get the extra $20k in tuition. These are not parents who are trying to relieve themselves of personal responsibility, so I don't know why that's become the central argument here.

[HannahP 119]

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.

Do you actually understand what you're saying? I do private duty pediatric nursing -- I take care of very sick kiddos who *can* be taken care of by their parents but said parents often have to work, etc.

So, yeah, I take care of other peoples' children. For money. So that *they* can work.

I mean...really? Really?!

[Zero Sum 305]

Case in point to my last post:

The alternative is taking care of your own children. How is that sad?

Education is one of the best uses I can think of for tax $$$. In fact I believe that no person should collect ANY welfare unless thay ve a high school diploma or are attending equivilency classes and ANY person getting welfare of any type should be required to either be working or enrolled in school. Almost no one with a college degree is on welfare

Nut allergies have exactly -0- to do with education

How do you feel about requiring education for people on welfare?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

That and there might be a problem with stubborness. Some people just can't admit that maybe, just maybe, they should look at the issue from a humane angle instead of insisting on what their rights or legal duties are.

My husband has a severe cat allergy. Some people don't believe HOW severe it is. Usually my question to them is " Do you need a demonstration? Well, on your way to get the cat, don't forget to call 911!"

Do you support the banning of people having cats so that your husband can be protected if he happens to go into their home?

[Zero Sum 305]

Yawn.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Do you actually understand what you're saying? I do private duty pediatric nursing -- I take care of very sick kiddos who *can* be taken care of by their parents but said parents often have to work, etc.

So, yeah, I take care of other peoples' children. For money. So that *they* can work.

I mean...really? Really?!

Yes, I understand

Really.

They are caring for their families by hiring you and paying you money to do so. Where did I lose you? How does that relate to imposing their children's problems on me at my expense?

[HannahP 119]

Yes, I understand

Really.

They are caring for their families by hiring you and paying you money to do so. Where did I lose you? How does that relate to imposing their children's problems on me at my expense?

Actually, I'm usually paid via medicaid. The kiddos with private insurance (ie. both parents working) have the worst time getting care covered.

That, often, their child's issues are not related to anything.

I have one kid who was totally normal until she was five years old. She's on Medicaid now.

What do you people do -- said kid have several cardiac arrests at the age of five, hypoxia that has left her profoundly mentally handicapped. Her parents have had to file bankruptcy once.

What is Ron Paul's solution?

[VanessaTony 3,567]

There is such a thing as over-policing.

Lets look at this rationally. You want nuts banned at schools because some people are allergic. These people can die. These people feel bad if nuts AREN'T banned because kids are mean to them for having to put their nuts away and what not. SO, what about asthmatics? They can't run too much. It's deadly. Should we cancel sports because otherwise kids with asthma feel left out and doing sports can kill them? What about those allergic to bees.. should be stop allowing kids outside or cut down trees or put plastic wrap around the entire school to protect against it?

I think teachers need to be made aware of allergies, what to do in case of a reaction but outside of that if you child has a severe nut allergy.. you REALLY can't expect the school to conform just for you. There are MANY allergies out there. It would get ridiculous very quick.

**Edit - I also think kids should be taught about allergies. About how serious they are, and any child "teasing" a child by trying to push that item they're allergic to onto them should be disciplined.

**Second edit - I do think smoking should be restricted to private premises though and not on the streets but only because smoke travels so far. That's an allergy for some people (me included but not deadly) and if there wasn't smoke I couldn't care less, but there is and that IS forcing it into the allergic persons face.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Vanessa&Tony

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

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

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

Welcome to today's America where parents aren't responsible for their children, and people aren't responsible for their own actions. This is what society has come to.

[Zero Sum 305]

There is such a thing as over-policing.

Lets look at this rationally. You want nuts banned at schools because some people are allergic. These people can die. These people feel bad if nuts AREN'T banned because kids are mean to them for having to put their nuts away and what not. SO, what about asthmatics? They can't run too much. It's deadly. Should we cancel sports because otherwise kids with asthma feel left out and doing sports can kill them? What about those allergic to bees.. should be stop allowing kids outside or cut down trees or put plastic wrap around the entire school to protect against it?

