|
5
Nerd-Its
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by Our school district is in an uproar over a recent decision to ban peanut based food which can cause severe reactions in people with this allergy, including anaphylactic shock which is potentially fatal. It seems that a fair number of children (about 7-10) in a school of approximately 500 have shown up with the allergy this year and the cases were deemed severe enough in the eyes of the administration to warrant the ban. The reaction of parents ranged from understanding compliance to shouting fits of rage towards school officials at an informative meeting given on the issue. Editorials supporting both sides abounded in the local paper, with some raising the issue of a "special treatment precedent" fearing all other ailments will now cause some sort of ban or new rule, and others opting for caution and a feeling that the children must be protected by any reasonable means. A good number of people were also put off by the inconvenience of having to come up with alternate foods when they claimed a peanut butter sandwich was one of the few lunches their child would eat. In addition, many expressed anger at having to read labels and monitor what food their child might bring to school.
The "Me" generation with their ever present need for instant satisfaction has shown itself in this ongoing "Peanut War". In an effort to bypass the very real plight of the children affected by this allergy, and thereby not be inconvenienced in any way, some arguments have been given containing points which all boil down to a statement of, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." In general, this statement may hold as a general guideline for some cases in life, but in this instance, we are talking about the needs of the many being only those of convenience, and the needs of the few consisting of a possible life or death situation. That's a big shift in the weight of the argument and it causes me to ask another question: Where is the compassion?
There were arguments made that question the effects of setting precedence in this situation. For instance, some were questioning whether sweet snacks will be allowed in the school when diabetics might be present, or whether a lactose intolerant child could cause a ban of milk based foods. These are straw man points in the whole issue to say the least; they are not comparing apples to apples at all in terms of the effect in which the minute exposure to the above foods can cause for them, as opposed to the deadly exposure to peanut-based products for someone afflicted with peanut allergies.
Special accommodations are already being made within the scope of other ailments children have, such as diabetes and other food and health related problems. Nurses administer medication; teachers are notified in order to try to assure proper diet is followed. The schools have dealt with these and other problems as they made themselves known. Unfortunately, making similar accommodations within the scope of what needs to be done to prevent deadly allergic reactions to peanuts does affect others on a greater scale because even the smell or airborne properties of peanut-based products can cause a potentially deadly reaction. To me this only means we have to step up our willingness to help instead of just complaining and thinking of ourselves. All involved know that there can be no guarantees of a perfectly safe environment when the sensitivity is so elevated and the food products so common, but we can at least form an attitude to try. The only precedence to be set that I see as being relevant in this issue is the one in which the professionals of our school district continue to do the best they can to ensure the safety of all the children in which they are commissioned to provide an education.
Finally, what is the correct reaction and policy for a school system to adopt in a situation balancing great inconvenience with a potentially life threatening situation?
Add a Comment (61)
Email This
Message Author
I know this is a difficult topic for many parents, but there ARE many good alternatives to peanut butter. I just tried a soy nut butter that tastes and looks just like peanut butter. I have been using it with my kids since I found out there is a peanut allergic kid in my son's class. I didn't ask, I just switched and honestly, they didn't even notice! No one needed to ask me and our school has not banned peanuts. Anaphylaxis, or a severe allergic reaction, is really scary and it is life threatening! If these kids could not access their epinephrine auto-injector (like Epi-Pen or Twinject), they could die. I would not want my children to witness anaphylaxis, let alone be responsible for it. I would ask all parents to please consider these food allergic kids and to ask themselves, what would they do if the situation was reversed and it was their child with a life threatening allergy?
I agree with you that there are alternatives, but at 5x the cost? I just priced your soynut butter, and for the same size jar of it as peanut butter (8.75oz), my cost is nearly $10.00. Whew..that's a huge bite out of a budget.
Many parents who fall between the 'cracks' of the Free Lunch Program and the paid lunch program do their best to provide healthy lunches. However, their budgets don't have room for a $10.00 jar of soy product. Besides, I've tasted it myself, and I find it pretty vile; like most soy products. What do you tell that parent, when they're suddenly faced with a child who is at the age where they only eat a few things anyway; with PB&J being the only thing healthy they can afford to send their kid to school with that the child will eat? What do those parents do? Send in Tastykakes for lunch? We want kids to eat healthy; and we're chastised if we don't. You can't force a child to eat things; that only makes matters worse.
There has to be a solution to this; food allergies are really increasing, IMHO. I graduated in 1981, there were nearly 600 of us in my graduating class. I only recall one person in 13 years of school with any kind of food allergy; and that was to milk.
This is by no means a solution for everyone, but I thought it interesting in the spirit of the whole thing that one child who loved peanut butter sandwiches in the school said, "You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to eat my lunch (PB&J) for breakfast, and my breakfast (cereal) for lunch."
"You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to eat my lunch (PB&J) for breakfast, and my breakfast (cereal) for lunch."
