From the pages of Only In America

[JackC 0]

Quote

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.


-syn

I think it was the other way around. The school were asking according to CSpenceFly's post and skydiver30960 was requiring.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

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.

That's a tremendously wide-ranging and intellectually provocative assertion.
Really? How about China's "Great Leap Forward"? Conservatively 20M people died. Or Stalin's "Great Purge"? ... Contravertedly one might be able to argue that those events occurs because of small steps.

I'm neither convinced your assertion is right nor that it's wrong; it's not evident to me that it's either that simple nor conclusive either way.

---- -- ----

On the general issue that underlies peanut/nut allergies, I am more concerned and interested in the increased incidence of food and other allergies and understanding the cause (not just correlation). If there are 3 students at a single school of 900 w/such severe, life-threatening reactions to proteins in peanuts, that should be more curious than the letters, imo.

There are competing hypotheses. I find more validity in the data and conclusions underlying the "hygiene hypothesis" that infants and young kids need to be exposed to allergens and microbes (bugs, dirt, pollen, etc) in order to develop a more robust innate immune ssytem, i.e., tolerance for those allergens and are therefore less likely to suffer from asthma or allergies. Let kids get dirty and get rid of anti-bacterial soaps!

One can not discount -- & I'm not aware of any studies trying to disentangle the two -- that the rise in incidence (2x from 1970s to 1990s for peanut allergies in the US) is due to greater surveillance and better diagnostics.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Synapse 0]

Quote

Apparently you missed the part about the school's legal obligations to provide a safe learning environment.

I must have missed that too, because I don't see where the schools have a legal responsibility to provide special accommodations for anyone. See the Supreme court ruling on Brown v. The Board of Education: click

An exert from the ruling:

Quote

Education is a right, not a privilege.
The Court wrote: "In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he (or she) is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."

Notice the "on equal terms" part. That means they do have a legal responsibility to offer education to everyone and thereby could not deny entry to the students. However, that offer only has to be on equal terms, there is no mandate that they accommodate to anyone's special needs.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain
a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty
nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

An exert from the ruling:

Quote

Education is a right, not a privilege.
The Court wrote: "In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he (or she) is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."

Notice the "on equal terms" part. That means they do have a legal responsibility to offer education to everyone and thereby could not deny entry to the students. However, that offer only has to be on equal terms, there is no mandate that they accommodate to anyone's special needs.

Right. Which means that all kids are equally entitled to a safe learning environment. Thanks for supporting my point.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

You'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.

Where do you draw the line between a safe and an unsafe learning environment? Should schools ban glue, scissors, water, windows, etc...?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Synapse 0]

My statement was certainly oversimplified, but I am of the belief that events of this magnitude require the people within the society to slowly move in a direction that will allow it. Hitler certainly couldn't have suggested killing off thousands of people the day he came into power. The society had to be slowly moved (often forcefully) into a position that would give him the ability and power to do so. Without the people giving up the smaller rights, liberties, and powers, the larger requirements of accomplishing such a twisted goal would have been impossible.

Delving too deep into this topic would certainly spin this thread in the wrong direction though, so I'll just stop there.

-syn

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain
a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty
nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Where do you draw the line between a safe and an unsafe learning environment? Should schools ban glue, scissors, water, windows, etc...?

That's a distinction for the courts to make, not me.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[fallfast69 2]

Quote

Quote

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.

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?

It's NOT IV, it's a muscle injection...and my wife has had one for more than 20 years

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Without the people giving up the smaller rights, liberties, and powers, the larger requirements of accomplishing such a twisted goal would have been impossible.

So, are you saying it is wrong to expect the children with allergies to give up their right to a public education, or were you trying for a 10/10 irony score?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[JackC 0]

Thanks for the correction. My mistake.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

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

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.

What happened to 'majority rules'? What if, one of those three kids, does come in contact with some form of peanut and dies in front of all those other kids in that cafeteria? What about the trauma to all those kids? Is that fair?
I agree with the fact that these three kids are entitled to their rights but, what about all those other kids? They have rights too... like being able to eat a peanut butter sandwich! How far to we have to go to 'cater' to each and every individual? I'm not trying to sound cold-blooded but, let's see some common sense!


Chuck

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

What happened to 'majority rules'?

It's not an election.

Quote

I agree with the fact that these three kids are entitled to their rights but, what about all those other kids? They have rights too... like being able to eat a peanut butter sandwich! How far to we have to go to 'cater' to each and every individual? I'm not trying to sound cold-blooded but, let's see some common sense!

I can find where the kids have a right to an education. Where are kids guaranteed the right to eat peanuts in school? Is there a Jif v. Board of Education ruling that I'm aware of? As far as I can tell, there is no right to eat peanut products at school.

To quote a (usually) wise SC poster, "let's see some common sense!"

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[wmw999 2,128]

Majority rules is not a universal law. We have the Constitution in part so that the majority can't impose some things on the minority.

Part of the problem is that kids are messy. They don't wash their hands after eating sometimes, and their clothes can have the residue of peanuts on them. Giving an epi-pen to a 7-year-old to manage because he has a peanut allergy is a little dangerous.

This isn't a great solution. The "great" solution is not to have the allergies, or for the parents to home school. Maybe.

