<p>Yes, emeraldkity, they had an epi pen, an action plan with her photo on it with explicit instructions, I put on a training session for staff, provided them with a full binder of preparedness materials from the Food Allergy Network… and they still had her (at age 5) try to call home <em>herself</em> from the office (she didn’t know she couldn’t talk over our answering machine message) then sent her back to a dark classroom where a movie was being watched… when she was slumping, blue-lipped, dead white and nearly unresponsive in her chair they called me because she “didn’t look well and maybe I should come and get her…” nope, nobody used the epipen, I used the one in my purse when I got there and screamed for them to call 911, she was dying… the ambulance couldn’t get through because it was pick-up time… oh God it’s been a long time since I dredged up that personal nightmare memory… it was apparently the gook on dirty toys that got her. Kinder started at noon and if the kids took the time to wash their hands like they were supposed to they didn’t get to the best toys.</p>
<p>Oh rocket rider that is just awful, really awful. I can not even imagine. After reading some of this morning’s posts I remembered how good S’s ES was with handling food allergies. We were very fortunate in that some other parents had paved the way for us and that the people at the school were willing to listen and take the allergies seriously. Thankfully S never had a life threatening reaction, but it was (and remains) a very real possibility.</p>
<p>When there was a little girl in Ds co-op preschool, all the parents & teacher were instructed in the use of the epi pen. I dont think we used it on her, but I do seem to remember we had to use one on someone else.
That is unfortunate that the school didnt take their responsibilty seriously.</p>
<p>Omg, that’s not acceptable at all! My school trains every staff member in the use of epi-pens, and the kids carry them with them , so it’s never out of reach.
I think schools that don’t use this as a teaching moment are ripping off all their students. My son’s classmates were quite capable of being compassionate and sensitive — brought safe treats and all that. Modern kids approach this as a safety issue, as a diversity issue, and are not as threatened as their parents seem to be. My son’s bf got sent to the principal’s office for shoving a student who wanted to play with son’s lunch, and the principal decided that was an understandable bully reaction. We’ve seen the same thing with mainstreamed Down’s students and their “normal” friends, etc. I do think that people who don’t deal with it have a hard time accepting the scope of isolation and exhaustion pwfi have in a society that is immersed in food.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Agree about the reaction from the typical American students eating in the dining hall, though someone who ate like a poor person in a poor country might not find it so objectionable.</p>
<p>However, given the hardened positions people seem to have here about food allergy accommodation, cost, ADA, etc., that would be one way to simplify compliance at low cost – eliminate all of the common objections, so that the smaller number of individual objections can be handled more easily. Faced with enough pressure from various directions, could a school decide that this is how they will satisfy all of them?</p>
<p>D1s college is very good accommodating w GF foods. The products are frozen, so she either needa to call in advance or see the manager right away when she gets to the dining hall. They have pizza, stuffed shells, mac & cheese and several other main courses that we have determined are Amy’s. The salad bar is also GF, as are the side orders of vegetables & potatoes. </p>
<p>The best way to deal with the nut allergy is to not have any product present and use only canola or olive oil. We have found her school has fairly good food that is cooked from scratch in the dining halls. If you stay away from processed foods and know your ingredients, it’s not too difficult to accommodate most allergies. (I find dairy a tough one, as college kids eat lots of cheese)</p>
<p>I am so terribly sorry that your child had such a traumatic experience when she was so young. I really am. People can be thoughtless and the litigious nature of our country sometimes makes people lose compassion for other people. You were right to remove her from that situation. It would never have worked for her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The entire article is not available at this site but there are multiple studies like this one:</p>
<p><a href=“http://udini.proquest.com/view/unemployment-rates-of-mentally-pqid:2266079261/[/url]”>http://udini.proquest.com/view/unemployment-rates-of-mentally-pqid:2266079261/</a></p>
<p>which show that the employment rate of the disabled has not improved since the passage of the law in 1990. The major objective of the legislation was to improve the financial life of the disabled. This law has failed miserably at that.</p>
<p>I do think that schools should work with students who have true, life threatening food allergies. There should be a way to come to an agreement that a student who pays for a meal plan is provided with food that is safe to eat as well as a safe place to eat. Honestly, if you have life threatening allergies and a school won’t do that for you, I wouldn’t want to force the issue.</p>
<p>The vast majority of students with food issues do not have life threatening food issues and the enlargement of ADA to cover all of these students is worrisome to me. The vast majority of people with food allergies really can just not eat the things they shouldn’t eat. I don’t understand why you find that statement stupid. We are talking about adults not kindergarteners.</p>
<p>Proudpatriot, perhaps I don’t get your point. Are you saying that the proper reaction of the allergic student or the parents of the allergic student is to crumble at the first sign of opposition? To pull your child out of the school that you have PAID for through your taxes or tuition because some ignoramus is recalcitrant?</p>
<p>If this were the approach taken by many in the past we would still have segregated schools. </p>
<p>RocketRider, my niece broke out in huge welts all over her body at school one day when she was about 6 or 7 because a kid who had been eating peanut butter touched her on her neck. Imagine if the kid had handled her pencils or scissors? People simply do not get it. They complain bitterly about not being able to send their kid to school with a PB&J, and claim that the parents of the allergic kid just need to “train” their child not to eat it. Of course THEIR little snowflake doesn’t have to learn to wash their hands…</p>
<p>That study references one particular group (individuals with disabilities) and one specific outcome (employment). To jump from that article to the conclusion that no groups gain any positive outcomes is absurd. </p>
<p>As far as the “vast majority of people with allergies”, like all lawsuits, this one was brought on behalf of a specific group of students at a specific school. While it certainly establishes a legal precedent, it doesn’t mean that every student with an allergy should or must be treated the same way. Instead it means that schools have an obligation to try and meet the needs of students with food allergies in a way that provides them with an experience as close to that of other students as is reasonably possible. It provides some examples of strategies that can be used, but doesn’t limit schools to those strategies, or indicate that less intrusive strategies might not be appropriate for specific students. </p>