Until someone starts whining about a dairy allergy whereupon he eats his cereal dry. Then somebody has a luten allergy so he can't eat cereal anymore. Then the vegans decide if people can ban food from school than they should be able to ban meat to avoid tempting their daughter. Now everyone is sitting at school with nothing but fruits and vegetables that cost a lot of money because they can only come from organic farmers from America that grow their stuff on Sabbath recognizing days while wearing "proper, respectable attire" using fertilizer from cows that are allowed to roam the streets to appease Hindus ...
Psssh. Tell your kid to not go near my sandwich. If he's that sensitive, he probably should be in a bubble.
Psssh. Tell your kid to not go near my sandwich. If he's that sensitive, he probably should be in a bubble.
That's the problem. In many ways these kids do need to be in a bubble when it comes time to eat. Despite the fact that I am defending the school administration's decision in this case, if it were my kid who had such deadly reactions I would not be able to trust that a large public institution would, despite best intentions, be able to actually keep my child 100% safe. I would be forced to plan the family's life around the illness, perhaps home- schooling or some other alternative that gave the best chance of survival.
Then the vegans decide if people can ban food from school than they should be able to ban meat to avoid tempting their daughter.
I really don't think this is the same thing at all. If the child were to be tempted and eat a little meat, maybe there would be a spiritual crisis within the family, but they wouldn't be going to the hospital or worse, a funeral.
I really don't think this is the same thing at all. If the child were to be tempted and eat a little meat, maybe there would be a spiritual crisis within the family, but they wouldn't be going to the hospital or worse, a funeral.
The effect may not be the same but the argument that group x, y, z gets special treatment for a request becomes harder and harder to fend off over time.
Vea, I know you know the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy...
Okay - so precise terminology aside, the point remains the same.
But, it seems the slippery slope argument is your point. Essentially: If we do A, pretty soon we'll start doing B, then C, then D. D is something we really don't want, so we shouldn't do A.
I think you'd be better served to drop the other examples and just argue this one on its own merits/faults.
Even the article you pointed to says so.
It rests to a large extent on how many steps it is from "A", to the end of the chain, and how strong the causal chain is.
In VnutZ79's argument, "A" is the peanut ban, and he doesn't really specify a concrete end of the chain, but he indicates it points in the direction of an unacceptably large number of these kinds of "special considerations" being adopted.
I don't think it's a fallacy here. If we adopt the peanut ban simply to appease the "squeaky wheels", people become accustomed to having the ban. A few years down the road, someone can demand that trees and flowers be removed from the school grounds to help alleviate pollen allergies - with the peanut ban as a precedent, it becomes easier to push that through. So there's clearly an enabling relationship between the links in his chain.
As can be seen by my autosig for those of you who are logged in, I also favor the "slippery slope", or in my case "end of the path taken" way of thinking when it comes to thinking about ethical or even moral decisions in life. The fact is though; many situations contain more than one slippery slope to slide down, and often times we must choose which slope we would rather be at the bottom of. In the peanut controversy, we are presented with the notion that by banning peanuts we open the door to ending up at the extreme situation of absolutely nothing being allowed in public places whatsoever. On the other hand, by ignoring and shunning anybody who might have the slightest thing wrong with them, we run the risk of becoming an extremely self centered and non-caring society. Choosing a hill is where all thought erupts into opinion.
A few years down the road, someone can demand that trees and flowers be removed from the school grounds to help alleviate pollen allergies - with the peanut ban as a precedent…
In other words; where does it stop?
I know you were just throwing up a possible scenario for analogous purposes, but if it ever reached the point where tree and flower allergies actually killed the kids, then the situation has finally reached the point where it is truly impossible to control without making the whole school into a bubble, which falls under the "Undue Burden and Reasonable Accomadation" presented by NastyPrincess. What is making the peanut issue so contentious is the fact that it is actually a manageable problem with the unfortunate sticking point in how it affects others without the allergy. Here is where we each pick the slippery slope, or path of our preference.
I don't really disagree in general, though I think a lot of people are throwing up very simplistic arguments here. The "undue burden and reasonable accommodation" issue is an example. It doesn't really answer anything, since "undue" and "reasonable" are extremely fuzzy terms. One man's "reasonable" is another's "cruel and unusual".
A complete ban on peanut and tree-nut products throughout the school seems pretty unreasonable to me.
One man's "reasonable" is another's "cruel and unusual".
And I guess that is the heart of the reason as to why this has become such a contentious and emotional issue for those who are directly involved.
In a sense, my child IS in a bubble. This allergy affects his daily life. Again, it amazes me, the lack of compassion. If you CHOOSE to be a vegan and you are tempted to ingest meat at school...it will not kill you. My son has no choice, he did not choose to have this allergy. We as his parents protect him, educate him about his life threatening allergies. As tax paying citizens, the school has to provide a safe environment for EVERY child. We are not so worried about our child going near YOUR sandwich because at the age of 5 he obviously knows more and cares more about what could happen to him if exposed to YOUR sandwich than you do.
