11-Year-Old Banned From Flight Due to Peanut Allergy

[JamesWN]

Since peanuts aren't actually nuts, would people still be okay with almonds or walnuts around them?

[Unconditional Heart]

I would of warned the airlines ahead of time, and done what that one couple did when they were gonna bring a baby that was gonna cry.

Supply the passengers with peanut free candy. And a note.
"My child is allergic to peanuts, if you can eat this candy (or alternative snack inside.) as an alternative, I would be greatful, if not, take it as a gift anyway.
biggrin

[Lilith Galaxy]

Good twisted I get tired of being told I can't have any peanuts on my flight cause someone is allergic. They should have a special plane for people who can't be around this necessary flight accommodation.

[Lupa Fangs]

She Was Phone

Lupa Fangs Makucha

She Was Phone

Lupa Fangs Makucha

Old Blue Collar Joe

Shama_okami

First off that flight attendant sounds like a d**k. You can't be surprised that the 'worst possible' outcome is really bad. That's what the term means!

Also, asking =/= preventing. All they wanted was for them to ask people not to eat peanuts. That doesn't interfere with anyone's rights.

Having said all that, it sounds like the parents have given this kid a complex if he was freaking out that badly over someone eating peanuts.

If someone has an allergy that is so severe you have to make an announcement it is far from routine. And yeah, telling people to not do something is infringing on their rights.
We're getting one half of the story. He shows up with antihistamines, steroids, adrenaline and other medications? That's far from 'routine'.
One person doesn't trump the others.

Actually. Asking or even telling someone not to do something is not infringing on people's rights. Expecting them to comply would be depending on the situation that is. My biggest example is that companies can enforce that you put on shirts and shoes when you walk in their store, but you have the right everywhere else not to wear shirts or shoes. At least for men on the shirts part... sometimes women depending on the area.

Allowing barefoot customers could pose a liability for the store if they stepped on something sharp and injured their feet, and trust me, all stores have the possibility of ending up with sharp objects on the floor, like bits of glass or box staples. It has nothing to do with public morals, as wearing a shirt does.

Okaaaay. Not what I was getting at at all though. Wasn't replying to you either.

rolleyes Then what are you getting at? You rarely make much sense. BTW, this is a public forum in which anyone may respond to you.

I was getting that owners can sometimes ask you not to do something without infringing on your rights and it's not infringing on anyone's rights to ask even if you aren't the owner. Even if it's a doucy thing to ask.

[Lupa Fangs]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Lupa Fangs Makucha

Old Blue Collar Joe

Shama_okami

First off that flight attendant sounds like a d**k. You can't be surprised that the 'worst possible' outcome is really bad. That's what the term means!

Also, asking =/= preventing. All they wanted was for them to ask people not to eat peanuts. That doesn't interfere with anyone's rights.

Having said all that, it sounds like the parents have given this kid a complex if he was freaking out that badly over someone eating peanuts.

If someone has an allergy that is so severe you have to make an announcement it is far from routine. And yeah, telling people to not do something is infringing on their rights.
We're getting one half of the story. He shows up with antihistamines, steroids, adrenaline and other medications? That's far from 'routine'.
One person doesn't trump the others.

Actually. Asking or even telling someone not to do something is not infringing on people's rights. Expecting them to comply would be depending on the situation that is. My biggest example is that companies can enforce that you put on shirts and shoes when you walk in their store, but you have the right everywhere else not to wear shirts or shoes. At least for men on the shirts part... sometimes women depending on the area.

They don't own the plane.

Doesn't matter. They can still ask and it's not infringing on people's rights. Does not matter. To say it does is basically saying that they don't have the right to free speech. They can ask if they want. It's not infringing on anyone's rights. To infring on someone's rights would be to force them to obey.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Lupa Fangs Makucha

Old Blue Collar Joe

Shama_okami

First off that flight attendant sounds like a d**k. You can't be surprised that the 'worst possible' outcome is really bad. That's what the term means!

Also, asking =/= preventing. All they wanted was for them to ask people not to eat peanuts. That doesn't interfere with anyone's rights.

Having said all that, it sounds like the parents have given this kid a complex if he was freaking out that badly over someone eating peanuts.

If someone has an allergy that is so severe you have to make an announcement it is far from routine. And yeah, telling people to not do something is infringing on their rights.
We're getting one half of the story. He shows up with antihistamines, steroids, adrenaline and other medications? That's far from 'routine'.
One person doesn't trump the others.

Actually. Asking or even telling someone not to do something is not infringing on people's rights. Expecting them to comply would be depending on the situation that is. My biggest example is that companies can enforce that you put on shirts and shoes when you walk in their store, but you have the right everywhere else not to wear shirts or shoes. At least for men on the shirts part... sometimes women depending on the area.

