No Apples please: allergies and the (almost) adult

[Dr. Pepper]

So diabetics must plan in advance, but those with food allergies shouldn't have to plan to bring things like cleaning products to ensure their allergens aren't on surfaces they will be touching?  Or even carry a couple of extra snacks for their immediate seatmates, or request multiple non-allergen (nut, egg, etc) meals for those who may be seated right next to them.

I mean, that's the point being made.  If you have an illness or an allergy, it's your duty (or your parent's duty) to learn how to navigate the world around that.  Reasonable accommodations should obviously be made (such as no actively eating apples in a lab or classroom, or eating peanuts right next to someone who says they have a peanut allergy), but many of the things mentioned here are completely ridiculous and unreasonable (banning eating anything on a plane if it has a nut product in it or if the person is more than ten feet away, banning people carrying bottles of apple juice in their bags, etc).  

[Pebble thats Stubby]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And when the food they've brought is declared verboten due to a person on board's allergy after they've boarded the plane?  What happens?

either one of three things.

1) go without / buy something suitable in flight.

2) Ignore the ban and eat it anyway

3) speak to one of the air stewards and see if an accommodation can be made.   -  its not rocket science.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

either one of three things.

1) go without / buy something suitable in flight.

2) Ignore the ban and eat it anyway

3) speak to one of the air stewards and see if an accommodation can be made.   -  its not rocket science.

What if they're out of nut free snacks and the fight attended says no eating.  I believe ignoring the instructions of a flight attendant is a pretty big deal these days.  Hope real hard you don't have an episode brought on by your illness?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What if they're out of nut free snacks and the fight attended says no eating.  I believe ignoring the instructions of a flight attendant is a pretty big deal these days.  Hope real hard you don't have an episode brought on by your illness?

I'd be really surprised if that happened, after all that makes them negligent to your health and well being.  

 I think they would have to seek the help of those in your profession.  Ok thats not going to help during the flight, but I believe they legally have to make reasonable adjustment to all passengers health and safety needs.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

I'd be really surprised if that happened, after all that makes them negligent to your health and well being.

 I think they would have to seek the help of those in your profession.  Ok thats not going to help during the flight, but I believe they legally have to make reasonable adjustment to all passengers health and safety needs.

As Dr.P asked, why is the burden on the people who need to eat to work around the allergies of others on the filght that they will not have notice of until it is too late to adjust?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

As Dr.P asked, why is the burden on the people who need to eat to work around the allergies of others on the filght that they will not have notic of until it is too late to adjust?

because the nut allergy suffer contacted the airline and the airline decided a total ban was the appropriate reasonable adjustment needed given the information they had at the time.  When the airline becomes aware of conflicting needs they should re-evaluate to meet the needs of all.   if the person needing to eat keeps silent and starves then its their own fault and not the airlines.

 

What would be a great idea is a way for the airline to contact all passengers in advance to warn them in advance.  maybe though e-mail if they booked the flights themselves, maybe at check in.  I get that its not always possible that they can contact every passenger before flying, but I believe the should try.

 

[Swordfish]

53 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And when the food they've brought is declared verboten due to a person on board's allergy after they've boarded the plane?  What happens?

Don't bring nut based snacks on planes, and you avoid that problem.  It's not rocket surgery.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Don't bring nut based snacks on planes, and you avoid that problem.  It's not rocket surgery.

 

And if you brought some apples and the person on board has an apple, not a Nut allergy?

[Iskaral Pust]

Not to go all meta on this, but this discussion is basically a replay of nearly every political and social topic we discuss.

There's one camp that think people need to take responsibility for their personal situation but should be able to expect a reasonable accommodation/courtesy/assistance from others provided it's not too onerous.  There's another camp who always want to fight for the disadvantaged and almost no accommodation is too much because the disadvantaged already have a tough time.  Most of the people in both camps could negotiate an acceptable compromise to any given challenge.  Both sides are a bit frustrated by bureaucratic impediments to harmonious outcomes, and in the presence of that impediment would tilt toward their preference.  A couple of people in either camp will continue to argue and debate because they either enjoy pressing an argument/debate or because they need to champion every cause they come across.

It's occasionally interesting when someone changes camp on a specific issue, but otherwise I'm feeling jaded.

[Swordfish]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And if you brought some apples and the person on board has an apple, not a Nut allergy?

I'm talking specifically about nut allergies because those seem to be the issue on airplanes.  Obviously there is no reasonable accommodation for every possible allergy under the sun.

Is there some example of where apple allergies, or other non nut related allergies, have created an issue on airplanes?  

Or are you jsut performing some kind of weird mental exercise for some reason?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Swordfish,

Look at the OP regarding Apple allergies.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I'm talking specifically about nut allergies because those seem to be the issue on airplanes.  Obviously there is no reasonable accommodation for every possible allergy under the sun.

Is there some example of where apple allergies, or other non nut related allergies, have created an issue on airplanes?  

Or are you jsut performing some kind of weird mental exercise for some reason?

People have had all sorts of allergic reactions on planes, not just nuts.  The only reason the nut allergy on a plane is more well known is because it's made the news due to idiots thinking that someone many rows back eating a bag of nuts caused a girl to have an allergy attack.  Studies have proven this is just incredibly unlikely, and the allergic reaction probably occurred due to touching a surface that contained traces of nuts.  Which is why it's imperative that an allergy sufferer be diligent about where they touch and need to carry around proper cleaning supplies.  It's like how a diabetic needs to carry around certain types of food.  