Again, potential death versus taste preference...no contest.
My son has no choice, he did not choose to have this allergy.
You're the ones with the genes that made him that way.
Again, it amazes me, the lack of compassion.
It's not a lack of compassion - it's posing the opposition argument to the extreme. You get to argue the death card on every hand which is as extreme as it gets. Just as you claim this fence is blinded to ignoring your needs - have you considered the impact on everyone else just for your kid?
Arguing the "death card". We're not arguing, it's a fact! Would I like to NOT argue the "death card"...of course but, the fact's are simple..If my child ingests or is in contact in anyway with peanut, he could die. I'm sure if you or anyone in our position had a child with this allergy you would feel as passionate as we do about the subject.
Lunch for breakfast, and breakfast for lunch..novel idea..
BUT..I have a better solution..
FREE lunch for all kids, provided by the school district. Nope..don't raise my taxes to do it, trim some of the bloat..I'll wager the one school district here could do WITHOUT the $96,000/year Assistant Superintendent. I think there are less than 2,000 kids in the district.
I was just (lovingly) ranting to my teenage son when he asked for lunch money again, that just he alone was costing us $80.00 a month eating his "double lunches" and such, never mind my daughter. So, for just the 400 or so boys at the high school, that's $288,000.00 worth of free lunch. (9 mos X 80.00 X 400). We'll have to get rid of the principal and superintendent also, I guess to feed those guys.
Hey go to sunbutter.com - it's not that expensive and it's better than soynut butter.
VnutZ wrote: >We're not going to go rubbing peanut butter all over your kid while taunting you with cries of, "death to the genetically inferior."
Always on the extreme side of things VnutZ, but it's not that far fetched. I went to EMT school with a girl who's brother was so allergic to peanuts, that if a jar of peanut butter was even opened in the house (it was a large house), he'd go into anphylactic shock. That's pretty severe. But it didn't stop there.... He was allergic to eggs and soy products with almost the same intensity and there were other foods on top of those. I believe his family made the correct choice in his case....he was home schooled.
I used to work as a behavioral assistant and I worked with some pretty messed up kids. The jury is still out on Nature vs Nurture with many of my former clients. One of my clients was so horrible that he clocked me in the side of the head one day right in front of the school disciplinarian. He was sent home as a danger to others. Three months later, he knocked his grandmother out cold for making him take his hat off in the house.
What I'm getting at here by stating the above extreme circumstance is this.... If a child is a danger to others and can be sent home indefinitely for his "behavioral disability", a child who's "endangered by others" should not expect different treatment. A burden such as autism and extreme behavioral issues are born by both the parents and the school system every day. Teachers are hired by the school system to home school students with special needs who cannot attend school. It should be considered no different in the school's eyes if a child is in danger of dying due to snack and meal times. If sharing a cookie could kill a child, that child should be dubbed as having a disability and thus be granted state support to achieve their educational goals without a fear of dying every day. In the same way that children are told to stay home from school when they have pink eye due to the fact that they are contageous, it works vice versa.....you can't ask the entire population of a school to stay home because a few children may be suseptable to another child's lunch choice.
On another note, it's hardly fair to ask any family not to pack what they can afford in their child's lunch box or back pack, so that a classmate might not die. No child should have to bear the burden of, "I opened my pack of peanut butter crackers and Jimmy died."
In closing, a child with severe food allergies is no different than any other child with special needs and thus requires home schooling. The school system should also have to pick up the tab on that child's education for a home school teacher as well, just as they would for a child with any other disability.
I think your comments about home schooling, or otherwise keeping the children safe in some other way is something they are looking into, but right now under the Massachusetts state law, they have a right to attend school under some non-discrimination act or something. On top of that, this school is full-inclusion (a controversial subject in itself), meaning that almost no one of disability stays home if the parents don't want them to. Also, for some time, schools and most public buildings have to be outfitted with handicap ramps and elevators to accommodate people disabled physically. That may be what is happening, this allergy is being treated as another disability which ordinarily most people don't have a problem with; the difference of course is that this disability affects others in an inconvenient way. This is forcing everyone to make a choice in attitude as to whether they will comply with the ban in an effort towards safety, or ignore it and risk lives.
I think that eventually, as this problem continues to elevate, some sort of change of plans will have to happen. The nature of the problem is acute enough so I don't think a long term ban is a sustainable solution. I defend the schools initial decision to enact the ban because I think they were between a rock and a hard place with the laws they had to follow and the severity of the consequences of taking no action.
