Call it what you like, but if it's scheduled around your holidays and MY kids have to miss school to attend religious services, I'm not going to agree.
Quote:
Quote:
peanut allergies in schools
- Thread starter mamagardener
- Start date
LOL!!!! Yes if you cut and past little pieces and take it out of context you can make of it what you want,, I'm used to it, go for it!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Wow, you are really trying to open a can of worms, aren't you? What is perceived to be fair for a single individual, which, in turn, steps on the rights of the majority, is tyranny, and there is a lot of that going on, these days....Oh, I'm so offended by this statement or that action. You can't do that any more. So, only the action approved by the minority is now acceptable, and must be adopted by all, while the actions and thought processes of the majority become a crime.
Wow, you are really trying to open a can of worms, aren't you? What is perceived to be fair for a single individual, which, in turn, steps on the rights of the majority, is tyranny, and there is a lot of that going on, these days....Oh, I'm so offended by this statement or that action. You can't do that any more. So, only the action approved by the minority is now acceptable, and must be adopted by all, while the actions and thought processes of the majority become a crime.
I have two thoughts here. I have not read all of the replies, so I hope I don't repeat anything.
I think washing your hands well and rinsing your mouth will keep kids healthier and less cavities, so I really think that is not a bad thing.
I do not think peanuts in general should be banned. I doubt any child is so allergic that they cannot be in the same vicinity as them, I mean do they keep these children out of the grocery store? I think you can have care and at the same time not go overboard.
My daughter has a peanut/tree nut allergy. I homeschooled her until I got cancer and my husband wanted my kids in school so I would have less stress. I suppose I could homeschool her, but it would be challenging on the chemo weeks. She does get break outs some times, but we give her benadryl and encourage her not to eat stuff she knows she shouldnt.
One day I was called to come pick her up because she had a swollen face and a rash. They have her allergy information, her tray at lunch never contains nuts. Well they had an alacart item that happened to be a cup of shelled walnuts. She took it and ate the whole thing (and rubbed her eye with the hand she used to eat them), her eye was all swollen. I did not freak out. I just asked how she got walnuts, they explained what happened and I was like, ok Sarah, do not eat nuts. (She knew better, just wanted to see what they tasted like
) They decided not to have any nut items. I disagreed with that, because it is not fair for the others, Sarah needs to stop getting what she knows she shouldnt and the worker know she cant, and so she wont let her.
Now I do not think they should have food that has hidden nuts (cooked in peanut oil etc)
I think washing your hands well and rinsing your mouth will keep kids healthier and less cavities, so I really think that is not a bad thing.
I do not think peanuts in general should be banned. I doubt any child is so allergic that they cannot be in the same vicinity as them, I mean do they keep these children out of the grocery store? I think you can have care and at the same time not go overboard.
My daughter has a peanut/tree nut allergy. I homeschooled her until I got cancer and my husband wanted my kids in school so I would have less stress. I suppose I could homeschool her, but it would be challenging on the chemo weeks. She does get break outs some times, but we give her benadryl and encourage her not to eat stuff she knows she shouldnt.
One day I was called to come pick her up because she had a swollen face and a rash. They have her allergy information, her tray at lunch never contains nuts. Well they had an alacart item that happened to be a cup of shelled walnuts. She took it and ate the whole thing (and rubbed her eye with the hand she used to eat them), her eye was all swollen. I did not freak out. I just asked how she got walnuts, they explained what happened and I was like, ok Sarah, do not eat nuts. (She knew better, just wanted to see what they tasted like
Now I do not think they should have food that has hidden nuts (cooked in peanut oil etc)
My apologies. I didn't realize there were that many pages of replies ahead of me and that it was requested that people not drag religion in. I went to delete the comments but people had already replied to me, so I'll leave them for the time being.
I personally can't comprehend how anybody would hesitate to stop sending peanut products to school if a child's life was in danger unless there were comparable problems created by it, and no, I don't think inconvenience qualifies. And yes, I have children in school, though I have homeschooled in the past. It's a wonderful thing if that's what you and your family want to be doing, but not everybody is prepared to do that.
I personally can't comprehend how anybody would hesitate to stop sending peanut products to school if a child's life was in danger unless there were comparable problems created by it, and no, I don't think inconvenience qualifies. And yes, I have children in school, though I have homeschooled in the past. It's a wonderful thing if that's what you and your family want to be doing, but not everybody is prepared to do that.
Quote:
.....
If you had read several of my earlier posts and had not chosen to edit out the parts where I had written that compromise is essential, repeatedly, and that IF (IF being the key word) the scent caused the deadly reaction was such an issue that banning would be necessary, if not, then a compromise would be necessary, but you kept going on about other things and picking and choosing through my statements. Thus my repeated statements and assertions in bolds and repeated usage of ifs and repeated usage of "everything in moderation"
Please go back and re-read my posts.
I do not think I can clarify any more than I already have.
I read all your posts an have not edited anything out. You are arguing a double standard. A double standard that nether the parents or the law will allow. Also a double standard that the line between the two cant be drawn. Just because an allergy was bad last time you had contact does not mean it will be the next. Also if it was a harmless reaction last time, that does not mean it wont kill you the next time. Allergic reactions or unpredictable. Sure you can try to implement this double standard but someone will always cry foul, Which is where this school is now.
