Diabetic nephew and Thanksgiving

[nuttylawprofessor]

That would be an interesting legal case. I would think that as worded it is too narrow though. Wouldn't the real question be "does one have the right to choose to consume the legal food of their choice without third party interference?" The specific food should not matter nor the reason that the third party wants to limit it. I consider don't eat peanuts because of my allergy the same as don't eat meat because animals have faces. Either way person A is trying to influence person B's freedom to eat legal food C for reason D. C and D should not matter.

Narrowing it to peanuts just masks the greater question.

Actually, it's not an interesting issue at all and would make a lousy exam question. It would be fairly cut and dry. I was feeling punchy and things were a bit tense over here.

 

[FireDancer]

Would you at least call an ambulance? Or would it depend on if doing so was required by law?

I probably would, unless the person was a grouch of course.

Disclaimer: That was a joke.

 

[Halbleib1]

Exactly the right way to handle the situation. I commend him for being proactive in his health and not expecting the world to bow to his restrictions.



This is what always rubs me the wrong way. First, I wouldn't allow Splenda into my body. Despite the marketing BS it is not a safe alternative to sugar. Now, I don't add sugar to anything either so if I were serving yams they would be just yams, but I would choose sugar over Splenda any day and if I had to sweeten it I would use Stevia.

The exception should not dictate the diet of everyone else. It is as bad as making the whole class not have something because one person in the class is allergic to peanuts. I'm all for making a peanut free whatever for the one kid that can't have it but making everyone suffer because of one kids allergies is stupid. Oh, and I don't care if just being around them can kill you, your allergies should not dictate ANYONE else's diet.
It sounds like making a small side helping using Splenda is the smart alternative, not making everyone suffer because of one person's ailment.

Let's hope you never have any kids with a diet restriction than. Because you will learn pretty quickly that you have to change if you want your child to live. Another persons life is far more important than someone being able to eat what they want to for lunch. That is a very selfish self-centered statement to make.

Even if something is not legally wrong does not mean that there is not a moral obligation to do the right thing. Just because you can does not mean that you should. Even if you do not like the person asking or telling you not to do something.

 

[Jennasis]

That is a wholly accurate summary of everything I have stated.



You do have the right to leave the board meeting and go home and feed your child. No one will arrest you. Your employer would in turn have the right to let you go if they wanted to. Rights are bound by law, and taking the bottle from a stranger would constitute theft and therefore be illegal.



I agree, as I stated, you are bound by law. You also have the right to assemble but do not have the right to break into my home and assemble in my living room. To try and stretch what I have said to include criminal activity is disingenuous.



I see nothing wrong with this either, as long as it is your choice to do so. If it is a situation like a school or building where the person could easily move I would probably eat my sandwich and they can go sit somewhere else. If it were a situation where we could not move and I was asked nicely I would probably delay my eating. What you chose to do is irrelevant to me, the fact you choose yourself is. That is all.

By jove, I think I get it now! You want to have your choice to eat what you want. No "authority" should be able to TELL you to not eat it...but you CAN, and WOULD (I hope) CHOOSE not to eat something that would knowingly cause harm to someone nearby.

Would that be accurate?

 

[FireDancer]

By jove, I think I get it now! You want to have your choice to eat what you want. No "authority" should be able to TELL you to not eat it...but you CAN, and WOULD (I hope) CHOOSE not to eat something that would knowingly cause harm to someone nearby.

Would that be accurate?

Yes, that would be accurate.

 

[Halbleib1]

Boy! I'm glad I'm not a part of the families on here...I'd.just stay home! Luckily our family actually LOVES my son and WANTS to make the holidays as easy as possible for my son with multiple food allergies.

I am having to try to talk my MIL into making a turkey (the traditional dish in her family) because my son is allergic to both turkey and chicken. She know that our society tend to revolve around food and that my son is already feeling like a freak during the holiday season and, because she loves her grandson, she doesn't want to make him feel worse.

Totally agree. Thank goodness my family does not treat my son the way some on here treat theirs. Which btw my family does not change the whole meal for my son. We make him special food that is just for him. I would not expect them to change the whole meal for him. That being said if my son could not be around a certain food because it could kill him they would eliminate it completely from the meal.

 

[Jennasis]

Yes, that would be accurate.

I'm learnding!

