I came across an article yesterday about parents of students at an elementary school in Toronto who have complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission that the failure of the school to screen children’s lunches for known allergens is a form of discrimination against those with a disability.
I have to wonder where the line between protecting children’s health and making it everyone else’s problem will be drawn. As someone who has unfortunately been afflicted by the “disability” of severe nut allergies, this issue is one that hits close to home.
I will agree that the incidence of food allergies in children seems to have exploded in recent years. I never knew of another child in grade school who also had any kind of food allergy. I alone, had to look out for myself and make sure that I did not trade snacks with classmates or eat baked goods at the school bake sale.
This lesson was something that was ingrained in my head from the moment my family discovered this “disability”. It is a lesson that I do not doubt all parents with children of food-borne allergens ingrain in their heads. It is a lesson that can save their lives and is of invaluable importance.
However, the continuum on which society becomes responsible for this affliction is a large continuum indeed.
On the one hand, young children may not be able to distinguish what ingredients may be in certain types of food, or may not remember to wash their hands after eating their snacks. In this type of environment, a complete ban on known allergens is likely the only answer to protect the child’s health and safety. At this point, I do not think it is unreasonable to impose such a ban on children’s snacks at schools.
On the other hand, there is the request of a young woman, Aly Young, back in February 2006, to ban peanuts from large public venues; in this case, the Air Canada Centre. I’m not arguing that the large amounts of fresh peanuts isn’t deadly to those with nut allergies. I’m not arguing that the closed space of certain public venues, be it sports arenas, restaurants, or classrooms doesn’t exacerbate individual reactions. These are all valid concerns that can have dire consequences.
What I do take issue with, however, is the blanket imposition of bans left, right and centre. It is human nature to react negatively to the imposition of responsibility for other peoples’ issues and concerns. This is not to say that society as a whole has any mal-intent towards those with such allergies (at least I like to think that isn’t the case). However, if it were suddenly mandated by your organization that you participate in corporate lunch and learns, you cannot deny that your initial reaction would be a loud groan and sigh. In and of itself, the request has the best interests of both the corporation and the individual employees in mind. But it is the imposed obligation that takes away the willingness and openness to respond in a positive manner that could potentially lead to beneficial change.
At some point, we all will be old enough to take responsibility for our own health and safety. It’s a harsh world out there. One that will not always care about what ails you. And though we may sometimes feel that we are all out to fend for ourselves, I cannot help but believe that most people have an innate sense of humanity and goodwill toward others (It must be Christmas time!).
Bans and the imposition of regulations may be needed in some instances. But whatever happened to good old fashioned respect and asking for something that you need and/or want by calmly explaining your situation?
You may be surprised.
Comments 1
While there are certainly behaviours or objects in our society that we must ban outright (murder and automatic weapons are two obvious examples of things we don’t want out there in our society), with most things, we must strike a balance between the good of the individual and the good of the whole.
Deadly allergies are certainly no laughing matter - and for those afflicted with such an allergy (especially when it’s a young child who may not know to look out for him/herself), the consequences of exposure can be deadly.
However, I completely agree with your argument on broad bans. They simply don’t work - and give people a false sense of security where there is none.
Banning nuts from schools is a perfect example. While parents rightly have the best interests of the children in mind, kids are kids. They may sneak some Halloween candy to school that contains nuts - and parents who may think the school is a ‘nut-free zone’ may not take the proper precautions with their allergic child.
While I can’t argue that certain bans don’t make sense (i.e. automatic weapons, as I said earlier), I worry that these broad bans not only provide a false sense of security, but also abdicate individuals of their personal responsibilities in society to contribute to the common good in our society - which we can only achieve through education, empathy and understanding - not outright bans.
Posted 10 Dec 2007 at 11:18 am ¶Post a Comment