I feel sorry for those of you with allergies, with your confused, overeacting antibodies. You must not have eaten enough dirt as a child.
I recommend instructing your kids not to wash their hands whenever they can avoid it (especially keep them away from with antibiotic soap), and to pick their nose liberally: perhaps even eat one of their finger boogers if they feel up to it. Make sure they ingest at least a little dirt/mud/grime or other unsanitary particulate every day, no matter what form it comes in (for instance, teach them about the “five-second rule” to ensure that dropped food is eaten with its thin coating of character-building microbes intact)
Sure, if your goal is to make sure they grow up to have allergies.
elfkin, I understand what you’re saying, but I think age 12 is a little too old.
Obviously, kids learn to be more responsible as they grow, and obviously, kids seem to have a feeling of “it’ll never happen to me” that fades as they grow up. But I think a severe allergy is such a big thing, such an immediate thing (instant results–instant reaction) that they’d have to be complete idiots to not realize that they’d better be damned careful. Surely by age 10 they will have had enough time to get used to the idea.
For instance (and I’m not saying that this is exactly the same thing) my sister got severe diabetes at age 10. My mom is kind of a “flibberty-gibbet” and the doctor could immediately tell that my mom was not going to be of any help giving my sister insulin shots, and so forth. (My mom’s very emotional.) So, at age 10, my sister was taught to administer her own shots. I don’t know how much prompting she got to take her shots regularly, but I’d guess she didn’t need much. Not getting her shots on time made her feel very, very, oogie. She learned at a young age that she was on her own.
I think that allergies and other severe conditions are unique because the results of carelessness or a “mistake” or “forgetting” are so sudden and extreme. Forget and eat a little peanut once, and you’ll NEVER forget it again, I’d warrant. Forget to take your insulin shot and get all squirrelly-feeling, and you’ll NEVER forget that feeling. Kids don’t have to be 12 years old to get the clue.
I don’t have a cite for this (and no time to do a proper Google search this morning), but I remember reading that if children with severe allergies can be protected from exposure to their allergy triggers then these allergies are more likely to decrease in severity as the child grows up. That is, if little Bobby or Susie doesn’t get exposed to peanuts while young, exposure to peanuts as an adult may be much less dangerous.
If this is true, it seems like taking strong precautions to protect kids from their allergy triggers while young is a much better idea than just expecting them to “learn to deal with” a world that contains their allergy triggers. If they can be protected while young, then they won’t have to worry as much about “dealing with it” as adults because the problem won’t be nearly as bad.
While their diets don’t require peanuts, the vegetarian members of the Seventh Day Adventist church rely very heavily on nuts of all kinds as the primary protein sources of their diets, so much so that there have been medical studies about the use of nuts in the diet which used SDAs as a control group. If this kids has an allergy to all tree nuts as well (isn’t that the case?) it would make lunchtime pretty hard for an SDA kid, to be sure. As the SDA parent, I’d have, at the least, to request a transfer so that MY kid could eat as necessary.
What concerns me the most is that this family is perfectly okay with interfering with the education of the other children, as evidenced by the firing of an instructional aide to make way for hiring the nurse to monitor the kid’s allergies. While every child is entitled to a free and full education, yada yada, there’s a point at which taking what you’re entitled to in the manner in which you feel you’re entitled to it is simply selfish. Causing everyone else’s education to suffer so that this kid can be in school now, when he’s incapable of managing his allergies on his own is over the boundary of acceptable selfishness to me. Maybe this kid should be in a special setting, or homeschooled, until he’s old enough to “get it” without a staffer whose presence means everyone else is missing out.
Qburn, who is close to the action, characterized this as “inconveniencing” the general population, but I consider paying for special care for one to the detriment of many, many others to be considerably more than an “inconvenience.”
I truly don’t understand the “homeschooling may not be an affordable option” argument. The cost of homeschooling, especially a kindergartener, is simply not that great. It’s even less so when you consider the offset because a homeschooled kid needs fewer clothes, doesn’t have to pay field trip or school activity fees and so on. If it means that you are responsible for monitoring a condition which could cost your child his life and also means that no other child should have to face obstacles to their education (like losing a valuable classroom aide) or living their life without unusual strictures which do nothing for them but eat up their time and cause inconvenience, how can you consider it “too expensive?!?!”
It’s kind of circular logic to say that because so few people die each year of food-based allergies we don’t need to take such strong precautions to help people avoid dying from their food-based allergies. I can’t argue against protecting anyone, adult or child, from debilitation or death. I can, will and do argue against the idea that anyone is entitled to special protections which cause more than inconvenience to others, paid for on the public dime, infringing upon others in extreme ways. There must be a balance – this isn’t it.
Apos, I have a shellfish allergy (genetic, from my father who is deathly allergic, as is my uncle) and I think I ate enough dirt as a child. I even ate bird shit once off the porch and I’m pretty sure I ate a booger or two. I don’t believe any amount of floor food would have prevented the development of my allergy.
I Googled “handwashing and children” and found a number of studies and articles espousing the benefits of enforced handwashing in schools (even at the kindergarten level). From the first article I found:
It seems enforced handwashing would reduce the possibility of peanut residue on a child’s hands, as well as the transmission of communicable diseases from child to teacher. Friends of mine who teach kids from kindergarten to eighth grade are sick a whole heck of a lot, from colds to flu to pinkeye to strep throat.