 

[Scurvy]

What an interesting thread this has turned out to be!

I think what Firedancer is trying to say is simply that severely allergic people shouldn't expect everyone to cater to their unique needs. He didn't say he wouldn't ever. His point seems to be that it isn't a 'right' that allergic people have, to make demands based on their allergy. And I have seen that demanding attitude in real life settings...school and coops. Perhaps what he's trying to get across is that it's the parent's (or adults) responsibility to ensure safety. If flying on an airplane might actually threaten your life due to allergy (peanut particles in the air and such), then perhaps you should make different travel arrangements. I don't mean this to sound harsh and uncaring. But demanding that an entire class (or school) change their eating habits because of 1 child? It seems the needs of 1 are trumping the needs of many. Again, I truly feel horrible for people dealing with these kinds of allergies. I understand the emotional argument of parents with severely allergic children, they don't want to see anything happen to their child. But it's up to them to ensure their child is safe. It is a huge responsibility to put on others. And before anyone gets all up in arms, I have dealt with children with severe allergies before and it's very difficult.

I haven't wanted to wade into this thread until now, but I have to say that I agree completely with this. I admit that I do not have any severe food allergies, nor have I lived with anyone who did. So I do not claim to understand what life must be like when you do have to deal with such things. However, I do get severe migraines. One of my triggers is an ingredient that is in many inexpensive perfumes commonly sold in drugstores. As much as I would love to be able to wave a magic wand and erase those perfumes from the face of the earth, I know that I can't. I would never demand that people stop wearing them. If I realize that someone near me is wearing one, I move away from them. If my reaction was so severe as to be debilitating, I wouldn't put myself into situations where I couldn't move away from the scent - so I suppose I would not be able to fly anywhere. It's unfortunate, but I realize that the vast majority of people don't have a bad reaction to those scents, and my right to avoid the scents does not trump others' rights to enjoy the scents. Certainly if I was often in close quarters with someone I would ask if they would mind not wearing the scent around me, but I'd never expect or demand that they refrain.

And frankly, even if I did feel I had the right to demand that everyone else refrain from enjoying something because I can't be around it, I'd never trust a group of strangers to actually comply even if they said they were going to. If I (or my child) had a life threatening allergy to something, I would not knowingly trust my (or my child's) life to a group of strangers. Maybe they aren't as vigilant as I would be about checking product labels. Maybe they don't really think a small amount of peanut dust would actually hurt us. If a small amount of something could actually kill one of us, I would not be willing to put either of us in a situation where one careless stranger could kill us. I would want to remain in control of our health and safety, and I can't do that if I put myself into a situation where I can not control our surroundings. Hopefully the vast majority of strangers would be willing to alter their snacking habits in light of the fact that it could be a life or death issue for us, but I'd never be willing to gamble our lives on that!

I would certainly be willing to give up peanuts temporarily if someone around me was allergic. I would do so happily if they asked nicely, and grudingly if they demanded. Realistically, though, I think that the ultimate responsibility to avoid peanuts lies in the person who is allergic, not the rest of us. If an allergy is that severe, it might only take one person who isn't willing to give up their snack and the allergic person could be facing a serious health crisis. There are plenty of people who are not willing to be inconvenienced for the sake of a stranger. I would be shocked to find a flight where there wasn't at least one person like that. Trusting an entire group of strangers to protect your health seems naive, at best. I think unless I could directly control the situation, I'd have to assume that there were going to be peanuts present wherever I went. That outlook seems safest to me, anyway.

Regarding the OP, I think separate dishes are the best way to go. I do think it would have been much more polite for the nephew to have asked for the recipe so that he could alter it for himself. I definitely think it would have been a bad idea to make the dish with Splenda instead of sugar. Besides the fact that it wouldn't have worked right, there's also the fact that many people can't eat Splenda. It is another of my migraine triggers. When I know it is in something I just don't eat it. I absolutely hate the trend lately of putting Splenda (or other artificial sweeteners) in things without making it apparent. I have to read labels or specifically ask the ingredients before I eat anything these days, because "everyone can eat Splenda" and so no one thinks to warn people when they've used it.