They don't own the plane.

[AliKat1988]

Although I understand the parents concern, it bothers me that the kid's anxiety about the allergy sounds like it was more severe than the allergy itself in the incident involving on plane nuts that the article describes. If the kid has issues with inhalation of peanut particles then limiting exposure on a small plane makes sense, but if the parents are terrifying the kid about the allergy beyond its actual severity that is another matter.

[Fucc Da Ops]

they should just tell him that it wouldn't effect him as long as no1 gave him a peanut, or they should of told there son not 2 take any peanuts from any1 this is ridiculous reason 4 there son 2 act up if they kno he as an allergy then just tell other passengers not 2 offer there food 2 him.

[Reiken no Tenshi]

I don't know. I don't feel it was fair to ban the kid due to the allergy, but I also don't think it was fair of the family to demand that nobody else on the flight be allowed to have peanuts simply to cater to his condition. Both options were infringing on someone's rights.

In addition, if his condition is so terrible that nobody else on a plane can have peanuts no matter how far from him they happen to be or risk a reaction, then how exactly do they manage going anywhere? Plenty of restaurants use some variants of peanuts in their cooking. Stores have peanuts. There's always going to be the person going around in public eating peanuts. What do they do with the rest of the world? Do they try to get people at restaurants to not have peanuts either? School?

[Omnileech]

MegaTurkey

Omnileech

Lady Pallas Athena

Omnileech

Wow, a lot of people are really upset about the prospect of being asked or an airline asked to meet the needs of someone with a life-threatening disability.

If that 11 year old kid has an allergic reaction on the plane, then chances are he'll die if he's in the air when it happens if his medicine isn't sufficient. That's not worth a minor inconvenience, to the other passengers, I guess.

It's not a life-threatening illness. He doesn't have AIDS where if he catches the slightest virus he dies. He doesn't have a weak heart where the slightest shock could cause it to stop beating. He has an allergy for which he also has medication.

15 million Americans have food allergies.
50 million Americans have some type of allergy.

Do they all get special snowflake treatment whenever they travel too?

You look at this as an isolated incident and as an isolated incident it's not a big deal. The problem is that it's not an isolated incident. It's simply the latest in a spate of parents showing up and demanding privileged treatment for their child. Once you start making exceptions to the rules and procedure for one person, everyone starts demanding the same special treatment and you lose your ability to even have much procedure because "But you let that guy! And that girl! And that kid! And those three!" and you have no leg to stand on anymore.

Travelling is already unpleasant and unpredictable as it is without having to put up with self-entitled narcissists who think they can have everything changed for minor issues that they could handle themselves without disturbing everyone.

Do you not know the difference between "having a food allergy" and "having a severe food allergy? I guess not, because your rant reeks of ignorance if you think "having medication that will buy the kid time before he goes to the emergency room" means his allergy is a "minor issue"

But no, people with life threatening disabilities are just supposed to deal with it and not say a thing.

Hah they also don't know much about AIDs or heart conditions either. It genuinely shocks me to see just how many people posting here have an irrational and obnoxious sense of entitlement to, of all things, eating peanuts when and where they like. rolleyes Just shows you how scarce maturity is on Gaia.

Yes, being eager to put someone's life in danger and indifferent to other's medical conditions in a very small, enclosed space where peanut proteins can and will become airborne and may cause an allergic reaction reeks of ignorance, irrational and obnoxious self-entitlement.

[Captain Dory]

MegaTurkey

Captain Dory

MegaTurkey

Omnileech

Lady Pallas Athena

Omnileech

Wow, a lot of people are really upset about the prospect of being asked or an airline asked to meet the needs of someone with a life-threatening disability.

If that 11 year old kid has an allergic reaction on the plane, then chances are he'll die if he's in the air when it happens if his medicine isn't sufficient. That's not worth a minor inconvenience, to the other passengers, I guess.

It's not a life-threatening illness. He doesn't have AIDS where if he catches the slightest virus he dies. He doesn't have a weak heart where the slightest shock could cause it to stop beating. He has an allergy for which he also has medication.

15 million Americans have food allergies.
50 million Americans have some type of allergy.

Do they all get special snowflake treatment whenever they travel too?

You look at this as an isolated incident and as an isolated incident it's not a big deal. The problem is that it's not an isolated incident. It's simply the latest in a spate of parents showing up and demanding privileged treatment for their child. Once you start making exceptions to the rules and procedure for one person, everyone starts demanding the same special treatment and you lose your ability to even have much procedure because "But you let that guy! And that girl! And that kid! And those three!" and you have no leg to stand on anymore.