Bravo...Ignorance and comparing "apples to anything but apples" rises again. If the school as you stated has to pay for all the children with peanut allergies to have a have a teacher home school them, that will finally get the attention from parents to cooperate. The education and special programs the schools receive would be greatly impaired. I think they might consider being inconvenienced before sacrificing the education level for their children so the other children can have a private at home education. I love the idea. It would finally get the parents to wake up and realize that there is no reason for these children to be home schooled. Why should they get a "private" education from the school system. I could just hear it now about "their tax dollars"...blah..blah..blah
The understanding from your comment makes me grateful for the role ADA plays in this country. Because not everyone is so lucky to have perfect health, all the people like you screaming "keep them home, it's not our problem", luckily our country helps to protect them so that they can live as normal of life as possible. Receive an education, go to work etc... It does take a law because society is the "ME" generation.
The law also states that accommodations in the schools must be made if a) it does not impact the educational programs, b) does not have financial implications.
There fore asking for peanuts to be removed from the school,
a) costs less than providing an at home education
b) will not impact the education the way providing private at home education will.
Any way thanks for humoring me this morning! The ignorance of these arguments is becoming comical!
Idealism is a wonderful thing, but as a person who has worked with the disabled and used to educate others of their rights within ADA regulations, your argument shows me how little the average person deals with anything beyond the main stream.
To think that all parents are going to happily comply with the "No Peanuts in Public School" rule, 1) assumes that all parents are going to care about the welfare of children that are not their own, 2) It means that ideal society has finally landed here on earth and that 3) teachers and school staff are suddenly going to have an extra hour appear in their time everyday to dig through thier student's lunch bags and back packs to make sure that no peanut butter has crept intot a snack pack. Gosh, it's so nice of those parents that abuse their own children to suddenly think, "I love all mankind and shall thus think in earnest about what I am putting in my child's lunch today". Those parents tend not to pack a lunch for their own children anyway, but that's not to say that thier child won't scrounge for somehting on thier own.
Comparing apples to oranges in this case is the way to compare extreme cases. ADA(American's with Disabilities Act) regualtions were set up to protect all people with disabilities, but there's an element in the peanut allergy cases that defies ADA regulation....it's called DEATH. Children who are violent are removed from the school setting, but not the school system, in compliance with ADA regulations. The school system DOES NOT have to keep these children in the school setting itself, but they do have to supply them with an education. The same is going to have to apply to children that live in the unfortunate as it may be, extreme Anaphylactic/death realm of this argument.
Extreme cases require extreme measures. A child with Autism for example is not a danger or a threat to others and those children are woven wonderfully into the school setting. Those children are part of the diversity of our society that is so wonderful! Many Autistic children however, are home schooled by the public school system due to their extreme needs. The children with the peanut allergies are also part of our society's diversity,
Education is the key by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 14 September 2007
As a parent of a 5 year old with peanut allergies it amazes me how some people cannot grasp the term "life threatening". How can you argue potential death versus taste preference and inconvenience? No contest.
The school systems should educate children and their parents about food allergies. The 200 deaths that happen each year because of food allergies, 90% were due to peanut.
Allergies to milk, egg, wheat, and soy are usually outgrown. Allergies to peanut, treenut, shellfish are considered lifelong.
I've never known anyone who died from NOT having peanutbutter and or peanut products at school.
This will sound callous but ... by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 14 September 2007
It's been noted that humans are more prone to allergies today than we ever were in our ancestral past. What's especially interesting is that the populations that are most susceptible to allergens are those whose gene pool has softened due to the cush life of the West. Although they have their own problems [diseases, etc] peoples of third world and similarly underdeveloped areas tend not to have problems akin to genetic weakness - because they die off and do not propagate.
So, like my subject line says, this will sound extraordinarily callous but I'd like to mention it simply as a devil's advocate thought question. If we [society] continue to placate to the least common denominator, we will inevitably continue to breed that very weakness into increasingly larger proportions.
Everyone looks at the kids with Downs Syndrome or some other handicap like retardation and wonders how rough it must be. Most people would be lying if they said the notion of a mercy-kill never crossed their mind even for a second. But survival of the fittest only works in a world where the weakest aren't placated.
Now, I realize that's an extreme example. We're not going to go rubbing peanut butter all over your kid while taunting you with cries of, "death to the genetically inferior." Of course not. There's otherwise nothing wrong with the kid. But, there is an onus on both you and your kid to identify measures for perpetuating ones own life. It's not MY responsibility to ensure your kid lives. As long as I am not intentionally doing things to cause him harm (like the example above) then there is a level of responsibility that he/she must undertake to ensure their own survival. If that means bringing your own food from home - then bring your own food from home. If that means keeping your kid at home for home-schooling - then teach your kid at home.
Seriously, it's a slippery slope. What's next? Are you going to put a class action lawsuit against a supermarket for selling peanuts and peanut butter? That would be followed by all the other allergic folk until all that's left is for us to drive to each farm we want food from and buy it directly from the farmer.
Shit happens in life when you let your guard down. Sometimes shit = your kid dying from peanuts. Sometimes shit = you dying by being hit by a bus. A society that seeks to protect everyone by wrapping everyone and everything in spongy NERF and banning all bad things ... is a stupid society. Each event in and of itself maybe small and discrete, but together, these actions get ridiculous for everyone else.
