Thread: This burns my bacon! More nanny state bureaucratic nonesense.

Going by that reasoning no one should be allowed out of their cotton wool wrapping. Driving 'might' get someone killed, eating a peice of steak 'might' kill you. Don't go for a swim, afterall, we're not fish, heaven forbid we 'might' drown. Laws don't make one iota of difference to what happens to people.


Mick

Yes, but laws do make a lot of difference to who is liable for what happens to others. And that is why we are all becoming nanny states. Money.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Yes, but laws do make a lot of difference to who is liable for what happens to others. And that is why we are all becoming nanny states. Money.

James.

I agree, but I neither thank you nor like that post. We need a grudging acceptance button

Originally Posted by MickR

Going by that reasoning no one should be allowed out of their cotton wool wrapping. Driving 'might' get someone killed, eating a peice of steak 'might' kill you. Don't go for a swim, afterall, we're not fish, heaven forbid we 'might' drown. Laws don't make one iota of difference to what happens to people.


Mick

That would be my response as well.

People are responsible for their OWN actions and safety. Some consideration is in order. But it should be consideration, not enforced kindness. I would NEVER expect other people to be responsible and looking out for what MY kids eat. I would inform a teacher, but I'd never expect other kids parents to be responsible for these things.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

That would be my response as well.

People are responsible for their OWN actions and safety. Some consideration is in order. But it should be consideration, not enforced kindness. I would NEVER expect other people to be responsible and looking out for what MY kids eat. I would inform a teacher, but I'd never expect other kids parents to be responsible for these things.

Your first line about people is true, but little kids only barely qualify. With some allergies that severe, eating the food isn't necessarily required, so mischief that wouldn't be a big deal otherwise (e.g. a food fight in the cafeteria) could have tragic consequences. Accidents can still happen, but from a liability standpoint, the schools aren't as vulnerable if they take the cover-your-a$$ approach.

Story time: I have a similarly severe allergy to milk. In third grade, a girl who was somehow fascinated by that went into my sack lunch and snuck some Doritos in with my corn chips. Thankfully, I noticed the different taste before I ate enough to kill me, but it just goes to show that... well, little kids do dumb things, so if you're responsible for them (morally, legally, financially), you minimize the risk of harm where you can.

Originally Posted by northpaw

Your first line about people is true, but little kids only barely qualify. With some allergies that severe, eating the food isn't necessarily required, so mischief that wouldn't be a big deal otherwise (e.g. a food fight in the cafeteria) could have tragic consequences. Accidents can still happen, but from a liability standpoint, the schools aren't as vulnerable if they take the cover-your-a$$ approach.

Story time: I have a similarly severe allergy to milk. In third grade, a girl who was somehow fascinated by that went into my sack lunch and snuck some Doritos in with my corn chips. Thankfully, I noticed the different taste before I ate enough to kill me, but it just goes to show that... well, little kids do dumb things, so if you're responsible for them (morally, legally, financially), you minimize the risk of harm where you can.

I'm not saying allergies can't be dangerous.

But on the other hand, did you blame the school that Dorito's were allowed?

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

I'm not saying allergies can't be dangerous.

But on the other hand, did you blame the school that Dorito's were allowed?

No, I blamed the bawling third grade girl! Can't say how adults would have felt about it at the time; I haven't asked. To be fair, though, it's a different scenario in the sense that it would be hugely impractical--if not impossible--to ban milk protein from school grounds. With peanuts, it's much easier to implement, so the cost/benefit ratio is vastly different.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

. On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that bits and pieces of the food children bring in their lunches will find their way onto hands, faces and clothes, which will come into contact with other children. If one of those children has a severe food allergy, then it is reasonable to believe that contact with food they are allergic to will result in anaphylactic shock, and it is reasonable to believe that death is a likely outcome of anaphylactic shock.



As for my betraying my "pragmatic" moniker, that part of my username is modified by the word "Kantian" as in, referring to Immanuel Kant, a late 17th century philosopher known for the development of Transcendental Idealism. A transcendental ideal is an idea about the nature of things, including normative ideas about how people and things ought to behave in a moral sense. It is not justified by nor can it be proved or disproved by appeal to the empirical experience of the world, rather, it justifies modes of empirical experience and makes it possible for an experience of something to count as evidence for or against an empirical idea about the nature of experienced things. A pragmatic transcendental idealist is one who believes that transcendental ideals exist as ideas we must possess in order to reasonably believe that our plans and projects will be possible, let alone successful.

If a child has a severe food allergy, then it's the parents' responsibility to ensure their child has an Epipen, one at home and one at school. As for the last part of your post, that just brings back nightmares of philosophy. Thanks alot.

Originally Posted by ReardenSteel

If a child has a severe food allergy, then it's the parents' responsibility to ensure their child has an Epipen, one at home and one at school. As for the last part of your post, that just brings back nightmares of philosophy. Thanks alot.

Sure, but since an epipen is not an instant cure-all for anaphylaxis, it's on the school to ensure that if they have a kid who suffers from such an allergy, that they do everything reasonable to keep the triggers for that allergy away from the kid. Having an epipen around if you know you've got such allergies is good. Not having to use the epipen is better, and if the restrictions on other's behavior that could trigger the allergic reaction are reasonable, then those restrictions should be made and enforced. Restricting peanuts and peanut butter for kids who have a classmate that suffers from peanut allergies is not unreasonable; it's not hard to avoid peanuts or products with peanuts in them, nor is it overly expensive to do so. If you had a kid that was allergic to other kid's boogers, then pretty much any restriction you try to come up with to prevent an allergic reaction would be unreasonable, largely because any rule you could come up with to prevent the allergic kid from coming into contact with other kid's boogers would be unenforceable. The reasonable solution to this dilemma is to not allow a kid with such allergies to come into contact with other kids, not give him a supply of epipens and say, "good luck, I hope you don't run out before recess."

Originally Posted by ReardenSteel

If a child has a severe food allergy, then it's the parents' responsibility to ensure their child has an Epipen, one at home and one at school. As for the last part of your post, that just brings back nightmares of philosophy. Thanks alot.

And Epipen when you cannot let your children take vitamin pills or Tylenol to school!

An Epipen would have to be in a locked area and administered by someone trained
to use it (and was there at all times). Diabetic children have all manner of hoops to jump through.
to manage their blood sugar.

Modern recreational drugs are dangerous as heck. The worst seem to be the most available
but that is yet another rant...

My fundamental problem with schools today is the policy of zero tolerance -- this zero tolerance
program is the foundation of intolerance. Further it minimizes personal responsibility
in contrast to maximizing responsibility. Parents need to participate and not abdicate their
personal responsibility and this requires education of the parents.