Criminal Charges in Kentucky

Just this week I blogged about progress in anaphylaxis and food allergy legislation. These policies and guidelines endeavour to protect allergic children in the school environment, by implementing allergen avoidance measures and emergency protocols, should an exposure occur.

What we forget is that these guidelines serve to augment criminal laws that are already in place. This week a 13 year old boy in Kentucky was charged with felony wanton endangerment, after she sprinkled crumbled peanut butter cookies in the lunch box of another student with a severe allergy to peanuts. Thankfully the other child did not suffer a reaction.

What was this kid thinking? I know she is only 13, but as the parent of the allergic child this would be terrifying. Actually, as the parent of this 13 year old you might be even more terrified.

There were no prior issues between the two kids, so we have to assume that the 13 year old did not want to kill the other student. Based on that assumption, we only have one plausible scenario: that the girl simply did not take the allergy seriously. I am hoping that this was a prank or an experiment, as the kid in question did not truly believe he would cause serious harm. Perhaps it was on a dare?

(Note: subsequent to writing this post initially, one report indicated that the girl sprinkled the cookie in the allergic child's lunch 'to see what would happen'.)

The bottom line is that this is an extreme example of food allergy or anaphylaxis not being taken seriously. I actually empathize with people struggling to comprehend the severity of the disorder. Anaphylaxis is truly bizarre in that 99.9% of the time allergic children are perfectly healthy, notwithstanding unrelated health issues. I've had people say to me, "surely it is not possible for a peanut to kill a child within 15 minutes ... that's ridiculous!" I might not believe it myself, had I not witnessed our daughter's near fatal reaction on Boxing Day 2006.

Clearly there is work to be done in order to help the community understand that anaphylaxis and food allergy are a very real concern. The only benefit of this one student getting into trouble is that she can be made into an example for others.

If you are the parent of an allergic child, don't be angry at this kid. Instead, try to understand that anaphylaxis awareness is still not ubiquitous. Your own child would benefit if you leveraged this example in your community, so that others may learn from it.

A death in this situation would have been devastating to the entire school population, not just the family of the allergic child. One positive outcome is that the school district and the police recognized the gravity of the situation and took strong action. There are actually two classes of wanton endangerment, one a misdemeanour and one a felony.

The fact that the police charged the girl with the felony charge speaks volumes about just how serious they perceived this act to be. The misdemeanour charge applies if the accused places another person in danger of physical injury. The felony charge requires "extreme indifference to the value of human life" and a "substantial danger of death or serious physical injury".

Whether or not the child is found guilty, there is a silver lining to this unfortunate situation. The decision of the police to press this greater charge shows that they truly get it. This should also send a strong message to schoolyard bullies who tease children by chasing them with peanuts. This case sets a precedent and sends a clear message that similar actions will not be tolerated - not by schools, and not by the police.

I actually hope that the girl in question is shown leniency. A clear message has already been sent and I suspect she has learned her lesson. Perhaps a suitable punishment would be to have her perform community service. If she was to speak to schools, teachers and other students via a short educational video, they too would learn from this situation.

(Note: my initial source indicated that the accused was a boy. Subsequent reports have indicated that the accused is actually a girl. I have edited the text.)

Peanut Butter Family

Today my parents tagged along for our daughter's weekly gymnastics class. The instructors have been great with the allergy and we've not had any serious issues to date.

This morning a new set of classes began and, per standard practice, we made sure that the other children, parents and nannies knew of our daughter's allergy. The instructors made an announcement and as always, the class was without incident.

After class our daughter made her way out to the foyer to get her coat and the Peanut Butter Family decided it was snack time. Parents, kids and Grandma all had peanut butter sandwiches and when Grandma caught our nanny's eye she sort of smiled in a way that suggested, 'what's the big deal'?

I understand that others cannot be expected to think proactively about our daughter's allergy. It is our responsibility. That being said, upon seeing our daughter they should have shown us the courtesy of putting the sandwiches away given that they had just heard about her allergy. This type of passive aggressive behaviour in response to our daughter's allergy bothers me.