Travelling is already unpleasant and unpredictable as it is without having to put up with self-entitled narcissists who think they can have everything changed for minor issues that they could handle themselves without disturbing everyone.

Do you not know the difference between "having a food allergy" and "having a severe food allergy? I guess not, because your rant reeks of ignorance if you think "having medication that will buy the kid time before he goes to the emergency room" means his allergy is a "minor issue"

But no, people with life threatening disabilities are just supposed to deal with it and not say a thing.

Hah they also don't know much about AIDs or heart conditions either. It genuinely shocks me to see just how many people posting here have an irrational and obnoxious sense of entitlement to, of all things, eating peanuts when and where they like. rolleyes Just shows you how scarce maturity is on Gaia.

I didn't realize not wanting to die from low blood sugar was a sense of entitlement.

Peanuts are not the only source of carbs, in fact they have a low GI and low GL, and in such an extreme situation the immediate treatment for an attack is not peanuts. The only situation whereby someone's life is dependent on peanuts (or rather the absence of them) is in the case of a severe peanut allergy.

No, but it's easier to prevent such an attack ahead of time rather than wait for it. Certain items, like glucose tablets, only work for a short amount of time.

What a lot of us are talking about is how the kid had a massive anxiety attack over someone opening a bag of peanuts. For all intents and purposes, what if that person was opening a bag of something else, like chips? A lot of people deal with incredibly severe allergies on a day to day basis, my own sister's allergies are triggered by peanut dust, but she goes on in her day to day life, coping with the world. It's not a matter of entitlement, it's a matter of the fact that this kid has not been taught to cope with the world around him.

Yes you can ask the plane not to serve something other than peanuts as snacks, but that can't happen in day to day life. You can't ask a restaurant to not serve peanuts to anyone while you are there, what you can do is make sure they don't cook their food in peanut oil and go on. This kid is obviously not learning the coping skills he needs in life.

[MegaTurkey]

Captain Dory

MegaTurkey

Omnileech

Lady Pallas Athena

Omnileech

Wow, a lot of people are really upset about the prospect of being asked or an airline asked to meet the needs of someone with a life-threatening disability.

If that 11 year old kid has an allergic reaction on the plane, then chances are he'll die if he's in the air when it happens if his medicine isn't sufficient. That's not worth a minor inconvenience, to the other passengers, I guess.

It's not a life-threatening illness. He doesn't have AIDS where if he catches the slightest virus he dies. He doesn't have a weak heart where the slightest shock could cause it to stop beating. He has an allergy for which he also has medication.

15 million Americans have food allergies.
50 million Americans have some type of allergy.

Do they all get special snowflake treatment whenever they travel too?

You look at this as an isolated incident and as an isolated incident it's not a big deal. The problem is that it's not an isolated incident. It's simply the latest in a spate of parents showing up and demanding privileged treatment for their child. Once you start making exceptions to the rules and procedure for one person, everyone starts demanding the same special treatment and you lose your ability to even have much procedure because "But you let that guy! And that girl! And that kid! And those three!" and you have no leg to stand on anymore.

Travelling is already unpleasant and unpredictable as it is without having to put up with self-entitled narcissists who think they can have everything changed for minor issues that they could handle themselves without disturbing everyone.

Do you not know the difference between "having a food allergy" and "having a severe food allergy? I guess not, because your rant reeks of ignorance if you think "having medication that will buy the kid time before he goes to the emergency room" means his allergy is a "minor issue"

But no, people with life threatening disabilities are just supposed to deal with it and not say a thing.

Hah they also don't know much about AIDs or heart conditions either. It genuinely shocks me to see just how many people posting here have an irrational and obnoxious sense of entitlement to, of all things, eating peanuts when and where they like. rolleyes Just shows you how scarce maturity is on Gaia.

I didn't realize not wanting to die from low blood sugar was a sense of entitlement.

Peanuts are not the only source of carbs, in fact they have a low GI and low GL, and in such an extreme situation the immediate treatment for an attack is not peanuts. The only situation whereby someone's life is dependent on peanuts (or rather the absence of them) is in the case of a severe peanut allergy.

[She Was Phone]

Lupa Fangs Makucha

She Was Phone

Lupa Fangs Makucha

Old Blue Collar Joe

Shama_okami

First off that flight attendant sounds like a d**k. You can't be surprised that the 'worst possible' outcome is really bad. That's what the term means!

Also, asking =/= preventing. All they wanted was for them to ask people not to eat peanuts. That doesn't interfere with anyone's rights.

Having said all that, it sounds like the parents have given this kid a complex if he was freaking out that badly over someone eating peanuts.