 

[FireDancer]

I haven't wanted to wade into this thread until now, but I have to say that I agree completely with this. I admit that I do not have any severe food allergies, nor have I lived with anyone who did. So I do not claim to understand what life must be like when you do have to deal with such things. However, I do get severe migraines. One of my triggers is an ingredient that is in many inexpensive perfumes commonly sold in drugstores. As much as I would love to be able to wave a magic wand and erase those perfumes from the face of the earth, I know that I can't. I would never demand that people stop wearing them. If I realize that someone near me is wearing one, I move away from them. If my reaction was so severe as to be debilitating, I wouldn't put myself into situations where I couldn't move away from the scent - so I suppose I would not be able to fly anywhere. It's unfortunate, but I realize that the vast majority of people don't have a bad reaction to those scents, and my right to avoid the scents does not trump others' rights to enjoy the scents. Certainly if I was often in close quarters with someone I would ask if they would mind not wearing the scent around me, but I'd never expect or demand that they refrain.

And frankly, even if I did feel I had the right to demand that everyone else refrain from enjoying something because I can't be around it, I'd never trust a group of strangers to actually comply even if they said they were going to. If I (or my child) had a life threatening allergy to something, I would not knowingly trust my (or my child's) life to a group of strangers. Maybe they aren't as vigilant as I would be about checking product labels. Maybe they don't really think a small amount of peanut dust would actually hurt us. If a small amount of something could actually kill one of us, I would not be willing to put either of us in a situation where one careless stranger could kill us. I would want to remain in control of our health and safety, and I can't do that if I put myself into a situation where I can not control our surroundings. Hopefully the vast majority of strangers would be willing to alter their snacking habits in light of the fact that it could be a life or death issue for us, but I'd never be willing to gamble our lives on that!

I would certainly be willing to give up peanuts temporarily if someone around me was allergic. I would do so happily if they asked nicely, and grudingly if they demanded. Realistically, though, I think that the ultimate responsibility to avoid peanuts lies in the person who is allergic, not the rest of us. If an allergy is that severe, it might only take one person who isn't willing to give up their snack and the allergic person could be facing a serious health crisis. There are plenty of people who are not willing to be inconvenienced for the sake of a stranger. I would be shocked to find a flight where there wasn't at least one person like that. Trusting an entire group of strangers to protect your health seems naive, at best. I think unless I could directly control the situation, I'd have to assume that there were going to be peanuts present wherever I went. That outlook seems safest to me, anyway.

Regarding the OP, I think separate dishes are the best way to go. I do think it would have been much more polite for the nephew to have asked for the recipe so that he could alter it for himself. I definitely think it would have been a bad idea to make the dish with Splenda instead of sugar. Besides the fact that it wouldn't have worked right, there's also the fact that many people can't eat Splenda. It is another of my migraine triggers. When I know it is in something I just don't eat it. I absolutely hate the trend lately of putting Splenda (or other artificial sweeteners) in things without making it apparent. I have to read labels or specifically ask the ingredients before I eat anything these days, because "everyone can eat Splenda" and so no one thinks to warn people when they've used it.

Well thought out and logical. Again, the exact same thing I have been saying the entire time on this thread and those in the past.

I have to agree on the whole artificial sweetener craze. I won't eat any of them and read those labels right down to the end to make sure no artificial sweeteners are it there. My objection isn't migraine based but health based.

 

[okeydokey]

Basically, yes. Good motivation to learn good social skills and not be rude.

If you are so allergic than the burden of finding a different seat is on you, not on me. If you absolutely can't, and I think that is very rare (even on a full plane someone would probably switch with you) a little grace and politeness goes a long way.

In the end it just isn't my problem. I have enough of my own, I don't need yours.

I think this is the most appalling thing I have ever read on these boards. How sad.

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

I do think it would have been much more polite for the nephew to have asked for the recipe so that he could alter it for himself.

Because it's obvious that said nephew called his grandmother up and demanded that she do what he wants. Ya know... cuz the OP said so

 

[Scurvy]

Because it's obvious that said nephew called his grandmother up and demanded that she do what he wants. Ya know... cuz the OP said so

You have a point. Okay, I retract what I said. I think that if the nephew called and asked for the recipe so he could alter it, or if he asked that she set aside a portion before adding sugar, then there's nothing wrong with what he did. If he called and tried to get her to completely change the entire portion, or if he flat out told her to use Splenda rather than sugar, then I think he was rude.