Fittingly, as the family left one of the kids polished off his sandwich and innocently slid his hand along the rail as he ran down the stairs. One of the toughest things about the allergy is its ability to replace the joy of watching a child happily playing with the invisible terror of microscopic peanut proteins that might not even be present.

It's amazing how different the world looks when you're managing an allergy.

Dear Grandma, "It takes a village".

Rolling Eyes

As I read through the numerous articles, blogs and stories about anaphylaxis I have noticed a disturbing trend. It seems that when other parents, teachers, principals, etc. are told about severe allergy they often 'roll their eyes'. Unfortunately some of these people did not understand the true severity of the allergy until a child under their care died.

Here is an example from a live chat from the fall of 2006 at AllergicLiving.com with Sara Shannon: "Sabrina had a reaction at her public school the year before she died, and the reaction was handled improperly. Looking back, I see that as a warning. I went to the school to discuss how the reaction was handled, and I was greeted by rolling eyes (sad to say but it’s true). (This person now cries to this day about what happened to my daughter, by the way.) At the time that I was greeted with rolling eyes, I accepted their lack of belief and didn’t feel I could do anything about it, based on my past experience with the education system. My solution was for Sabrina to have complete avoidance of her allergens and hopefully she would not have a reaction at school."

Another example comes from Australia where a coroner's inquest is looking into the death of a young boy who was given peanut butter despite their being prior knowledge of his allergy. The boy's mother, Martha Baptist "told a packed session of the Victorian Coroner's Court that one mother at the kindergarten had rolled her eyes when she repeatedly asked her not to bring food with nut traces."

What I find troubling about this is that Baptist was trying to inform the other parents of the allergy but they treated her with disdain. Then the unthinkable happened ... the mother who rolled her eyes 'rolled in' with a peanut butter sandwich and it led to the boy's death. "Martha Baptist told the court that after her son's death it took her three months to work up the courage to ask the parents on duty that day what food was given to the children. Two mothers she asked, including a woman called Angela Berry, told her the children had eaten nothing but fruit.
But Martha Baptist told the court a third woman she knew from a mother's group later told her Angela Berry had in fact brought a peanut butter sandwich in on the day Alex died but that Ms Berry had told her not to say anything about it."

If that wasn't bad enough, to add insult to injury "lawyers for Berry asked Alex Baptist's paediatrician whether she was aware the boy had been referred to a neurologist for investigation of possible epilepsy, on account of an incident where as a baby his eyes rolled up in his head and his body went limp while breastfeeding." The doctor denied that this had occurred.

These examples make me roll my eyes. Allergic children rely on the support of school staff and the cooperation of other parents. Though people's attitudes seem to have come a long way in the last few years, it is disappointing to continuously see life threatening allergy met with rolling eyes, as if it was a nuisance to others.

As parents of an anaphylactic daughter it is impossible to read these stories without picturing this happening to our child. I suspect it is also nearly impossible for those who rolled their eyes to live with the fact that they did not take anaphylaxis seriously until it was too late.

Only through continued education, training and support programs will the non-allergic world understand the perpetual risk that our allergic kids face.

Peanuts 'Strongly Discouraged'

I posted recently about an Iowa school board that voted 6-0 to approve a peanut ban. After a public outcry the ban has been pulled. Instead peanuts will be 'strongly discouraged' in the school. It would be interesting to see if this has the same effect. I actually don't have a problem with it as most parents will cooperate. Furthermore, as seen in the Child article this week some parents are going to send peanuts in just to make a point. It's that minority of parents that we have to fear.

Given some of the vitriol on the messages boards in Iowa, it sounds like that state could do with an education roadshow on food allergy. While I understand that this is a minority of kids and peanut allergy is not the only concern, claims that peanut allergy doesn't exist are just absurd.