RE: This will sound callous but ... by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 14 September 2007
Seriously, it's a slippery slope. What's next?
This was exactly line of argument the people opposed to the ban were taking. As I wrote in the article though, there is a big difference between a kid getting a stomach-ache or a rash and a kid swelling up and suddenly dying before an ambulance can even get there. The problem is bad enough in some that relatively trace amounts of peanuts can cause this reaction. In other words, "peanut butter breath" could kill. This caused great fear in the school officials who were faced suddenly with this problem and didn't want anyone dying on their watch until they had time to figure out what to do. I don't think anything will be "next". I know many things of this nature follow a progression over time and things get more and more ridiculous as each thing is 'dealt with', but in this case I think we are already at the extreme of where it will go as far as schools go.
RE: This will sound callous but ... by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 14 September 2007
If we [society] continue to placate to the least common denominator, we will inevitably continue to breed that very weakness into increasingly larger proportions.
I completely agree with this statement, callous as it may sound. On an evolutionary scale we as a species seem to keep getting weaker and less tolerant of our environments as time goes on. It is precisely as you say; by taking extra care of the weakest amongst us, the weakest are allowed to propagate. This is all 'nod our heads in philosophical agreement' when we are standing on the moon looking down at humanity as a single entity, but not many people are willing to be the ones to suddenly apply " safer evolution" to someone on an individual basis. In other words, if you were standing in the lunchroom and a kid was going into anaphylactic shock, I would hope you would administer the Epi-Pen and call an ambulance instead of saying, "Whoops, sorry buddy-- survival of the fittest you know." And so, due to human compassion on many fronts at this basic level, the downward spiral will probably continue.
Um, that's not evolution by scottb :: NR7 :: on 17 September 2007
On an evolutionary scale we as a species seem to keep getting weaker and less tolerant of our environments as time goes on. It is precisely as you say; by taking extra care of the weakest amongst us, the weakest are allowed to propagate.
Um, I think you're confusing evolution with eugenics.
On an evolutionary scale, we're not getting weaker. The only question that's relevant in evolution is whether the organism survives to reproduce. In the evolutionary picture, all of our technology, our family behaviors, our sociological structures, even our religions, are tools by which we human organisms manipulate our environment so as to improve our reproductive success.
If we're (individually) becoming more susceptible to environmental allergens it's really only indicative of the fact that we so thoroughly control our environment that we can afford to discard our evolved resistances to them.
Moreover, this ain't the Victorian era - science doesn't retain the illusion that nature is progressing towards some goal, and that such "progress" is inherently a good thing. Evolution does what it does, for good or for ill. The notion that it's somehow morally correct for the weak to die is false.
Evolutionary forces are about adapting to our environment. When we control the environment, there's no "push" to adapt. As a result, we enter a phase in which a broader range of variations can stably enter the gene pool. One might also argue that this broader variation makes us more suited to migrate to radically new environments, say in colonizing space. With a broader range of stable genotypes, it's more likely that at least some of them will adapt well to the new environments.
Leave old Thomas Malthus alone. History's long proved him wrong, and ideas like that are part of why the religious nuts hate evolution so much. "Survival of the fittest" isn't a moral guideline - it's just an observation, like the second law of thermodynamics.
Also, it's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, too. What it means to be fittest is that you survive. Humans evolved (brains and hands that can invent) Epi-pens as part of their survival strategy. Humans with Epi-pens are more "fit" than humans without them.
RE: Um, that's not evolution by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 17 September 2007
Um, I think you're confusing evolution with eugenics.
Your right, I was caught up in the idea more than the wording. (The idea put forth by VNutZ79):
If we [society] continue to placate to the least common denominator, we will inevitably continue to breed that very weakness into increasingly larger proportions.
So under eugenics (or lack of in this case) we could theoretically breed ourselves into more of these situations. I was really only agreeing with the basic concept of what was put forth and even if it has some truth pertaining to food allergies, my response was along the lines of ,"That's fine, but what are we going to do about little Freddy over here in the meantime?"
On an evolutionary scale, we're not getting weaker.
And
If we're (individually) becoming more susceptible to environmental allergens it's really only indicative of the fact that we so thoroughly control our environment that we can afford to discard our evolved resistances to them.
People are living longer healthier lives as time goes on. It's interesting that you wrote about discarding resistances because it reminded me as to what an allergic reaction even is. It's the healthy (but for whatever reason confused) body's immune system responding to what it thinks is a foreign or harmful substance. The point is, the allergic person isn't necessarily weaker, he/she just has gung-ho soldiers without a real war for some reason.
So discarding resistances is actually what the allergic person needs, and in fact many treatments work by actually suppressing the immune system.
The notion that it's somehow morally correct for the weak to die is false.
And then:
"Survival of the fittest" isn't a moral guideline - it's just an observation, like the second law of thermodynamics.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems to support my disagreement (in this peanut issue) with the statement, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Maybe someone can think of some crazy exceptions; but do we have a moral obligation to help those near us who need help in any reasonable way we can? Perhaps "reasonable" is the point of contention in this issue.
