Profile: gene
This is gene's Profile page. Use it to view gene's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments gene has endorsed.
What's Happening Now
This discussion is not the DOT or governments responsibility!
The idea of banning things like peanuts on airplanes is ridiculous. It is not the job of DOT to police what is served on airlines. I get itchy & runny eyes when I sit next to people who wear too much perfume or are wearing moldy clothes or have not bathed and have body odors. Should we run people through examinations before boarding the plane to see if they are emitting any smell that could cause allergy? And make them clean up or change clothes? I sneeze sometimes when near dogs and cats that give me allergic reaction. Should we ban all animals from any more flights?
I have a problem when fat persons allow their body parts to hang over and under the arm rest next to me. It causes me to be nervous and can cause serious medical… more »
Do you see how far reaching this can go? This must be stopped now.
If people get sick in public it is their responsibility to stay out of public places.
It is not the rest of us that must be subject to their health problems.
I vote for peanuts to never be outlawed on any public transportation.
If they are banned this means I could not bring my own either? Or I may be subject to being thrown off the plane because I have caused panic.
I also do not like the smell of some food. It causes me to feel nauseous.
On my last flight from China it smelled like someone was eating rotten dog meat. Should I have told the pilot to stop the plane, eject the person and then demand the plane be fumigated?
Lets stop this issue now before it gets any more press and never bring it up again.
Absolutely! I think the fact that she survived the people next to her having peanuts indicates that the fear is baseless.
Gene: I hope that the airline would charge you! There are millions of Americans who are afflicted by medical conditions; Asthma, Hemophilia, High Blood Pressure, Risk of Strokes, and the list goes on and on. Each of these people take responsibility for their own health. When they leave home they prepare for the dangerous they will face even those which are not dangerous to others.
When you ask us, the general public to take responsibility for the safety of your daughter you are ignoring your own responsibilities and setting a bad example for your child.
An Epi-Pen will not stop the reaction, unless the allergen is removed, or the patient is removed from the air containing the allergen. This is impossible in the confined space of an airplane.
There is no alternate transportation for international flights. And some people may have to fly because governments require them to be certain places at certain times (e.g courts).
There are no masks that stop proteins.
My child has a fairly severe peanut allergy. Although she has never had a reaction on an airplane, she did have a reaction to the dust/smell of peanut products we disposed of when we first found out she had this allergy (after a serious reaction to a peanut butter snack). Because of that, I know that reactions to airborne peanut particles are real and it raises concerns for me about what happens in the small, enclosed environment of an airplane.
Reading the comments posted, I am surprised at the cavalier attitude of many. The idea that those with peanut allergies should take personal responsibility for themselves is of course reasonable. However, just saying that they should carry their epi-pens and other medications with them and deal with whatever reaction may arise misses the point.… more »
Also, while this is a disability of sorts, the comparison to a person in a wheelchair is not apt. If a person needs a wheelchair to get around, he/she can live without that wheelchair. There is no question whether the absence of the wheelchair by itself may result in that person’s death. In contrast, in the case of peanut allergies the presence of peanuts in the environment can be life threatening.
The slippery slope argument used by others would make sense if there weren’t clear ways to draw the line in this case. There are. Peanuts are the number one anaphylaxis inducing food substance in the world. There are others, but none come close to peanuts. The suggestion that other bans on other things that are not life threatening would follow is slope that don’t find the least bit slippery!
Finally, if we consider this as a question of rights, then we have to consider that one person’s rights will often be in competition or conflict with another’s. This is such a case. Your right to eat what you like versus the allergic person’s right to an environment that is not life-threatening. So, how do we solve this? I suggest that more “essential” right should trump the lesser. If cannot eat what you want, you can still live. If I can’t breath, well that’s another matter, isn’t it?! The other side of any right is the obligations it imposes on others. In this case, the allergic person still has the obligation to take reasonable precautions, but others have an obligation not to create a hazardous environment for that person just so they can enjoy their peanut butter sandwiches. « less
No comments
Our daughter is even allergic to airborne peanut dust in a plane when other people open their bag of complementary peanuts in the opposite end of the plane… gasping for air and almost choking.
Once she told the cabin crew about her allergy at the gate AND again when she got on the plane. The result… they gave her a handi-towel and told her to wipe the armrests of her seat off. Then, then served peanuts to everyone on the plane… even the people sitting next to her. Should she have gotten any worse, they might have had to make an emergency landing… at whose expense???