Going too far? Banning peanut butter sandwiches because of ONE childs allergy...

[TCO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
And if people thought like you 100 years ago kids would still be dropping like flies.

It's an excuse for more procreation. Take off the rubber.

[Skanky Burns]

The point is constant supervision is impossible. How can one teacher check everything that goes into the kids mouth hasn't even touched anything that had penuts in it? A simpler solution is to remove penuts from the equation until the kid and all his peers are more mature.

As a side note, my local supermarket doesn't even stock satay kebabs anymore because the risk of cross-contamination (and a resultant lawsuit) is too great.

TCO - 5 posts almost in a row and you have yet to make a point.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Nut allergies are some of the worst there are!

A year or two ago in the UK a rising star in British Athletics (don't laugh - this is a serious story!) died because he ate a chicken sandwich...

...that had be cross contaminated by the maker using a knife that had previously spread peanut butter!

Personally I think it is f*cked that some of you are whining about 'losing your freedom of choice' when a child's life is at risk.

The child is 5 for christ's sake, kids that age swap their food, eat stuff that's dropped on the floor - all sorts of sh*t... The kid could DIE!!!

So stop for one second and think about what it would be like to be in the shoes of the parents whose kid is so afflicted (through no fault of their own) wondering if he might accidentally eat something containing nuts and die...

F*ck it! If it is that important you can force feed your brats with peanut butter till it comes out their ears once they return from 'school diet nazi hell'!

You can guess which way I voted...

I also think it would be reasonalbe to get an independant assesment of the severaity of the kid's condition. Will he just get sick and be in pain if there is an accident or is it truly life-threatening.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


TCO - 5 posts almost in a row and you have yet to make a point.

This is a fun thread. Besides, I like to spam in the OT, not the Community forum like you.

[mindseye]

Besides, I like to spam in the OT

That's nice, but can't you go somewhere and do it alone? When you do it in public, it just makes you look like a wanker.

[MrFun]

didn't realize peanut butter is a hot-button issue . . .

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by mindseye

Besides, I like to spam in the OT

That's nice, but can't you go somewhere and do it alone? When you do it in public, it just makes you look like a wanker.

careful mindseye - he'll put you his ignore list

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by TCO
You are a socialist moron.

[MOBIUS]

Careful GP, your true colours are showing through, calling people names and stuff...

Originally posted by TCO
I also think it would be reasonalbe to get an independant assesment of the severaity of the kid's condition. Will he just get sick and be in pain if there is an accident or is it truly life-threatening.

Yeah right - here kid, we're going to make you really ill just to see how ill you can get. Oops we killed him! NEXT...

I think the assessment would have been made when the kid was first found to be allergic - that would most likely have been don by a doctor and therefore independent...

Really GP with points like that, you should stick to making an arse of yourself because apparently that seems to be the only thing you're good at!

[CerberusIV]

I'll say it again as no-one took the bait from my previous post.

The logical conclusion of all this, because of the risk of cross contamination, is to ban ALL nut products from food. That is the only way to ensure that a relatively small proportion of the population don't have their nut allergies triggered.

On the other hand nuts are an important dietary item for people, like me, who don't eat bits of dead mammals - also for health reasons.

So whose rights prevail? And to what extent?

I don't think that banning peanuts from the entire school is either practical or reasonable. It is excessive, even allowing for the risk to life.

It is one thing to be asked to make a sacrifice and give up something, particularly a non-essential item, it is something else to be forced to do so.

Did the school have an absolute obligation to accept this child? Or could they have refused on the grounds that his condition made demands that they could not accommodate?

[Skanky Burns]

Adults can make decisions and take care of themselves much better than a kid in kindergarten can. There is no need to totally ban nuts from the face of the earth.

Sometimes I wish they would, though.

[JohnT]

Especially the Left wing kind, eh Skanky?

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Did the school have an absolute obligation to accept this child? Or could they have refused on the grounds that his condition made demands that they could not accommodate?

In the UK at least schools are obliged to provide access for students in wheelchairs. This often involves resources being spent on putting in ramps and lifts etc etc.
Do you think that policy is reasonable? If so, how does it differ from the nut allergy example?

[Spiffor]

I think it is a great idea to ban peanut butter. Maybe these kids will have to taste something actually good

ALL HAIL THE WORLD BAN ON PEANUT BUTTER !

[JohnT]

PEANUT BUTTER ROCKS!!!! DOWN WITH THE PB OPPRESSORS!!!!