Whose rights are more important?

[Jo]

Let's say you have a child in a class who is highly allergic to peanuts and goes into anaphylactic shock. You also have a child in the same class whose religious beliefs require him to be vegan.(I don't remember what religion he is, it is a scenario Polly told me about.) As a result, the vegan child brings in peanut butter sandwiches for protein to have some variety in his diet. He has never endangered the other child at all directly.

The mother of peanut allergy child is upset and demanding that the other child be moved to a different class. The parents of the vegan child are upset because they feel their son would feel punished because of their religious beliefs. The easy answer would be to move both kids to different classes so they suffer equally but for the sake of argument, that just isn't possible.

Whose rights are more important?

[Lisa]

I'm a firm believer that a persons health and well being come before someones rights to religeous followings. The Vegan child can always get their protein at home for breakfast and dinner.



Lisa

[Desirae]

The child who is allergic to peanuts is not harmed by the peanut butter being in the room? If not than I don't see the big deal:dunno

If his safety is at sake than I do think one of the children should be moved...I'd personally say the child with the allergy seeing as he is the one in need and asking for a change to be made.

[Desirae]

Lisa, I do agree wit hthat. Safety always comes first IMO.

[Stacy]

I think the mother of the allergic child is overeacting. UNLESS smell bothers his allergies too..... (like latex bothers people) then it is a medical situation which is a complete different situation.

The allergic child should know what to watch for. He should of been taught since he was little.

[Kristi]

I agree with Des. I think both of their rights are equally important. But if the child with allergies is not being endangered then why make a fuss. :shrug I would think it would be okay to have them watched to make sure the child with the allergies is not put in danger rather than make either of them move classes.

[Lisa]

The problem with peanut allergies is that all it takes sometimes is to come in contact with the skin. If my child was like that I'm not sure how comfortable I would be with the ability of being able to be possitive it would never come in contact with my child. I was taking it to the extreme. Plus the allergic child doens't have a choice in the fact that he's allergic. The Vegan has other options of having his protein before and after school. Him/her not having it while at school won't harm him/her.


JMO


:)

Lisa

[Kristi]

Good point Lisa. Like if the other child had it on his hands and touched the kid with the allergies then there could be problems. I am not sure who I think should be asked to move though.

[Lisa]

Not sure on that either Kristi.



Lisa

[Maleah]

We had to deal with something like this in our Girl Scout council. What I would suggest doing is having a conference between the two sets of parents, a doctor familar with the allergy and a nutritionist who was familar with the needs of a vegan. Discuss things that needed to be done to ensure the safety of the allergic child like having the children using paper placemats for their lunch, washing hands after, and wiping down tables with a cleaner that would remove the peanut oil. Also having the Dr. speak with the child to educate him on his allergy and what he should be aware of.

Then have the nutritionist talk to the vegan parents about finding protein through other sources that the child might enjoy to cut down on how often peanuts were brought in.

We ended up having the parents sit together in a room and work out a compromise and it worked out nicely. The allergic parent came in later and explained to the girls about peanut allergies just so everyone would be aware and be helpful. She also coached the leaders on what to do if contact was ever made so we were all prepared.

I didn't think it would be fair to ban peanuts from meetings and events, but I also didn't want to put the other child at risk. The child is going to have to learn to protect themselves since the world is full of peanut products. People need to learn to live together and you might as well start learning young.

[Christine]

Considering the one is in mortal danger, I would say the one with the nut allergy has more rights - or at least that their rights are more dominant here. The other child can eat peanut butter sandwiches at home or find another way to get his protein variety in. Of course, I don't understand why someone whose child has such a serious allergy would allow them to continue to go to school where there are so many variables! I would be a nervous wreck if it were my child. But, yeah, I think it makes sense to put more priority on the one child's rights.

[Jo]

I remember having kids with serious peanut allergies in class as a child but I don't remember them living in bubbles. Considering this kid is not in a peanut free school, I would think he has been educated about his allergy since he hasn't had a problem up to now.

I do think the life threatening issue is more important than the religious one. But I also hope this child is someday allowed out of his bubble because he might just have to make choices in the real world.

