No Apples please: allergies and the (almost) adult

[Whitestripe]

8 minutes ago, zelticgar said:

 Apple allergies is a new one to me. Curious to find out how common that one is. Hope the person does not live in New England. Early fall could be a deadly time around here. Apples are all over the place. 

Dude, it's upstate NY. The Cider Mill is the hottest ticket in town.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] The banhammer is polished to a deadly shine. If you feel the need to belittle someone else's legitimate health issue -- even if you don't understand it -- you will be taking a break from the board. [/mod]

[HexMachina]

10 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Theda,

There is an awful lot that is "highly unlikely" but deadly.  Using that standard we could ban pretty much every food substance from everyplace.

Yes but in this scenario someone clearly DOES have an apple allergy and since we don't know the specifics, how serious it is etc. I think we should probably refrain from saying this is an over reaction. I for one am pleased the college is placing someone's health above not being able to enjoy one food in certain parts of the campus. I mean, it's hardly a huge sacrifice. It's all about proportionate response, and for me health>enjoyment of a particular food in that area

[Gertrude]

I agree that this is a sensible precaution in this case. Someone eating a raw apple can easily leave juice all over anything they touch and not even think about it. There is a very specific reason for this very specific ban that I am assuming won't last beyond the time that specific student is at that college.

Look at it this way - if you were made aware of such an allergy by a co-worker, would you eat raw apples in the shared break-room? Bring in an apple juice drink that could be accidentally spilled and not properly cleaned up?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

24 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Yes but in this scenario someone clearly DOES have an apple allergy and since we don't know the specifics, how serious it is etc. I think we should probably refrain from saying this is an over reaction. I for one am pleased the college is placing someone's health above not being able to enjoy one food in certain parts of the campus. I mean, it's hardly a huge sacrifice. It's all about proportionate response, and for me health>enjoyment of a particular food in that area

I'm not disagreeing.  But if this is an access issue an ADA issue could the ban not be made more general?  No apples in your dorms or the cafeteria as this person might go there?

And, again, using the logic Theda did in her earlier statement it would make sense to ban all food from all places as there is a low percentage chance that almost any food will be deadly to someone.  How about bee stings?  Bee stings can be deadly to quite a few people.  But bees are essential to the our ecosystem.  If bees didn't exist that risk to individuals allergic to bee stings wouldn't exist and there is, if bees exist, no way to guarantee a "bee free" environment.  Based upon Theda's logic should bees be eradicated?

I do understand that people have severe allergies but at what point does the responsibility shift to the individual to protect themselves?  

[Buckwheat]

I think refraining from consuming some products in the room with an allergic person is reasonable - but not banning bringing such products in at all. How could somebody having a closed bottle of apple juice in their bag possibly harm somebody else? If the requirement is not to bring some products in some rooms, then there also must be a protected area where people can stack their apples and apple juice and apple pie or whatever they might be carrying with them for the time being.

And I do not understand the nut ban on planes, this is the first time I hear about it. But how is somebody else eating something harming anybody else? It is not like somebody is going to come into any sort of contact with whatever somebody on the other side of the plane is eating. (I am genuinely asking here without trying to judge, because I really do not understand it.)

[Gertrude]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I do understand that people have severe allergies but at what point does the responsibility shift to the individual to protect themselves?  

I agree that at some point they just have to deal. But in this case, they dealt with it by asking the college if they would help. I'm gonna go back to the work-place question. If you had a severe allergy, would you make your co-workers aware of it and ask their help in making the situation safer? To me, that's a responsible and reasonable adult thing to do. The college is a much bigger scale, but that person did take the step to ask for help in controlling the situation. The college was willing to help. If the college was unwilling, the student has the option of trying to find another campus who would be more accommodating.

If the college had been unwilling and the student pushed with some sort of legal action, that's when I would say the student had gone too far.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

To follow up on my earlier post I'm trying to see what people see as the line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" accomidations?  If Theda's logic is employed is there any accomidation that is unreasonable.

[Gertrude]

2 minutes ago, Buckwheat said:

How could somebody having a closed bottle of apple juice in their bag possibly harm somebody else?

If the bottle of juice fell out of the bag and was stepped on, juice everywhere.

[Gertrude]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

To follow up on my earlier post I'm trying to see what people see as the line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" accomidations?  If Theda's logic is employed is there any accomidation that is unreasonable.

Oh, you're looking for a bright, shining line between OK and NOT OK. Carry on, Don Quixote.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Gertrude said:

If the bottle of juice fell out of the bag and was stepped on, juice everywhere.

What if your bottle of apple juice did that in your dorm and the juice spread into the hallway and the person with the allergy walked to the bathroom with bare feet?  Ban apples and apple juice from the dorms?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BREAK ALL THE WINDMILLS!!!

