On Fri 23 Sep 2005 07:52:00p, ~patches~ wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> On Fri 23 Sep 2005 05:27:07p, Ariane Jenkins wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>
>>>On 23 Sep 2005 20:06:42 +0200, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri 23 Sep 2005 08:35:14a, Gabby wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>>
>>>><SNIP>
>>>>
>>>>>FWIW, not all airlines have stopped offering peanuts. A few have
>>>>>taken the attitude of some of the posters he your allergy is your
>>>>>problem, not ours.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And, IMNSHO, as it should be.
>>>
>>>
>>> I had a dear friend unexpectedly develop an allergy to a common
>>> OTC
>>>medication she'd taken before many times with no difficulty. Sometimes
>>>a sensitivity builds up, I guess. Whatever the reason, her face
>>>swelled up so much she couldn't see out of one eye, and had to be
>>>rushed to the ER when her esophagus started to close up. Luckily for
>>>her, she has more ability to control her allergic reactions than people
>>>with severe peanut allergies. Even so, if what happened to her had
>>>occurred on a plane... Well, she might not have had enough time,
>>>that's all.
>>>
>>> I always think... if it were someone you loved in a situation like
>>>that, you'd want other people to be careful, too. And maybe even if it
>>>_wasn't_ their problem, you'd like it if they took your loved one's
>>>needs into consideration since it might be a matter of life and death.
>>>And if the airlines want to try and meet people with severe allergies
>>>halfway (and save themselves from lawsuits to boot) then power to them.
>>>
>>>Ariane
>>
>>
>> I understand your point. Meeting someone halfway is one thing. What
>> has been suggested is meeting them at their own door and escorting them
>> to their destination. I will not be made responsible for their whole
>> trip. Seems those who complain take few if any measures on their own
>> to avoid the problem or protect themselves. They expect everyone else
>> to do it for them by eliminating 100% of the cause. This is bullshit!
>>
> Ok, have you considered an infant or toddler on board an airplane that
> may have never been exposed to peanuts or peanut butter? Such children
> do exist because I know for a fact mine didn't get any before school
> age. In the case of non-exposure the first exposure to this type of
> allergen could and in some cases has proven fatal to those highly
> allergic even with no history of problems because there has been no
> opportunity to see any type of a reaction without exposure. A child
> cannot help themselves and if the adults aren't aware or in your case
> simply don't care ...

We are talking about people's lives here not some
> toy!

No, YOU are talking about a conundrum.

You cannot protect people from a condition they are totally unaware of.
There are too many possibilities.

I am highly and, potentially, fatally allergic to erythromycin. I was able
to take this medication for most of my life. The last time I took it I
nearly died. How would I have prevented this sudden life-threatening
reaction? By refusing to take any and all medications in the off-chance
that one of them might kill me?

Oh and don't underestimate people with severe allergies. The vast
> majority take full responsibility to avoid allergens that bother them.
> They spend a lot of money on allergen proofing, special foods, and
> medication. So don't tell me they take few measures of their own.

When someone boards an airplane an demands that the entire plane be devoid
of peanuts, they are forcing everyone else to take responsibility for their
problem. What about theaters? Should none of them sell candy containing
peanuts?

So you would obliterate peanuts from the face of the earth? How idiotic is
that? You cannot protect everyone from every possible or conceivable
allergen. There would be nothing left to eat, see, or smell.

You will NEVER convince me, nor I you. It's a pointless discussion. I'm
done.

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
__________________________________________________ ___

If assholes could fly, this place would be an airport.