Twinkle Toe Shoes cause epileptic seizures?

[lemondog]

Just found this thread, haven't read any of the replies, but I want to share a true story with you...

I worked with a woman for 9 years who had severe epilepsy. At least 3 grand mal seizures a week. We could not even turn on the flourescent lights in the office because they set her off, so everything was lit by table and floor lamps.

Anyway, one day I brought in my 2yo daughter who was wearing her light up tennis shoes. She walked past my coworker who had enough in her to groan..."the shoes" before she dropped into a grand mal seizure right in front of my child. My DD was of course terrified and screaming, I was trying to get ahold of my coworker and get her away from her desk (all we could do during the attacks was try and protect her from herself, really).

I just wanted to let you know that ABSOLUTELY flashing light shoes can be a health hazard to those with epilepsy. To the OP, I am sorry your school did not have it in writing somewhere that these shoes were not allowed, likely they had never run into this situation before. Hopefully now that they know this will prevent another family from going through the same problem.

 

[bumbershoot]

I have no idea if you are lying but let me put it a better way. While I may notice them (and I don't notice them) they are not noticeable in a distractable way. To me they are no more noticeable than having tinkerbell on your shoes. You look and think "cute" and then it is off the radar.

This might be accurate for you and your eyes. It's not for me. And many others. When the parents are all sitting watching the gymnastics class at the Y, every single time a girl walks by wearing those shoes, many of us notice them. The people who haven't seen them before comment on them, and those of us who have seen them respond. They are noticeable to many people, even if they aren't to *you*.

This seems to be a battle of snowflakes if you ask me.
"Your snowflake can't wear the latest fad because it will hurt my snowflake." "No! My snowflake needs to wear her cool shoes."

This whole "snowflake" thing that people do on the dis just feels so condescending... Same condescension as calling things "mommy wars" when they are important discussions of serious beliefs about one of the most serious and important things in the world (how to raise children).



It's sad that so many are focused on "is there a law" or "is this in the rulebook" or "oh my wallet"...when this is about what's right. Surely the teacher isn't making this up; why WOULD she? Surely the child or their parents aren't making it up, that the shoes have or could cause a seizure. Why WOULD they?

A friend of mine has epilepsy...sometimes she can feel the seizures coming and and get on the floor. Other times, she can't. Once she didn't notice it, and had a huge seizure in the bathroom, with all the porcelain fixtures in there. Her whole face was bruised from hitting the sink and tub. She was in the hospital after it she was so injured. When she was out with her husband, he got the nastiest glares from people who thought he'd beat her up because that's what her face looked like. Heck, think about poor Jett Travolta, who hit his head during a seizure and died from it.

Do we want so badly to believe that someone out there is lying about this, or do we want to help a child or adult NOT to have a seizure?

 

[Scurvy]

Just found this thread, haven't read any of the replies, but I want to share a true story with you...

I worked with a woman for 9 years who had severe epilepsy. At least 3 grand mal seizures a week. We could not even turn on the flourescent lights in the office because they set her off, so everything was lit by table and floor lamps.

Anyway, one day I brought in my 2yo daughter who was wearing her light up tennis shoes. She walked past my coworker who had enough in her to groan..."the shoes" before she dropped into a grand mal seizure right in front of my child. My DD was of course terrified and screaming, I was trying to get ahold of my coworker and get her away from her desk (all we could do during the attacks was try and protect her from herself, really).

I just wanted to let you know that ABSOLUTELY flashing light shoes can be a health hazard to those with epilepsy. To the OP, I am sorry your school did not have it in writing somewhere that these shoes were not allowed, likely they had never run into this situation before. Hopefully now that they know this will prevent another family from going through the same problem.

Your poor daughter! That must have been so frightening for her. And I feel bad for your coworker. I can't imagine trying to live a normal life, going to school and then having a job, when you know so many different things can send you into a seizure like that. It must be very difficult.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

Just found this thread, haven't read any of the replies, but I want to share a true story with you...

I worked with a woman for 9 years who had severe epilepsy. At least 3 grand mal seizures a week. We could not even turn on the flourescent lights in the office because they set her off, so everything was lit by table and floor lamps.

Anyway, one day I brought in my 2yo daughter who was wearing her light up tennis shoes. She walked past my coworker who had enough in her to groan..."the shoes" before she dropped into a grand mal seizure right in front of my child. My DD was of course terrified and screaming, I was trying to get ahold of my coworker and get her away from her desk (all we could do during the attacks was try and protect her from herself, really).

I just wanted to let you know that ABSOLUTELY flashing light shoes can be a health hazard to those with epilepsy. To the OP, I am sorry your school did not have it in writing somewhere that these shoes were not allowed, likely they had never run into this situation before. Hopefully now that they know this will prevent another family from going through the same problem.

I'm not saying her seizure was not caused by your daughter's sneakers, but I think it was horrible of her to say that it was your daughter's sneakers. Considering she was known to have "at least 3 grand mal seizures a week" regardless of the precautions being taken, did she need to make you and your daughter feel guilty about this one? Obviously I see things from a different perspective than others.

 

[luvmy3]

It's sad that so many are focused on "is there a law" or "is this in the rulebook" or "oh my wallet"...when this is about what's right. Surely the teacher isn't making this up; why WOULD she? Surely the child or their parents aren't making it up, that the shoes have or could cause a seizure. Why WOULD they?

I think its because the OP's dd is being singled out here. Its not right to tell one child (although there could be more) that she can't do something for the safety of another student, and then let the rest of the school do that very thing that could put the student and others with the same conditions at risk.