RE: Um, that's not evolution by scottb :: NR7 :: on 18 September 2007
So under eugenics (or lack of in this case) we could theoretically breed ourselves into more of these situations.
Well, the point is more that it doesn't much matter if we breed ourselves into such situations, so long as our technology is adequate to compensate.
We (humans) are a very long way from having anything resembling real competition for our ecological niche. It would take a really radical change in the world's ecology to do it - something that happens over a fairly short period of time and seriously reduces our ability to reproduce. Even the disastrous consequences predicted for the global warming problem aren't likely to do that. Short of something like Frank Herbert wrote about in The White Plague, where a rogue geneticist develops and releases a virus that kills women, we're pretty much going to stay the top of the pile, and we aren't really going to change in any really significant ways.
Even if we do manage to breed in additional allergic sensitivities or other such problems, so long as we can address it technologically - like the immunosuppressant strategies you mentioned - it doesn't affect our fitness at all.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems to support my disagreement (in this peanut issue) with the statement, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Well, my point was that it's not connected to it. Evolutionary concerns have nothing meaningful to do with moral concerns. Things that evolution selects for can be morally good, morally bad, or morally neutral. Evolution selects for parents who protect their young (morally good), marital infidelity (morally bad), and sugar cravings (morally neutral).
That evolutionary pressures favor something doesn't really speak to its moral value, so when we look at something that's fundamentally a moral/ethical question, like the statement "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", looking to evolutionary pressures for guidance is useless.
In this case, I think the argument is ultimately an economic one. Where's my incentive to support this anti-peanut crusade? It looks like it's all cost with virtually no benefit.
The school's costs (to provide required lunches and such) in keeping with the peanut ban are necessarily going to go up. In response, the risk to the kids is going to go down - but it won't go away entirely. Do the costs outweigh the benefits? Frankly, I doubt it.
It seems like a better solution to simply require the parents to bear the costs directly. If the kids are only mildly allergic, they can probably go to school. If they're extremely allergic, that may not be practical - any more than it's practical for public schools to address the needs of deaf or blind children. The idea that the school could (or even should) remove all possible allergens from the environment is ridiculous.
RE: Um, that's not evolution by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 18 September 2007
It seems like a better solution to simply require the parents to bear the costs directly. If the kids are only mildly allergic, they can probably go to school. If they're extremely allergic, that may not be practical - any more than it's practical for public schools to address the needs of deaf or blind children. The idea that the school could (or even should) remove all possible allergens from the environment is ridiculous.
Sensible solution--but I'd suggest that we go one step further. IF the parents have a child (or children) who cannot for medical or other reasons attend public schools, then that parents school/property tax burden (related to schools) should be either partially refunded or reduced.
It's sort of like the 'voucher' program that keeps coming up. If I, as a parent, do not send my child to public school for whatever the reason, then I should be allowed to keep a portion of what I pay in school taxes. I realize that the taxes I pay are spread across the wider spectrum of X number of children in school--and that it's not a direct relationship to the tax dollars collected from each property owner. Ergo while I support a 'vourcher system'; I do not support a 100% refund either. As to apartment dwellers, maybe they get it in the form of a local tax refund, proportional to the amount of their rent that is used to pay property taxes on the building they inhabit. Home school material varies in price--and there are free resources as well. Some 'Home School' programs are taxpayer funded as well, usually through Title I, but some of the local dollars are used too. In the case of private/Christian schools, many of them usually have ways for people without the full tuition coast to let their children attend.
It only seems fair to me that those parents who do not have children in public school, should not bear the full burden of paying for school IF they have children of their own who are not attending. Beyond that, everyone should pay their fair share. Monies to pay for alternative schooling programs must come from somewhere, and it shouldn't by paid the parents of those children in those programs entirely; their tax burden should be lowered to help them. Whether this is done via refund/rebate/tax deduction at the local level is not material; I do not know which is best or most easily administered; though I suspect a tax 'deduction' is the easiest. Still, the monies need to come from somewhere.
RE: Um, that's not evolution by scottb :: NR7 :: on 18 September 2007
IF the parents have a child (or children) who cannot for medical or other reasons attend public schools, then that parents school/property tax burden (related to schools) should be either partially refunded or reduced.
Except that public school taxes aren't apportioned based on the number of children you have attending school. People with no children at all, and people whose children are long past school age still end up paying those taxes.
I'm not opposed to the voucher idea - I think it's a good idea for other reasons - but the logic can't be "my kid doesn't go to public school, so I should get to use that money for the school of my choice". If so, then I don't even have kids, so I should have to pay for schools at all.
My original argument was that there's not enough benefit to outweigh the costs of an allergen-free school. But the existence of schools does have a tangible benefit that we all share. Democracy relies on a reasonably well-educated electorate. You don't pay school taxes so that your kids benefit by going to school - that's really a side effect. You pay them so that everybody gets educated enough for you to live in a free society.