[Gertrude]

I'm assuming that the apple ban would be at least on their dorm floor if it was banned in classrooms. In this case it's easier because it's a smaller group that presumably would personally know the person with the allergy. If the students deem an apple ban on their dorm floor too restricting, then they should seek some sort of resolution or compromise. Do as Buckwheat said and have an apple safe room where people can apple it up. Make a special sign that has 'Caution, apple juice spill' to mark an area until it can be cleaned properly, etc. In other words, resolve it in an adult manner.

I know you like to have things clearly defined, Scot, but it's a messy world and there is not a one size fits all solution.

[Gertrude]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

BREAK ALL THE WINDMILLS!!!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 hours ago, Theda Baratheon said:

"Very unlikely" not totally impossible then? And when it comes to the possible life and safety (however blown out of proportion) of another person I'll just have to make that tiny lil sacrifice of not eating a certain kind of food around them

Gertrude,

Please allow me to rephrase.  I'm concerned that the test offered by Theda, seen above, could lead to rather extreme reactions on the basis that "when it comes to the possible life and safety (however blown out of proportion) of another person I'll just have to make that tiny lil sacrifice of not eating a certain kind of food around them". 

As I pointed out there are people severely allergic to bee stings.  We cannot guarantee the absense of bees and there isn't really a problem with people bringing bees into class rooms.  However, we do have the capacity to eliminate bees from existence.  Colony collapse disorder shows bees seem to be fairly fragile.  As such, using Theda's test that life and safety of some individuals trump all other concerns do we as a species, to protect the life and health of those individuals, have an obligation to endevour to eradicate bees?

I strongly suspect the answer will be "no" and that action would be seen as unreasonable.  Which leads us back to whether or not Theda's test is the proper one for determining the reasonability of actions to protect people with severe allergies.

WINDMILL STRUCK!!! SOMEBODY CALL SANCHO!!

[Gertrude]

You're right, I agree that eradicating bees is unreasonable. however, I don't see her response as condoning that either. The key word is tiny. What tiny is is something that no one will ever agree upon universally. Personally, I think foregoing a delicious apple treat in certain situations is a tiny sacrifice. Other students or faculty are free to disagree and seek a compromise. It's not like bring apples or peanuts into a apple/peanut free zone is a criminal offense - it's just a social convention we have deemed (more or less) to be acceptable to safeguard those who are vulnerable.

[Iskaral Pust]

13 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Yeah...  I thought it was pretty much common knowledge at this point that it's kind of a dick move to bring nut based snacks on airplanes.

Grab some pretzels and move on.

I'm happy to leave the trail mix in the bag, even if it is the healthiest snack available and widely sold in airports, if it might pose a risk to someone but chocolate, protein bars, yoghurt parfaits, and every other product with a warning "may contain trace amount of nuts" (probably includes pretzels) is a bit extreme, especially when the request is made after I have no opportunity to purchase an alternate snack.  

If they're really that at risk, they just walked through an airport where lots of people were munching on trail mix, yoghurt parfaits, Snickers, plain chocolate, etc.  At some point the burden of their safety shifts back to them. 

My son has a severe peanut allergy.  We are careful to manage his exposure.  I've never asked another person to stop eating a Reese's Cup near him.  It's up to us to teach our son to avoid that source of risk and not rely on others to do it for him. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

You're right, I agree that eradicating bees is unreasonable. however, I don't see her response as condoning that either. The key word is tiny. What tiny is is something that no one will ever agree upon universally. Personally, I think foregoing a delicious apple treat in certain situations is a tiny sacrifice. Other students or faculty are free to disagree and seek a compromise. It's not like bring apples or peanuts into a apple/peanut free zone is a criminal offense - it's just a social convention we have deemed (more or less) to be acceptable to safeguard those who are vulnerable.

I do see your point.  However, should apples, nuts, and other foods that cause allergic reactions be banned from most public places in order to protect the few who suffer from severe allergic reactions.  Please consider in your answer the fact that cafeteries, resteraunts, and other food service establishments are public places?

 

[Theda Baratheon]

You've totally misunderstood my point though and continued to ridicule me (Theda) and my logic. I never said every allergy and illness should be catered for everywhere in the world. I never said that at all. But someone in this situation ASKED for this concession to be made, or they made aware their allergy so I see it as reasonable to refrain from a certain food in the few places/situations mentioned. Don't really appreciate, while I'm offline and not able to reply coming to a thread and seeing my 'logic' questioned 

[Theda Baratheon]

If someone makes their allergy known and asks for others to respect that (the nut allergy on the plane) then i see the safety of the person (however unlikely they are to have a reaction from someone eating trail mix, I don't know) as more significant than someone simply not being able to eat their trial mix on that plane journey