I'm more intrigued by nerdgirl's interest in the increase in allergy. I've heard similar things about polio; that it only because a problem when a mild form stopped becoming endemic due to improved sanitation.

Ya know, kids used to die a lot more often. When it's not your kid, it seems like it's sad, but something that happens. If it's your own kid, my understanding is that it's about the worst thing that can happen. What parent wouldn't do whatever they could to keep their generally-healthy kid healthy? Any who didn't would be considered a bad parent.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Synapse 0]

Quote

So, are you saying it is wrong to expect the children with allergies to give up their right to a public education, or were you trying for a 10/10 irony score?

The government isn't -trying- to take away their right to an education. The children have a medical condition which precludes them from being able to take advantage of the system provided.

By your logic, the government is also denying the right of a public education to bedridden cancer patients because they don't provide them with their own personal teacher at the hospital. o_O

-syn

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain
a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty
nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The government isn't -trying- to take away their right to an education.

True, the government is trying to allow them to exercise their right to an education by banning peanut products in school. It's the other parents who are whining about their kids being inconvenienced who would like to take away those kids right to an education.

Quote

The children have a medical condition which precludes them from being able to take advantage of the system provided.

No they don't, not if reasonable precautions are taking. Those reasonable precautions are what everybody seems to be getting bent out of shape about.

Quote

By your logic, the government is also denying the right of a public education to bedridden cancer patients because they don't provide them with their own personal teacher at the hospital.

If you believe that, then you haven't been paying attention. The kids with allergies are able to make it to school, participate normally, etc. They simply need one small, reasonable precaution taken to avoid a preventable, potentially life-threatening situation. That's nothing like a bed-ridden student that cannot attend school.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

[because they don't provide them with their own personal teacher at the hospital.

Actually they do. My wife used to do that and homebound education for children that were ill or injured (primarily injured) and unable to attend school for an extended period. So, there are services and options.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Where do you draw the line between a safe and an unsafe learning environment? Should schools ban glue, scissors, water, windows, etc...?

That's a distinction for the courts to make, not me.

I asked where you draw the line, not where the courts draw the line ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I asked where you draw the line, not where the courts draw the line ...

It doesn't matter where I draw the line, only where the courts draw the line.

In this particular case, I don't believe it is anywhere near the line. It is well within the "reasonable precautions and accommodations" area.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Butters 0]

Quote

In this particular case, I don't believe it is anywhere near the line. It is well within the "reasonable precautions and accommodations" area.

Was that so hard? So, do you believe that pet dander, scissors, water, windows, etc... should be banned because they create a potentially unsafe learning environment?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So, do you believe that pet dander, scissors, water, windows, etc... should be banned because they create a potentially unsafe learning environment?

It's an irrelevant and non-topical question.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[PhreeZone 15]

Look up the No Child Left Behind Act. Basically once a kid enrolls in the school, the school is basically responible to do everything they can to provide equal learning to every child. In some cases small schools have actually found a cost benefit to paying to transfer a child out of their system vs keeping them in it and losing federal money if they do not meet the standards required. In these cases it tends to be childern with learning or physical handicaps that would be using more resources then the rest of the childern so the school is faced with the decision to either make the changes needed to provide for that child or lose their federal dollars. If they have to make the changes then dollars that would have went towards education are directed elsewhere and the rest of the students get less.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[normiss 622]

dude...you have peanut butter on your breath!
tryin' to kill me???

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

So, do you believe that pet dander, scissors, water, windows, etc... should be banned because they create a potentially unsafe learning environment?

It's an irrelevant and non-topical question.

Are you serious? You didn't appear to have a problem stating your beliefs in this thread (or any of the other threads you've posted in). Talk about a cop out ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Butters 0]

Quote

dude...you have peanut butter on your breath!
tryin' to kill me???

Yes.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

What happened to 'majority rules'?

It's not an election.

Quote

I agree with the fact that these three kids are entitled to their rights but, what about all those other kids? They have rights too... like being able to eat a peanut butter sandwich! How far to we have to go to 'cater' to each and every individual? I'm not trying to sound cold-blooded but, let's see some common sense!

I can find where the kids have a right to an education. Where are kids guaranteed the right to eat peanuts in school? Is there a Jif v. Board of Education ruling that I'm aware of? As far as I can tell, there is no right to eat peanut products at school.

To quote a (usually) wise SC poster, "let's see some common sense!"

Sarcasm noted.
Not a right but, one of the freedoms we enjoy... choice. We can freely choose what we want to wear, eat, drink and etc. In this case, the parents chose to put their allergic prone children in a public school. That's cool. They chose to do so with stipulations. That is not fair to the majority of kids in that school. To me, it's just another case of parents leaving parenting up to someone else. Don't get me wrong. I feel bad for those kids who have special needs or what have you but, it shouldn't be at the expense of the school or the majority of other kids. O.K., it's a public school. They outlaw peanut products in the school. Some kid decides it would be funny to drop a peanut down the back of the allergic kid's shirt... just to see what would happen? Then what? How much bending over backwards do we have to do? What's wrong with the child being home schooled in a 'safe' environment? Too much effort for the parents to have to put-out?


Chuck