[Beka]

definately the one with medical condition should take priority for the simple reason he/she can not chose to leave their allergy at home or switch it off or chose an alternative, the person with the religious beliefs could chose an alternative lunch. (I recall a similar debate over a disabled boy wanting to take his helper dog into school and parents of an asthmatic student strongly objecting?- the boy could have alternative help to the dog during school hours which may also have helped him intergrate more freely into the mainstream student body IMO where as the asthmatic student could not have alternative lungs for the school day!)

Although i do believe a persons religious beliefs should be respected the health of others must take priority if it is a safety issue, also telling the boy to eat an alternative lunch or be in a seperate class is not telling him he is not entitled to his religion- they are not attempting to force him to eat animal produce and they are not banning him from having his faith, purely seperating 2 students so that he can maintain his faith required diet and the other student may maintain their good health

[Erika]

If the child could have a severe reaction to peanuts, even just by touching off them, then his rights are more important. But it really isn't about rights and more doing what is best for the children.

I think Casey's scenario is the best way to resolve the situation.

[Lori]

I agree that safety should take priority. I'm not sure that the rights of the vegan, religious or otherwise, are being violated in any way, but students do have a right to attend class in a safe environment. Unless peanuts are the absolute only way for the vegan to get protein, their right to observe their religion isn't being compromised by asking them to not bring peanut butter sandwiches to school. Being asked to find another protein source isn't keeping someone from practicing their faith, but having a substance that could be potentially deadly to another student in the classroom is compromising that student's right to be educated in a safe environment.

[Kate]

This is a tough one.

Obviously, the life of a severely allergic child would have to be the ultimate priority, but we're not told how severe is allergy is...and given that it's mentioned that it isn't a nut free school I guess an assumption could be made that it isn't as severe as it could be.

It would also depend on the age of the children. A child with this sort of allergy is going to have to learn to take steps to be self-protective as he/she ages, because ultimately they are going to have to be responsible for their own welfare, so if all the children are old enough this could be a way to address that.

As far as getting protein though, there are plenty of ways to get protein in a vegan diet, including an alternate peanut butter made from peas, so it wouldn't truly be that hard to avoid the issue all together.

[Danielle]

It would be moot point here as all of our schools are "nut free" and, to go a step further, you're not even permitted to bring any items that "may contain nuts". People have learned to adapt and there are TONS of vegan protein alternatives. I agree that the child whose life is in danger gets precedence.

That being said, I'm guilty of bitching about making totally nut free lunches, it's also a lot cheaper to make PB&J than other things so what about the poorer families...

[Polly]

FYI-Alexandria City Public Schools do not have any nut free schools. Oh, and the child in question is a Shikh. He does eat tofu and beans but as a vegan needs more sources of protein since he doesn't get animal protein.
Yes, he takes a multivitamin. Not enough.

Polly

[Victoria]

Soy nut butter sandwiches. Then they could even share a sandwich.

[Marzipan]

I believe the rights of the child whose health is at stake trump the rights of the child whose family has made a lifestyle choice. (I understand that considering a religion to be a lifestyle choice is debatable in and of itself, but you can stop practicing your religion, whereas you can't stop having an allergy at will. So for the purpose of this discussion, I'll consider it a lifestyle choice.) While many food allergies require that the sufferer eat the item, allergies as volatile as peanut are frequently becoming airborne and tactile. That is to say, if VeganChild ate his lunch on the other side of the room, washed his hands, wiped his mouth, and hugged AllergicChild 15 minutes later with a smudge of peanut butter on his shirt that brushes AllergicChild's arms, AllergicChild could have a very serious reaction. In addition, you do not build up a resistance to an allergy. In fact, the opposite can be true, with each subsequent exposure heightening the reaction.

We avoid peanuts in our house, although my daughter does not have an allergy. There are many wonderful alternatives to peanut butter. We use Trader Joe's Sunflower Seed butter at our house, but the range of alternatives is broad.

[Jejune]

At my son's school there is a child whose allergy to peanuts is so severe that he could die from inhaling peanut dust by mistake. His parents have posted his photograph and a note about him in every classroom, and the school has a lunch table that is entirely nut free. Children still bring nuts, but everyone has to be aware of the boy who is so deathly allergic and take the necessary precautions to keep him safe.

I'd be sorry to see one child's feelings trampled, but it's certainly very little compared to the death of another child.

[MrsSuzNZ]

Definitely the safety of the child. (What everyone said about that. :giggle)