If someone has an allergy that is so severe you have to make an announcement it is far from routine. And yeah, telling people to not do something is infringing on their rights.
We're getting one half of the story. He shows up with antihistamines, steroids, adrenaline and other medications? That's far from 'routine'.
One person doesn't trump the others.

Actually. Asking or even telling someone not to do something is not infringing on people's rights. Expecting them to comply would be depending on the situation that is. My biggest example is that companies can enforce that you put on shirts and shoes when you walk in their store, but you have the right everywhere else not to wear shirts or shoes. At least for men on the shirts part... sometimes women depending on the area.

Allowing barefoot customers could pose a liability for the store if they stepped on something sharp and injured their feet, and trust me, all stores have the possibility of ending up with sharp objects on the floor, like bits of glass or box staples. It has nothing to do with public morals, as wearing a shirt does.

Okaaaay. Not what I was getting at at all though. Wasn't replying to you either.

rolleyes Then what are you getting at? You rarely make much sense. BTW, this is a public forum in which anyone may respond to you.

[Captain Dory]

MegaTurkey

Omnileech

Lady Pallas Athena

Omnileech

Wow, a lot of people are really upset about the prospect of being asked or an airline asked to meet the needs of someone with a life-threatening disability.

If that 11 year old kid has an allergic reaction on the plane, then chances are he'll die if he's in the air when it happens if his medicine isn't sufficient. That's not worth a minor inconvenience, to the other passengers, I guess.

It's not a life-threatening illness. He doesn't have AIDS where if he catches the slightest virus he dies. He doesn't have a weak heart where the slightest shock could cause it to stop beating. He has an allergy for which he also has medication.

15 million Americans have food allergies.
50 million Americans have some type of allergy.

Do they all get special snowflake treatment whenever they travel too?

You look at this as an isolated incident and as an isolated incident it's not a big deal. The problem is that it's not an isolated incident. It's simply the latest in a spate of parents showing up and demanding privileged treatment for their child. Once you start making exceptions to the rules and procedure for one person, everyone starts demanding the same special treatment and you lose your ability to even have much procedure because "But you let that guy! And that girl! And that kid! And those three!" and you have no leg to stand on anymore.

Travelling is already unpleasant and unpredictable as it is without having to put up with self-entitled narcissists who think they can have everything changed for minor issues that they could handle themselves without disturbing everyone.

Do you not know the difference between "having a food allergy" and "having a severe food allergy? I guess not, because your rant reeks of ignorance if you think "having medication that will buy the kid time before he goes to the emergency room" means his allergy is a "minor issue"

But no, people with life threatening disabilities are just supposed to deal with it and not say a thing.

Hah they also don't know much about AIDs or heart conditions either. It genuinely shocks me to see just how many people posting here have an irrational and obnoxious sense of entitlement to, of all things, eating peanuts when and where they like. rolleyes Just shows you how scarce maturity is on Gaia.

I didn't realize not wanting to die from low blood sugar was a sense of entitlement.

[MegaTurkey]

Omnileech

Lady Pallas Athena

Omnileech

Wow, a lot of people are really upset about the prospect of being asked or an airline asked to meet the needs of someone with a life-threatening disability.

If that 11 year old kid has an allergic reaction on the plane, then chances are he'll die if he's in the air when it happens if his medicine isn't sufficient. That's not worth a minor inconvenience, to the other passengers, I guess.

It's not a life-threatening illness. He doesn't have AIDS where if he catches the slightest virus he dies. He doesn't have a weak heart where the slightest shock could cause it to stop beating. He has an allergy for which he also has medication.

15 million Americans have food allergies.
50 million Americans have some type of allergy.

Do they all get special snowflake treatment whenever they travel too?

You look at this as an isolated incident and as an isolated incident it's not a big deal. The problem is that it's not an isolated incident. It's simply the latest in a spate of parents showing up and demanding privileged treatment for their child. Once you start making exceptions to the rules and procedure for one person, everyone starts demanding the same special treatment and you lose your ability to even have much procedure because "But you let that guy! And that girl! And that kid! And those three!" and you have no leg to stand on anymore.

Travelling is already unpleasant and unpredictable as it is without having to put up with self-entitled narcissists who think they can have everything changed for minor issues that they could handle themselves without disturbing everyone.

Do you not know the difference between "having a food allergy" and "having a severe food allergy? I guess not, because your rant reeks of ignorance if you think "having medication that will buy the kid time before he goes to the emergency room" means his allergy is a "minor issue"

But no, people with life threatening disabilities are just supposed to deal with it and not say a thing.

Hah they also don't know much about AIDs or heart conditions either. It genuinely shocks me to see just how many people posting here have an irrational and obnoxious sense of entitlement to, of all things, eating peanuts when and where they like. rolleyes Just shows you how scarce maturity is on Gaia.