<p>For some individuals, food labeling may be a sufficient solution. Others may never feel safe in a cafeteria style environment and would be best served by being allowed to opt out of the dining option and cook in a dorm room. Still others might benefit from the strategies used for the students at Lesley. Given that approximately 4% of adults have food allergies (in addition to adults with celiac and other conditions), and that food allergies are growing, the vast majority of schools are going to find that they need to accommodate a variety of different needs, and that having an array of strategies, including those listed in the original article makes sense.</p>
<p>I would not continue to keep my child in a situation where the adults were cruel and willing to place my child in physical danger while simultaneously treating the child like dirt. There is no amount of money paid that would cause me to put my child in that situation every single day. None.</p>
<p>RocketRider’s daughter is a real person. IMO no responsible parent would keep their child in a situation which is both life threatening and emotionally painful to prove some person is an ingnoramus or to prove some sort of point. You don’t do that to a 5 year old.</p>
<p>CuriousJane: The reason ADA was passed was to improve employment prospects for the disabled by improving workplace access.</p>
<p>I have one child with a teen onset life-threatening tree nut allergy. Told that subsequent exposure could mean rapid onset of anaphylactic shock, so Epi pen is mandatory. Sorted out a very sensible procedure with caring dining staff at LAC. They took an approach that could be considered similar to the universal first aide precautions to prevent HIV- no speculation about who the gloves are put on for, just wear them and all are safer. They used no nut products in any hidden ways and uncontaminated meals were available. It worked well.</p>
<p>Now consider the range of college locations, housing and schedules. While the option to skip a meal plan is desirable for some, there are schools and circumstances where it simply couldn’t work. Rural schools with the nearest grocery store an 8 mile drive away, requiring a car. Schools without real kitchens available, schools with huge campuses and short lunch times between multiple classes, etc. Translating this on the ground has many implications. No evening activities because your dorm is a bus ride away and the schedule too tight? </p>
<p>Once you manage the life-threatening part, then take care of logistics, you can consider a variable that is relevant to most students- opportunities to participate with peers in campus life, including sharing a meal. Imagine freshman year- all head for dinner and one can not. I would think the disadvantage of that would be obvious. Some circumstances can not be helped, but this one can be finessed with careful planning and limited impact on the non-allergic students. There could be economy of scale that comes with widespread awareness and structural changes. </p>
<p>People with these deadly allergies face the responsibility of managing them. The environment can make a big difference. I have had both children and elders under my care in wheelchairs. Curb cuts, wider automatic doors, large restroom stalls and handicapped parking spaces made it possible to leave the house. That changed our lives and was very different from what went on earlier. I want to live where these options are valued for all who need them.</p>
<p>Proudpatriot: Improving employment prospects was one of the reasons ADA was passed. If it was the only reason the law wouldn’t have been written to include things like playground equipment. </p>
<p>I am surprised, frankly, that this was decided as an ADA case. Generally section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which applies to any school that accepts any federal funds (e.g. has students who receive Pell grants), places a higher responsibility on schools than ADA.</p>
<p>@PP: Isn’t that convenient. Give institutions the out to do nothing, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I’m reading this correctly, it’s not as though they are mandating all students with allergies or sensitivities be treated as though they have disabilities. The vast majority of kids will just be able to eat from food that is labeled appropriately (such as my daughter who must be gluten-free). It just leaves it open for those students who have the serious allergies such as the peanut ones. That’s all. Can, not must.</p>
<p>Consolation: If you want to use your 5 year old to prove a point that is fine with me. But if I were in the situation that RiverRun was in I would put the needs of my child number one and remove her from the situation.</p>
<p>PP,</p>
<p>If I was in RocketRider’s position, I’d hope I could figure out a way to withdraw my child as well. Noone is questioning her choice to do so. However, I’d like that think that I’d also use legal avenues to ensure that the situation was addressed so that other children wouldn’t undergo the same trauma and risk. Simply withdrawing children isn’t going to change the situation for the future. </p>
<p>However, that doesn’t mean that adults (aka college students) should necessarily withdraw from college rather than pushing for reasonable accommodations. It’s their right to make that choice, and the law provides them with an avenue to bring their claim.</p>
<p>I agree that adults are different than children. I do not think that adults should withdraw from college over food issues. If the school is reasonable it will work with students.</p>
<p>And if it isn’t reasonable, then the ADA exists to support the student seeking reasonable accommodations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And it does do this in some cases. Me, for instance. </p>
<p>I have a bad leg (the result of a fracture that did not heal well). There are some things I simply cannot do, and walking on a slippery, sloped surface is one of them. </p>
<p>About a year ago, my employer moved my department to a different building, which has a steeply sloped parking lot. Without my state-issued handicapped parking sticker, which makes it possible for me to park right in front of the building on snowy or icy days, I would not have been able to stay in my job. Getting from the regular employee parking spaces in the sloped lot to the front door of the building is impossible for me in certain weather conditions. And if I can’t get into the building, I can’t do my job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The school is more likely to do so if ADA requires it.</p>
<p>It was ADA that required my employer to provide handicapped parking spaces and that required my state to issue handicapped parking permits to people who qualify for them. Without ADA, I would have had to quit my job when my department was moved. The only jobs I would have been able to take are those in buildings with attached parking garages or very flat parking lots. With ADA, I can work anywhere.</p>