Is there a moral obligation for the many to act in the interests of the few?

[reprise]

I've been following with some interest (and a significant amount of outrage) a number of discussions related to the decision of a primary school to ban peanuts and peanut products from the school lunches of a primary school class in response to the peanut allergy of a 5 year old class member (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/09/MN79933.DTL).

An East Bay elementary school's ban on peanut butter sandwiches and other nut products in its kindergarten classes has some parents questioning whether school district administrators overreacted to concerns for one allergic child.

The parents of other kindergarten students were informed of the situation in a letter from school officials, who decreed that "all kindergarten students will begin the day by washing hands with soap and water . . . supervised by classroom staff."

Then they learned that a licensed vocational nurse has been hired to monitor the student. On the first day of school, parents said, their kids' backpacks and lunch boxes were searched for peanut butter sandwiches and such.

While there is no doubt in my mind that the school has taken this measure to cover its ass legally should the child die from exposure to peanut products at school, my question relates to whether classmates and their parents - and the state - have a moral obligation to make changes in their eating and lifestyle habits to accommodate the needs of this one child?

I think this whole situation reeks of an appeal to sentimentality, and I believe the school's decision almost as absurd as I would find a decision by my own daughter's school to ban flowers and perfumes from her classrooms because those things attract bees and she's life-threatingly allergic to bee venom.

[Philosoft]

This would seem to be an endless trend, if followed. Surely there are more things than peanut butter that cause life-threatening allergic reactions. What is the plan? Ban all foods one by one as soon as at least one kid dies from one of them?

[reprise]

Originally posted by Philosoft
This would seem to be an endless trend, if followed. Surely there are more things than peanut butter that cause life-threatening allergic reactions. What is the plan? Ban all foods one by one as soon as at least one kid dies from one of them?

If this particular child is as sensitive to peanuts as his parents maintain, then the ban would need to be a lot more extensive than the one they are asking for in order to minimise him inadvertently coming into contact with traces of peanut oil. However, even assuming that the only thing at all which posed a life-threatening risk to this child is exposure to peanut butter, I would still argue that just because the school can ban peanut butter from his class environment does not mean that it has a moral obligation to do so and that parents have a moral obligation to comply with such a ban. I have visions of this child growing up with an very distorted sense of entitlement.

[Zora]

I believe it is a valid request for the many to make reasonable accomodation for the few. Now, the problem is, what is reasonable. I would not consider the banning of all peanut related products to be reasonable. Peanut butter is a staple in many households because of economic issues (a cheap source of protein.)

If a child is so deathly allergic to peanut products that merely being in a room where they are being consumed or hand-to-mouth transference of trace amounts of peanut products is enough to send the child into a severe allergic reaction it would seem the child's parents are under a greater obligation to see that the child is not exposed. Perhaps home-schooling in a peanut free home would be a better and safer alternative.

But then, they wouldn't get all that lovely attention, would they?

[reprise]

Originally posted by Zora
I believe it is a valid request for the many to make reasonable accomodation for the few. Now, the problem is, what is reasonable. I would not consider the banning of all peanut related products to be reasonable. Peanut butter is a staple in many households because of economic issues (a cheap source of protein.)

If a child is so deathly allergic to peanut products that merely being in a room where they are being consumed or hand-to-mouth transference of trace amounts of peanut products is enough to send the child into a severe allergic reaction it would seem the child's parents are under a greater obligation to see that the child is not exposed. Perhaps home-schooling in a peanut free home would be a better and safer alternative.

But then, they wouldn't get all that lovely attention, would they?

Another reasonable accommodation would be that the child always be in the presence of an adult equipped with an Epipen during schooltime. It would also be reasonable to for the school to require that the parents personally supervise the child's consumption of food and drink at the school - ie, that they come to the school at recess and lunch times with appropriate food for their child and he consumes it in their presence.

Whether your life-threatening allergy is to peanuts, seafood, eggs, latex, bee-stings, or the colour purple, it is not the moral obligation of the world at large to protect you from its consequences (even if it were possible for the world to do so, which in this particular instance it is not).

I'd be very interested to know whether these parents dose their kid up with antihistamines each school day to slow down any potential anaphylactic response to incidental exposure and what Epipen administration protocol they have established with the school. Has this kid even been taught to self-administer adrenalin? If not, has he been taught how to alert an adult to the need for immediate administration of adrenalin.

The choice to send this child to a public school and then demand that the school community accommodate this special need seems a very odd one if - indeed - the parents' only concern is their child's health.

FWIW, my own children attend school with students who have life-threatening food allergies and no such accommodations have been asked for or made within their school communities.