Vouchers are more about apportioning the tax money collected - not about shifting the burden around. The point of the voucher system is to put the forces of capitalism to work to ensure the school systems are high quality.
RE: Um, that's not evolution by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 18 September 2007
Except that public school taxes aren't apportioned based on the number of children you have attending school. People with no children at all, and people whose children are long past school age still end up paying those taxes.
True, but I'm sure *some* formula could be arrived at based on the total number of children in school and the total school taxes collected for that particular district--at least for those parents who, for medical reasons, need to educate their child(ren) at home or elsewhere. The Private/Christian school attendees can get assistance in the form of scholarships so they're not as badly affected. I still think there should be something done for the home schoolers--but in many communities you can draw upon the schools for assistance with home schooling, and everywhere they are allowed to participate in extracurricular activities--even attend graduations. I don't feel as strongly about the home schoolers or those going to non-Public schools as I do about those with medical reasons for segregation.
Many states are also trying to find creative ways to reduce or eliminate school/property taxes for just those people who are childless for whatever reason. Personally, I don't think it's possible, given the education costs. I have no children living at home--they're with their mother in a different town. However, I still feel responsible enough to society as a whole that I won't grouch about paying taxes for the house I just bought.
My original argument was that there's not enough benefit to outweigh the costs of an allergen-free school.
Absolutely! not only that, but the district has no way of making an 'allergen free' school. In many districts it would be virtually impossible--like Hershey PA or Stuarts Draft, VA. What if your parent(s) worked at the Reeses Plant in those towns? Peanut oil/butter is EVERYWHERE in the plant, you can't escape it. It would be on clothes, in the car, at home. If merely coming into contact with a microscopic trace of peanut oil is enough to cause anaphylactic shock in some patients, then there is no way that you can guarantee an allergen free school. It also opens the whole allergy issue up--Dust, Pollen, milk--the list is essentially endless.
But the existence of schools does have a tangible benefit that we all share. Democracy relies on a reasonably well-educated electorate. You don't pay school taxes so that your kids benefit by going to school - that's really a side effect. You pay them so that everybody gets educated enough for you to live in a free society.
You won't get any argument from me--but the hard part is determining where education ends and 'extras' begin. I have my own ideas, but suffice to say that if a district has to sell candy/pizza/whatever to buy educational equipment or books, they're not spending the money right to begin with. We the voters need to be responsible enough to require an accounting, and require our elected boards to cut the extraneous expenses.
RE: Um, that's not evolution by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 18 September 2007
The school's costs (to provide required lunches and such) in keeping with the peanut ban are necessarily going to go up. In response, the risk to the kids is going to go down - but it won't go away entirely. Do the costs outweigh the benefits? Frankly, I doubt it.
This is probably true, but in the here and now, the Americans with Disabilities laws are set up in the favor of those with disabilities. The parents can file a 504 plan which can include things like a peanut free lunch environment. How that is achieved is worked out between each school and parent. I've remarked several times that I think there is still a lot of risk despite all intentions, and if I were a parent of one of these kids I would hesitate depending on the extent of the allergy before sending them into school.
The real question here is "Did the school officials make the right decision in enacting a ban?" Secondly, "Should the population of the school form an attitude of compliance in order to at least attempt to keep these kids safe?"
I feel the right decision was made in this case based on the laws currently in place and the possible consequences of doing nothing. The arguments made on the overall philosophy of what should be done on a wide scale could not be considered in the immediate situation. The people who opposed the ban in every way shape and form seemed to be doing so because of inconvenience, and wanted immediate gratification instead of "Let's make the kids safe as we can, and then figure out what to do."
(The police had to be called to the meeting because one guy was so rabid.)
RE: Um, that's not evolution by scottb :: NR7 :: on 18 September 2007
This is probably true, but in the here and now, the Americans with Disabilities laws are set up in the favor of those with disabilities.
Yeah, I've always thought the ADA goes way too far on some issues. The 504 plan, though isn't about the ADA - it's to do with the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Though I think a relevant point is that none of the relevant law - ADA, Section 504, or IDEA guarantees that the child will be kept in the regular public school.
One strategy that the laws would allow but that the parents of the allergic kids would probably reject, would be to remove those seven kids from the regular classrooms and put them in a separate classroom - then only the one classroom need be kept allergen free.
I feel the right decision was made in this case based on the laws currently in place and the possible consequences of doing nothing.
Well, I've only seen the one article, and I don't think it gave enough information to judge. If the kids are really so allergic that merely "opening a jar of peanut butter" somewhere in the school could trigger severe anaphylaxis, then those kids don't belong in the public school. On the other hand, we could be talking about a very mild allergy and preposterously hypersensitive parents, too. The article was just inadequate - focusing on the controversy rather than the relevant facts.
