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

[MikeH]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet


I hear that Die is becoming more and more prevalent these days. I blame the doctor's over-prescribing antibiotics: we simply don't have the natural Die-resistance we used to back in the olden days.

If you'd laughed at my Revells joke I could forgive that.

[monolith94]

What you just described isn't really a catch-22, it's more like just a simple lose-lose situation.

[mindseye]

Although I suppose if more schools were as strict at confiscating guns as this school seems to be about confiscating peanut butter sandwiches then the world might be a better place.

The only way you're gettin' my peanut butter and jelly sandwich is to pry it outta MY COLD, DEAD HANDS.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JohnT
Of course, education suffers as resources are diverted from the class to spend on this one child:

Alicia McCormack, chair of the school safety committee and first vice president of the Valle Verde PTA, worries that the salary for the nurse is the reason that the school, financially strapped like most in the state, has lost an instructional assistant.

"We made a real effort not to let the budget cuts affect our school," McCormack said. "But all I know is we are down one IA and up a nurse."

Every school should have a nurse. I doubt this nurse is a personal assistant or superviser to this one kid. It may of been his allergy that prompted the school to hire the nurse but I'm sure they'll act as a school nurse.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by MikeH


If you'd laughed at my Revells joke I could forgive that.

I've laughed at the Revells joke every single time I've heard it over the past 10 years, which is quite impressive considering how often that has been.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I know most of you aren't parents but those who are, isn't it a reasonable precaution to want your child protected like this?

If you really are that scared, send your kid to private (public, in your neck of the woods) school. Don't force everyone else to give up their favorite food.

[Arrian]

Badly handled by the school, I think, in terms of their failure to talk to the other parents first.

It's a tough one, because it does seem to be a life-threatening issue. So while my gut reaction is , one has to consider the possibility, however minute, that this child could die if he comes into contact with peanut oil.

Too bad, peanut butter is yummy.

-Arrian

[Drogue]

I think its a reasonable reaction. The kids 5, so there is a still a chance he doesn't understand he's alergic to it, and so could easily touch/eat something with peanut in it. Furthermore, it's an extreme case. A don't weigh the freedom to eat peanuts anywhere near the life of a child. And as the passage states:

There have been a couple of cases written up of reactions from people who experienced a reaction just touching or breathing peanut dust.

So if someone else has peanuts and he is close by and breathes it in?

Not only is he a 5 year old child, who may well not know that he can't eat peanut. But If the other kids knew they might decide to 'test' his allergy and so give soem too him (a bit older admittedly). Then add to that that proximity to peanuts, breathing in peanut dust, could set him off, and I think the reaction is justified.

What is the value of that 5 year olds life? What is the value of having those other kids able to eat peanuts in school? What is the probability that if they do that that kid dies? Multiply the probability of him dying with the value of his life, and see if it's higher than the value of eating peanuts, whatever you believe those values to be. I think it isn't worth the risk.

[JohnT]

Osweld:

Then they learned that a licensed vocational nurse has been hired to monitor the student.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by monolith94
What you just described isn't really a catch-22, it's more like just a simple lose-lose situation.

I spotted that straight after I posted, but was too lazy to edit it out. I figured some smart ass would be along soon to correct it anyway.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I know most of you aren't parents but those who are, isn't it a reasonable precaution to want your child protected like this?

If you really are that scared, send your kid to private (public, in your neck of the woods) school. Don't force everyone else to give up their favorite food.

You do realise private schools have more then just one person in attendance, don't you?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Osweld
Heck, I once got beaten up by my grade 3 class mates for taking peanut butter cookies to school.

Maybe they just didn't like you.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet


I've laughed at the Revells joke every single time I've heard it over the past 10 years, which is quite impressive considering how often that has been.

Excellent. Just like me with the Kingston joke.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You do realise private schools have more then just one person in attendance, don't you?

Yeah, go to one that bans peanuts .

Don't force it on public schools. Or just make him eat lunch somewhere else, in a special place.

[rah]

The kid should be asked to leave town, since it is named Walnut Grove, and any contact with it may kill him.

Seriously, I'm a bit torn on this one. While I do see the need to protect the child, this does seem a bit over the top. I would have to go along with those recommending home schooling.