Also if you do ban peanuts its not as simple as that. To make sure there is no peanuts you also have to ban all food that does not say on the package "no nuts". That means all home cooking an non commercial packaged food or also banned. Then theres the 90% of products that don't have this marked on them. Even after all that Its still not enough cause little Jonnys mom may be using a peanut oil based detergent on his clothing or a peanut oil based lotion or a hundred other products that might leave peanut on them.
Generally, there are specific allergans that are more likely to cause extreme reactions. Ragweed is one that rarely causes anaphyacgtic shock; peanuts are one where severe reactions are common. Generally, once a person has had a severe reaction, it is expected that future reactions will also be severe. Yes, there can be exceptions both ways, and medical science does a pretty good job of determining when an allergy needs to be treated with extreme caution and when those extra steps are not needed.
I think everyone here pretty much understands that it is not just peanuts that are the issue, but all products that contain peanut products, or are produced in a facility that also handles peanuts. (And while you're at it, consider tree nuts in the common understanding, as well).
.....
If you had read several of my earlier posts and had not chosen to edit out the parts where I had written that compromise is essential, repeatedly, and that IF (IF being the key word) the scent caused the deadly reaction was such an issue that banning would be necessary, if not, then a compromise would be necessary, but you kept going on about other things and picking and choosing through my statements. Thus my repeated statements and assertions in bolds and repeated usage of ifs and repeated usage of "everything in moderation"
Please go back and re-read my posts.
I do not think I can clarify any more than I already have.
I read all your posts an have not edited anything out. You are arguing a double standard. A double standard that nether the parents or the law will allow. Also a double standard that the line between the two cant be drawn. Just because an allergy was bad last time you had contact does not mean it will be the next. Also if it was a harmless reaction last time, that does not mean it wont kill you the next time. Allergic reactions or unpredictable. Sure you can try to implement this double standard but someone will always cry foul, Which is where this school is now.
Also if you do ban peanuts its not as simple as that. To make sure there is no peanuts you also have to ban all food that does not say on the package "no nuts". That means all home cooking an non commercial packaged food or also banned. Then theres the 90% of products that don't have this marked on them. Even after all that Its still not enough cause little Jonnys mom may be using a peanut oil based detergent on his clothing or a peanut oil based lotion or a hundred other products that might leave peanut on them.
Generally, there are specific allergans that are more likely to cause extreme reactions. Ragweed is one that rarely causes anaphyacgtic shock; peanuts are one where severe reactions are common. Generally, once a person has had a severe reaction, it is expected that future reactions will also be severe. Yes, there can be exceptions both ways, and medical science does a pretty good job of determining when an allergy needs to be treated with extreme caution and when those extra steps are not needed.
I think everyone here pretty much understands that it is not just peanuts that are the issue, but all products that contain peanut products, or are produced in a facility that also handles peanuts. (And while you're at it, consider tree nuts in the common understanding, as well).
Quote:
I would think your situation quite rare. And I am sorry you are going through such a rough time! It still doesn't change the fact that most people could survive off of 1 income and have the other parent stay home...but that brings up several other debates involving dual-income families, divorce rates, etc. It could go on forever...
I would think your situation quite rare. And I am sorry you are going through such a rough time! It still doesn't change the fact that most people could survive off of 1 income and have the other parent stay home...but that brings up several other debates involving dual-income families, divorce rates, etc. It could go on forever...
MedicAlert.com
http://www.medicalert.org/healthinf...ies.htm?selected=Health+Topics_Food+Allergies
Allergic Reaction due to smell and touch.
http://www.medicalert.org/healthinfo/foodallergyfaq5.htm?selected=Health+Topics_Food+Allergies
http://www.medicalert.org/healthinf...ies.htm?selected=Health+Topics_Food+Allergies
Allergic Reaction due to smell and touch.
http://www.medicalert.org/healthinfo/foodallergyfaq5.htm?selected=Health+Topics_Food+Allergies
Heckel's Hens :
Quote:
I would think your situation quite rare. And I am sorry you are going through such a rough time! It still doesn't change the fact that most people could survive off of 1 income and have the other parent stay home...but that brings up several other debates involving dual-income families, divorce rates, etc. It could go on forever...
there is the difference between surviving and thriving. Having grown up way below the poverty line, it is not a step to take lightly to choose to live in extreme poverty just because a person can "survive" so as not to inconvenience someone else's child to give your child access to an education they are entitled to that is possibly far better than you (proverbial you) could give at home especially if money becomes unbelievably tight making getting supplies difficult, then there is also the parent's decision that they may want the child to have a bigger world view that public education can provide.
Quote:
I would think your situation quite rare. And I am sorry you are going through such a rough time! It still doesn't change the fact that most people could survive off of 1 income and have the other parent stay home...but that brings up several other debates involving dual-income families, divorce rates, etc. It could go on forever...
there is the difference between surviving and thriving. Having grown up way below the poverty line, it is not a step to take lightly to choose to live in extreme poverty just because a person can "survive" so as not to inconvenience someone else's child to give your child access to an education they are entitled to that is possibly far better than you (proverbial you) could give at home especially if money becomes unbelievably tight making getting supplies difficult, then there is also the parent's decision that they may want the child to have a bigger world view that public education can provide.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
How deep to bury hardware cloth in a run?- Started by EmmaDonovan
- Replies: 0
-
Advice re straw in nesting boxes
- Started by magunda
- Replies: 1
-
-
She's gonna freeze- Started by countrygirl4513
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
-
-
Over researched and made myself anxious about coccidiosis- Started by Echelontheory101
- Replies: 64
-
-