I suspect that some people are just trying to get a rise out of 'peanut parents'. They think this is a game. Unfortunately they also cannot see the larger issue which is the safety of all children. To them a peanut ban means that peanut parents win and they lose. At the end of the day the fact that peanut is strongly discouraged is a good thing for peanut parents. As noted today however, the intensity of the debate also continues to solidify my opinion that bans are not the way to go.

Nobody wants to be dictated to and the majority of parents are fully willing to cooperate. There has to be a less confrontational way to handle this.

It Takes A Village - Peanut Terrorists

I just read a excellent yet disturbing article about the challenges that can face our allergic children in schools. It is one of the most comprehensive articles I have read to date on food allergy. One section of the article talked about how other parents and other kids can react in a very hostile and dangerous fashion to those who have allergies. Here are a few excerpts ... what are these people thinking?

"a parent of a nonallergic child announced at a PTO meeting that he'd continue sending his child to the elementary school with peanut butter sandwiches and tell his child to "smear" the peanut butter along the hallway walls."

What message does that send to the child of that astute parent?

"Snarky comments about the "peanut police" pepper blogs and online message boards. "We are considering dressing our daughter on Halloween as 'The Death Peanut,'" one parent joked."

Indeed. Forgive me if I do not join you in laughter.

"At the middle school, a teacher brought in a homemade casserole containing nuts and invited the allergic boy to eat it; when he said he couldn't because of his allergies, she had him stand outside the classroom (in the cold) while the other students ate. This child was also taunted and bullied by other students in the cafeteria, including one who refused to move from a peanut-free lunch table and ate a peanut butter sandwich—which resulted in the boy's suffering an extreme allergic reaction that landed him in the hospital"

This article just left me frightened. I could not conceive of intentionally jeopardizing the health and safety of any child. That is just twisted. Will we really have to go through this? Let's hope that these people are truly at the fringes and that the majority of parents take a safer, 'saner' approach.

According to Connie Weil, PhD, a psychologist at Children's Memorial in Chicago, severe food allergy is a "chronic illness, but it's a hidden illness, so it's misperceived by society." While that neatly summarizes the underlying issue, misperception is one thing but terrorizing allergic children is shocking even if extremely rare.

Though our being aware of these scenarios makes our daughter safer, I actually wish I never read that article.

Tumbling Peanuts - Round 2

I posted last week about the first time we had to bring our daughter to her music and movement class. Since that class I have though long and hard about whether it was we, and not the other parents, that actually generated the surprising reaction. Did we cause the looks of indifference to the fact that our daughter had anaphylaxis?

Today I brought my daughter to another class. She is in two similar classes each week as she enjoys them immensely. As this was a different instructor and a different set of parents I had the opportunity to try a softer positioning with no supplemental emphasis from us.

I made sure that I calmly and factually outlined that our daughter had an anaphylactic peanut allergy, but we did have an Epi-Pen and as our nanny would be in the class there should be nothing to worry about. That being said I did ask if she could let the other parents know at the beginning of the class.

It worked wonderfully! The other parents responded in a very understanding fashion and one mother even noted that we should keep our daughter away from her son to be extra careful as he had just eaten a peanut butter sandwich on his way in.

It was great to see that the softer communication style produced a much more positive reaction from the other parents.

I think that this clearly validates last night's post about how 'peanut parents' should communicate the allergy to other parents and 'villagers'.

Blogyard Bully

They're out there. I suspect (er, hope) that this UK blog's author was writing at least 40% in jest. This guy is the adult version of the schoolyard bully who chases your child around during recess with a peanut for fun.

Though the author acknowledges that peanut allergies are no laughing matter, I do find myself somewhat appalled. I suspect that he would not find it as humourous if he witnessed an anaphylactic attack first hand.

While this particular blog is simply a writer trying to drum up interest using a shock technique, there are certainly people out there that are truly frustrated with and intolerant of the "Gooberically-Challenged".

I have contacted the blogs author and will post in future based on his response (if any).