I feel sorry for that little boy, I wonder what kind of home life he has for him to be so hateful. :(

The medical examiner just stated that her death was NOT due to exposure to peanuts and was not related to making out with her boyfriend. The actual cause of death has not been released.

According to CNN the Coroner says that lack of oxygen, not the peanut allergy, killed the girl: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americ...ap/index.html.

Exposed by a Teacher
 

My oldest daughter is always very careful not to eat peanut products, strawberries, fish, or eggs. At the beginning of each school year, I fill out the student information card stating all of her allergies (she's also a severe asthmatic), and make it a point to tell her teachers. We also teach her not to eat from classmates because they may not realize that certain candies, etc. have peanuts in them.

Anyway, her teacher was giving out "treats" to those that had done well on a test. She gave my daughter some candy (I believe it was chocolate coated, so she didn't realize it had peanut butter in the middle). She spat it out immediately when she tasted the peanut butter. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Now - thank God - she did not go into anaphylactic shock or anything, but instead got hives on her legs.

On another note - we found out my youngest daughter also has peanut allergies when her eye swole for a WEEK after eating Chick-Fil-A (Yes - they cook in peanut oil :mad: - which needs to be on a large sign in the drive thru).

Another thing we avoid is fried turkey (it's a southern thing), because that's usually cooked in peanut oil.

So Mystic Cat - you're right. Parents have to make a big deal out of peanut allergies, because so many people are not aware of it. The weird thing is - neither my husband nor I have peanut allergies...:confused:

there is a big difference between "protecting" and "attacking" - what this child did to her was a form of assault.

not that i am saying you're supporting this but - this same type of argument is used for justification on why people should just "get over it" or "just avoid it" in terms of sexual harassment

sadistic assholes can't always just "be avoided"

- marissa

I'm not denying that. I'm saying that if the parents and teacher made an overly big deal about the allergy - i.e. set the child up to be victimized - it's really not surprising that this occurred.

Yes the child that did it is a jerk, but don't give jerks fodder to abuse you. Keep your medical conditions and private life private. It would be like if someone was epileptic and the teacher announced it to the whole class - you know there would be an a-hole out there faking seizures and such.

Faking seizures is not at all equivalent to trying to kill you. We're not talking about kids teasing or bullying, this is about constricting your airway to the point that you cannot breathe within minutes - before medical help could arrive.

My sons have the peanut allergy and are both severely asthmatic. We have to tell the school about it. The teachers tell the kids about how serious this allergy is so they know it is nothing to joke about. The school recently asked me if I would support a school-wide ban on peanut butter. In other words, no kid could bring PB&J for lunch. I told them that I thought that was ridiculous. If my kid requires that much special attention he should be home-schooled. That being said, if someone knew my kid was allergic to PB and intentionally gave it to him, I would support charging the kid with assault.

You really think the child was trying to murder the other kid via cracker? Honestly?

Does it matter what his intent was?

Furthermore, I was responding to 33's position that the parents gave the kid motive by making a big deal about the allergy. So, following that logic, the kid did not have good intentions and WAS trying to engage an allergic reaction. I don't buy into the "he didn't mean to do it" line of discipline.

1. The kid knew the other kid was allergic to PB.
2. The kid forced the PB on the kid anyway.
3. The kid is guilty.

Does a kid necessarily understand the severity of the consequences of his actions? Probably not. He did know that it was wrong and did it anyway.

Let's just build more prisons and put all the disobedient, PB-wielding kids in there. That will solve all the world's problems.

OK, kidding. But if your kid has this allergy, it is a great concern. If your kid is mean enough to exploit someone else's weakness, that is a greater concern.

You're allowing your "mom" feelings to interfere with rational discourse here - which is both commendable and obvious, but is really causing you to miss the trees for the forest here (if you'll allow).

First - no one is disputing that the kid's allergies are severe, and that the other kid was in the wrong.

Second - you have just indicated reasons why the kid's behavior is totally dissimilar from 'trying to kill him' but objectively similar to other such 'he knew it was wrong but did it anyway' things, such as faking a seizure (which would be done to embarrass/hurt the kid with epilepsy - also 'wrong', also intentional).

Finally, 33's point is NOT that the parents are giving anyone 'motive' - again, you're not viewing this objectively.

Instead, I think her point is that the parents are giving the child OPPORTUNITY - that is, without the knowledge of the allergy, it probably would not have occurred to the child to smash the cracker onto the kid's face. There are, most likely, ways in which the child can be protected from food allergies but not singled out - and 33girl is simply pointing out that some extreme parental actions may create unintended consequences outside the protective cocoon. Does this make sense? I feel like I'm being overly obtuse here, but I'm not sure on what level I agree with her - I just know you're not seeing her point at all.

Re: Girl Hospitalized After Attack with Cracker
 

Yo, yo, yo. It wasn't me.

Re: Re: Girl Hospitalized After Attack with Cracker
 

cracker please.

By telling people that your kid has the PB allergy, you are primarily protecting your kid from the unintentional exposure to the allergen. ( I think someone else already used the example of a chocolate-coated candy). If the teacher or the moms who buy treats know there are kids allergic, they are likely to refrain from offering it to your child. When your kid is 7, that is important. That is why parents tell the school about the allergy. I hardly think that is irrational. I also believe I understand 33's point just fine. I still believe that faking a seizure hurts someone's feelings, which is a lot different from harming someone physically. If that is irrational, so be it.

Allergies are serious business and folx in a contained public setting need to be aware of those among them who have them.

And guess what? As you grow older you can still develop them. So I hope that the folx blaming the victim's parents for publicizing her allergies never develop them.

That boy knew exactly what he was doing. If any parents should be checked, it is his.