Mornea, someone was watching the kid up to now, because he’s just starting school. If it wasn’t a parent, that’s fine too. Continue to have a sitter or whatever care scenario there was before, and school the kid in the evening. (Adjust the kid’s sleep schedule to make it work, if necessary. Kids are flexible that way.) After all, there’s no rule that says homeschooling has to be done between the hours of 8 and 3. Plus, with a kindergartener, we’re not talking about more than a couple of hours of instruction a day, at the absolute most. Kindergarteners don’t have enough attention span or capacity for more than that. (Hence 1/2 day kindergarten as the norm in public schools across the country, a goodly portion of that time devoted to learning-through-activities as opposed to direct instruction.)
Then perhaps they should cut back on their spending.
I’ve seen it done. I know it is possible for a family to survive on one income. Your lifestyle may not be lavish. You may have to give up one of your cars, or the family vacation, or maybe move to a less expensive house, but it can be done. As long as one member of the family has a decent job, you should be able to make it if you’re careful and manage your money well.
If that’s an utter impossibility, (as in both parents work low-paying jobs) then the parents should find jobs which have alternating schedules, so that one parent can be with the child at all times. Sacrifices must be made to keep this kid alive. Since the parents are the ones who chose to bring him into this world, they should be prepared to make those sacrifices.
This is their child’s *life * that they’re entrusting to the school.
They can’t trust completely that others will always obey the restrictions. They’re the ones ultimately responsible for his care.
I can easily see this from both sides, yet I tend to believe there is a little bit of overkill here.
However, if the allergic child were MY child, and it really is a life-threatening allergy, then I would be strongly and loudly insisting that these measures be implemented.
Reasonable, no. But a mother’s love knows no bounds, and reason is a bound
Lamia that’s pretty close to what my brother’s doctor told him. That every time he was exposed to nuts he would get worse. Before he was tested, my granny kept a big bowl of shelled nuts out, so when we visited he would sit at the table an much, but he would always go home sick. Nobody put the two togther until one day while we were there he complained that his throat hurt. He was pretty young at this point (I am going to guess 7 or 8 , but I am terrible at ages, he was in grade 2), and mom just thought it was a cold, but his face turned red, and he said he was having trouble breathing. She rushed him to the hospital, and they diagnosed him. She took him to an allergy specialist, who told him he better be careful, as he was in danger of dying if he was exposed again.
From that point he carried his epi-pens everywhere (and his teacher at the wonderful school he went to used to make fun of him, nice eh?). The smell of nuts does bother him, and makes his throat itch, but if he can get away from the smell he is fine.
I don’t think they are doing this kid any favors by sheltering him though, he needs learn how to deal with the allergies.
I agree with this statement. If the child’s allergiues are so severe that his classmates cannot have contact with nuts then he should not be going to school, because there is no way the school is going to be able to offer that level of protection. Children are messy little folks, what if one has peanut butter for breakfast, and wipes her fingers on her clothes?
Qburn, who is close to the action, characterized this as “inconveniencing” the general population, but I consider paying for special care for one to the detriment of many, many others to be considerably more than an “inconvenience.”
I guess I just don’t see the harm in being deprived of a peanut butter sandwich over the harm of dying from exposure to one.
This flawed banning logic applies all over the place these days. Some people can’t handle a certain food, lets ban it for everyone. Some people can’t handle light drugs, banned for all. We’ll eventually wind up with an incredibly homogenous and vanilla society.
I HATE peanut butter, I used to shout at my little brother if he ate a peanut sandwich in the same room as me. I don’t think this ban goes far enough peanutbutter should be banned full-stop.
In response to the “why are so many more children being diagnosed with food allergies?” question - some thoughts in addition to the “hygiene hypothesis,” for which I believe there’s been at least some preliminary support.
First, testing for allergies isn’t very precise. Now, in the case of children with severe anaphlaxis, there’s not much debate about whether the kid’s allergic to a particular substance or not. But this article (warning, it’s about.com so there are popups) summarizes the problems with allergy tests, especially as performed by GPs. Allergy is a matter of degree, and it’s possible that a skin test will show allergic response, but the person may never actually feel it. I’m supposedly allergic to dogs, but I never have had a reaction to one.
Second, there’s preliminary research (still inconclusive) researching a possible link between immunization and allergy. To this layperson, the idea is intuitively attractive: allergy is a disease of an overresponsive immune system, immunizations by definition stimulate immunity, and small children now have many, many immunizations. The AMA is calling the state of current research on the issue inconclusive. But I suspect that because of the public health implications of not immunizing, I suspect the standard of “conclusiveness” is going to be especially high.
Goodness knows, I’m not suggesting that people not have their kids immunized. But I have a bad feeling that we’re going to be confronted with a difficult public policy decision: which is worse, kids dying from preventable diseases, or kids saddled with (and dying from) allergy and asthma? Not something anyone wants to have to think about, I bet.
I would have perished without peanut butter when I was a kid. I ate it EVERY DAY for close to 18 years.
Don’t these Peanut Kids carry epi-pens? They should. And the teacher should keep a stash in her desk. I mean, if this is part of life today, let’s protect ourselves thusly.
They’re probably not allowed to carry it with them, since it’s a prescription drug. Most likely, it’s locked up in the nurse’s office. That’s the way it works here, at least. YMMV.
They can’t even carry asthma inhalers. :rolleyes:
Would school districts allow teachers to administer epi-pens to students? It seems like something that could get a school into a legal quagmire.
When I was in kindergarten, kindergarteners stayed in the same room all day, only going out to the playground. When the boy with the severe allergy goes to first grade, will the school have to decontaminate every room and every person he might conceivably come into contact with?
Here’s an interesting question that I haven’t seen raised:
Since the school district felt it necessary to hire a nurse to monitor this kid during the school day even though they can’t afford to pay for educational specialists, is it within the realm of possibility to ask the parents to contribute to her salary?