[Iskaral Pust]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

People have had all sorts of allergic reactions on planes, not just nuts.  The only reason the nut allergy on a plane is more well known is because it's made the news due to idiots thinking that someone many rows back eating a bag of nuts caused a girl to have an allergy attack.  Studies have proven this is just incredibly unlikely, and the allergic reaction probably occurred due to touching a surface that contained traces of nuts.  Which is why it's imperative that an allergy sufferer be diligent about where they touch and need to carry around proper cleaning supplies.  It's like how a diabetic needs to carry around certain types of food.  

It is a good example of how sensationalism and click-bait can get conflated into the ultra-progressive movement just as much as the ultra-conservative movement; rational evidence gets disregarded and people initially try to act tolerant to avoid giving offense up until the wingnuts push them too far and they resist.  The airborne nut allergen fear is similar to vaccine autism, and they mirror birtherism and Obama coming for your guns.

[Theda Baratheon]

On 20/09/2016 at 0:39 AM, Whitestripe said:

Theda: Different trigger warnings. Some say that using trigger warnings  is just another example of coddling college students, others think it's a good idea.

I'm not of the opinion that it's coddling anyone. You find trigger warnings all the time in every day life. Before every movie or video game you play they'll be content warnings, if there is wet paint or a wet floor there will be signs telling you. Road signs act. 

[Theda Baratheon]

27 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Not to go all meta on this, but this discussion is basically a replay of nearly every political and social topic we discuss.

There's one camp that think people need to take responsibility for their personal situation but should be able to expect a reasonable accommodation/courtesy/assistance from others provided it's not too onerous.  There's another camp who always want to fight for the disadvantaged and almost no accommodation is too much because the disadvantaged already have a tough time.  Most of the people in both camps could negotiate an acceptable compromise to any given challenge.  Both sides are a bit frustrated by bureaucratic impediments to harmonious outcomes, and in the presence of that impediment would tilt toward their preference.  A couple of people in either camp will continue to argue and debate because they either enjoy pressing an argument/debate or because they need to champion every cause they come across.

It's occasionally interesting when someone changes camp on a specific issue, but otherwise I'm feeling jaded.

This is why I don't really like participating in these threads...I don't really like getting cross with people and disagreeing and the whole devils advocate and arguing back and forth and I hate coming across as uppity. 

[Whitestripe]

3 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 but many of the things mentioned here are completely ridiculous and unreasonable (banning eating anything on a plane if it has a nut product in it or if the person is more than ten feet away, banning people carrying bottles of apple juice in their bags, etc).  

Well, that's what my campus is asking for, as per the email.  They've requested that apples and apple products not be brought in or near the listed classrooms at all times, not just on days or times that the student in question has class. They've also requested that catered events in this building or classrooms (which are usually in the evenings and on weekends) not include apples or apple products.

[Whitestripe]

2 hours ago, Theda Baratheon said:

I'm not of the opinion that it's coddling anyone. You find trigger warnings all the time in every day life. Before every movie or video game you play they'll be content warnings, if there is wet paint or a wet floor there will be signs telling you. Road signs act. 

 Still not the same trigger warnings.  It's been a controversy at American colleges/universities for a while.  According to this article on The Atlantic Monthly it's a movement, driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense.  I brought it up in the OP because some may see it as another example of college kids (who may or may not be able to handle managing their own allergies) asking for special accommodations.

For example if your professors were told that they needed to use trigger warnings, then a class on The Iliad would need to have a disclaimer that the subject matter contained slavery, violence, and rape.

[Swordfish]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Swordfish,

Look at the OP regarding Apple allergies.

I not only looked at it. I responded to it.

The conversation has evolved.  See also: Airplanes instead of classrooms/labs.

[Swordfish]

3 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

People have had all sorts of allergic reactions on planes, not just nuts.  The only reason the nut allergy on a plane is more well known is because it's made the news due to idiots thinking that someone many rows back eating a bag of nuts caused a girl to have an allergy attack.  Studies have proven this is just incredibly unlikely, and the allergic reaction probably occurred due to touching a surface that contained traces of nuts.  Which is why it's imperative that an allergy sufferer be diligent about where they touch and need to carry around proper cleaning supplies.  It's like how a diabetic needs to carry around certain types of food.  

Well...  Sure.  

But I don't know how you eliminate the risk of having  nut residue(heh) on surfaces inside planes without banning nuts on planes.

If there is some kind of consensus on this not being an issue at all, then so be it....

 

 

[Dr. Pepper]

24 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Well...  Sure.  

But I don't know how you eliminate the risk of having  nut residue(heh) on surfaces inside planes without banning nuts on planes.

If there is some kind of consensus on this not being an issue at all, then so be it....

 

 

You could say that about any food.  You can't eliminate apple, egg, flour, etc residue without banning those foods on planes.  It's completely unreasonable.  Hence the need for an allergy sufferer to clean the surfaces they will be touching.  

There is scientific consensus about the topic, but unfortunately public consensus doesn't agree for whatever reason.