RE: This will sound callous but ... by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 14 September 2007
What parents need to know is that my sons peanut allergies do not just affect him at school. I cannot and will not go anywhere without his epi-pen. Until he is old enough to inject himself with the epi-pen, I have to be present at every play-date, birthday party... which I have to bring a "special treat" because he cannot eat the cake or icecream provided. That's fine, I'll do that because NOONE want's to be responsible for injecting my child in their care with the epi-pen and calling 911 if a reaction happened. As far as the supermarkets go...we struggle, every check out counter has rows of candy. As much as we have educated our 5 year old about his allergies the temptation is always there. I'm not asking the parents to deal with our food allergies outside of the school system...just to understand for a 5 to 6 hour time frame to understand. Death versus taste preference..I really don't think it's a lot to ask.
RE: This will sound callous but ... by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 15 September 2007
As a parent of a child just diagnosed with a peanut allergy I am sickened by your close minded opinion. You are just the kind of parent who teaches your children to be bullies to those who need special consideration. I hope for your sake that nothing terrible happen to you or your loved ones in your "survival of the fittest" world as your words may come back to bite you!
RE: This will sound callous but ... by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 15 September 2007
It's as reasonable as demanding that no auto vehicles can ever enter a neighborhood again because there is a chance you might run over a kid because the parent turned their head for a second.
You clearly didn't read the entire post for what it was. Just because your kid has some "special needs" does not mean that he/she needs to be catered to at the expense of everyone else. In another nation, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because 1) your kid would have died by now and 2) your kid probably woulnd't have been born because the genes would have been that recessive. So the fact that you even have the kid is something you should embrace. Only by living in a land of opportunity like America do you even have a chance to have had the kid for so long. Only by living in a land of opportunity like America do you have the plush, liberalist society in which your notions of force fitting everyone else's world so you can keep him longer is even remotely possible.
If you want special treatment for your kid, then you need to pay for it - use private schools, use home-schooling or pay to have an escort to monitor the allergy. You're the one with the needs. We do not live in a communist world, so don't make communal demands of us.
RE: This will sound callous but ... by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 15 September 2007
Oh my god, special treatment???? I ask you...what "expense" does it take for a child and or family to NOT provide peanut products at school?? Let's face it, it's not the expense, it's the convenience that the parents want for there own kids without this allergy. Expense?? My tax dollars go to the school systems that provide education to children in wheelchairs, adhd, busing, after school programs ect...I'm not asking "special treatment" for my child. I do expect the same consideration for the saftey of ALL children in the school systems, including my son's allergies!!!
RE: This will sound callous but ... by NastyPrincess :: NR5 :: on 15 September 2007
These are not personal attacks. I'm sorry that your child is going to have to be extremely careful each time he or she puts something in his or her mouth for the rest of his or her life. It is terrible that any person will have to live in a constant state of worry, but these arguments have nothing to do with being "bullies". These arguments have everything to do with the "undue burden" that will be placed on every other family that will be effected by your child's needs. My family would make every accomodation for your child and his or her needs. I personally would bend over backwards to support you and your family as fellow human beings. The line must be drawn somewhere though. If the school system is going to make the bold move of striking peanut related foods from their menu, that is fantastic! More power to that school system. However, you cannot expect every other parent and child that comes into contact with your child to understand.
The extent of the child's allergy also has to be taken into consideration. If your child's peanut allergy only effects him or her when the peanuts are consumed, then reasonable accomodation can be made by the school system to support your child. the ADA requires it and it's really not that hard to comply within a school cafeteria. However, if your child cannot even be in the same location as the peanut butter sandwich of a picky child that is in a phase wherein he will eat nothing else everyday. It is unreasonable to expect that child's parent not to feed their child the only thing that he will consume with any regularity. You are now asking those parents to force their own child to suffer. Keeping peanuts out of the school system's own menu is reasonable. Forcing parents to comply with bagged lunches falls along the lines of "undue burden" that is stated so clearly and is still yet undefined by the ADA.
Where do you draw your own line?
RE: This will sound callous but ... by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 16 September 2007
Now, I realize that's an extreme example. We're not going to go rubbing peanut butter all over your kid while taunting you with cries of, "death to the genetically inferior."
Just when you think you are being ridiculously extreme, you find out people could actually be serious about it...
From the link:
(Fathers these days.)
RE: Education is the key by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 17 September 2007
Hmmm... so, hypothetically, let's say my daughter suffers from anorexia and is undergoing hard core therapy to restore her back to healthy eating habits. However, currently, she will only eat peanut and other tree nut products. In this case, forbidding these products has a very big impact on her physical and mental health. Would you take issue?
RE: Education is the key by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 17 September 2007
A parent actually raised this issue at the meeting, not specifically, but they claimed their child had a medical reason to eat peanut butter. (I'm pretty sure it was for dramatic effect.) The doctor present who was fielding questions simply said, "Then have her physician sent a note in to that effect."
At that point it would have to be dealt with by the school system as just one more special accommodation in a sea of many.