I think teachers need to be made aware of allergies, what to do in case of a reaction but outside of that if you child has a severe nut allergy.. you REALLY can't expect the school to conform just for you. There are MANY allergies out there. It would get ridiculous very quick.

**Edit - I also think kids should be taught about allergies. About how serious they are, and any child "teasing" a child by trying to push that item they're allergic to onto them should be disciplined.

**Second edit - I do think smoking should be restricted to private premises though and not on the streets but only because smoke travels so far. That's an allergy for some people (me included but not deadly) and if there wasn't smoke I couldn't care less, but there is and that IS forcing it into the allergic persons face.

Don't you think addressing childhood asthma by cancelling sports as a bit incongruous to limiting nut exposure in a public area where an allergy can ensue in some cases from simple, residual contact? I don't think an asthmatic kid can get an asthma attack from high-fiving a 400m runner.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Actually, I'm usually paid via medicaid. The kiddos with private insurance (ie. both parents working) have the worst time getting care covered.

That, often, their child's issues are not related to anything.

I have one kid who was totally normal until she was five years old. She's on Medicaid now.

What do you people do -- said kid have several cardiac arrests at the age of five, hypoxia that has left her profoundly mentally handicapped. Her parents have had to file bankruptcy once.

What is Ron Paul's solution?

Again, even with medicaid (which the parents applied for and received due to being qualified and took such action to care for their family) the parents have taken care of their children's needs. Where am I losing you? You are there ONLY because the parents made arrangements necessary for their children's needs, we didn't ALL have to change our lives to meet their childrens needs.

Here is the analogy. I am diabetic and have certain dietary restrictions and needs (like insulin, testing kit) Now, is it MY responsibility to follow my dietary restrictions or is it everyone else's? Should ALL restaraunts be forced to serve ONLY food that meets my dietary needs and you have to follow it so I don;t accidentally eat something I shouldn't? Or when I go to a restraunt should it be MY responsibility to choose what I should eat? How would I benefit by not having to know what my diet should be and relying on other people to do that for me? should all places serving food be required to keep refrigerated Novolog for me at each meal? Or should I have a small cooler with my own? Should they be required to have a test kit at all places serving food so I can test my sugar before I eat? Or should I have my own and know how to use it? Should all food service employees know about my needs and know about carb counting and exchanges or should I know that?

What is being proposed here is that ALL children at ALL schools be forced to eat a diet that complies with the dietary needs of a very tiny minority of other children and that is wrong. Not only because it is not their problem but because the children with nut allergies (or other allergies) NEED to know how to deal with it themselves, if they expect to live to adulthood and if their parents responsibility to make sure they know what they need to know. THAT is what I referred to with my comment on natural slection. It was, not surprisingly, misunderstood by people incapable of understanding what taking care of one's own family even means or entails.

It is amazing that the parents of diabetic children can and always have been able to handle this but the parents of children with nut allergies are somehow incapable of really a much easier liability to deal with. Preposterous. You would have to believe that people are much more stupid than I am willing to believe about them. Why would think people are so stupid?

[nane1104 146]

Do you support the banning of people having cats so that your husband can be protected if he happens to go into their home?

No, of course not, but that's an entirely different issue. We can get around having him exposed to cat allergens by simply and unfortunately not going into houses where cats live. People are more or less understanding of that.

Kid with allergies still need to go to school, need their social contacts because no, you cannot put them in a bubble.

And yes, I am aware they could be homeschooled but really...this is an issue of people being either understanding of other peoples problems and trying to help them out or being ignorant and insisting on their rights.

This whole attitude about "this isn't my problem, let the parents and the kid deal with their own issues" is very sad. This could be such a wonderful opportunity to teach your child empathy and consideration, but I guess if it's cutting into their "rights", the moral compass is off.

Sad.