 

[krcit]

This might be accurate for you and your eyes. It's not for me. And many others. When the parents are all sitting watching the gymnastics class at the Y, every single time a girl walks by wearing those shoes, many of us notice them. The people who haven't seen them before comment on them, and those of us who have seen them respond. They are noticeable to many people, even if they aren't to *you*.




This whole "snowflake" thing that people do on the dis just feels so condescending... Same condescension as calling things "mommy wars" when they are important discussions of serious beliefs about one of the most serious and important things in the world (how to raise children).




It's sad that so many are focused on "is there a law" or "is this in the rulebook" or "oh my wallet"...when this is about what's right. Surely the teacher isn't making this up; why WOULD she? Surely the child or their parents aren't making it up, that the shoes have or could cause a seizure. Why WOULD they?

A friend of mine has epilepsy...sometimes she can feel the seizures coming and and get on the floor. Other times, she can't. Once she didn't notice it, and had a huge seizure in the bathroom, with all the porcelain fixtures in there. Her whole face was bruised from hitting the sink and tub. She was in the hospital after it she was so injured. When she was out with her husband, he got the nastiest glares from people who thought he'd beat her up because that's what her face looked like. Heck, think about poor Jett Travolta, who hit his head during a seizure and died from it.

Do we want so badly to believe that someone out there is lying about this, or do we want to help a child or adult NOT to have a seizure?

Great post. I am amazed at the things people will 'fight' about. What is the big deal? Sometimes we all need to take a minute and look at the big picture.

 

[luvmy3]

I'm not saying her seizure was not caused by your daughter's sneakers, but I think it was horrible of her to say that it was your daughter's sneakers. Considering she was known to have "at least 3 grand mal seizures a week" regardless of the precautions being taken, did she need to make you and your daughter feel guilty about this one? Obviously I see things from a different perspective than others.

I see that the same as you. My first thought was what causes those 3 seizures a week, and maybe it was just pure coincidence that her dd came in with those shoes.

 

[Tinkh]

I actually do think that since there were more children that had the shoes on kind of adds to the validity of the reason that OP was given. Obviously, the nurse was dealing with an issue that had been brought up on the fly. There seems to be a genuine situation that someone is concerned with due to a medical issue. In this instance, I would completely err on the side of caution. Why should this whole situation be escalated further if it does not need to be? The OP seems to have a beautiful family with strong ties to their school (*waves Hey OP, I checked out your TR). I would not rock the boat on this and just save the shoes for days when the child is not at school. I do think the shoes are distracting, but I would first and foremost try and accommodate the medical issue.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

Let me assure, I am not lying. I can't help but notice them, and I certainly would rather not. I find them quite annoying. Unfortunately for me, flashing LEDs at the corners of my vision trigger my migraines sometimes.

I wasn't being a jerk. I meant that since I don't know you I have no way to know if you are lying or not.

No one, I assume. Nobody has to. Legally the school has to accomodate the child with the medical problem. There is no law which says they have to accomodate the child who needs new shoes. If someone uses their entire shoe budget on a novelty product which their child is then not allowed to wear at school, maybe they can find a charitable organization to help them acquire replacement shoes. Or maybe the school would be okay with the student wearing the shoes as long as her parents covered the lights with duct or electrical tape so the flashing isn't visible, as several posters have mentioned.

It is not a novelty product. They are tennis shoes. They are meant for gym class etc. which is required for school. They just happen to light up. The point I am trying to make is that the child who has the light up sneakers needs those sneakers for school. They need them to participate in class. (gym) They also have a right to an appropriate education. That is a law too. They were given the supplies by their parents and now they are told -not a school wide ban- just this child- that they cannot wear the shoes that they need for class to be prepared. While I get that if someone has a legitimate medical issue of course I would do my best to accomodate them. However, I personally do not believe this is an issue in this case. Sorry but I don't.

 

[Tinkh]

I'm not saying her seizure was not caused by your daughter's sneakers, but I think it was horrible of her to say that it was your daughter's sneakers. Considering she was known to have "at least 3 grand mal seizures a week" regardless of the precautions being taken, did she need to make you and your daughter feel guilty about this one? Obviously I see things from a different perspective than others.

The woman was sinking into a seizure for goodness sakes lol. I do not think she was intentionally trying to make a 2 year old feel bad. She was trying to signal that she was being triggered from what the PP was saying.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

The woman was sinking into a seizure for goodness sakes lol. I do not think she was intentionally trying to make a 2 year old feel bad. She was trying to signal that she was being triggered from what the PP was saying.

I'm not saying she was blaming them intentionally, but for as frequent as her seizures were, I'm not sure she even knew what was triggering them. Maybe it wasn't the sneakers and she just assumed it was.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

The woman was sinking into a seizure for goodness sakes lol. I do not think she was intentionally trying to make a 2 year old feel bad. She was trying to signal that she was being triggered from what the PP was saying.

I am curious as to what kind of work this women did that just a kid walking by could set her off. Was she working on a computer? Did she have a phone line?

 

[mamacatnv]

No one, I assume. Nobody has to. Legally the school has to accomodate the child with the medical problem. There is no law which says they have to accomodate the child who needs new shoes. If someone uses their entire shoe budget on a novelty product which their child is then not allowed to wear at school, maybe they can find a charitable organization to help them acquire replacement shoes. Or maybe the school would be okay with the student wearing the shoes as long as her parents covered the lights with duct or electrical tape so the flashing isn't visible, as several posters have mentioned.

Wishing On a Star outlined the steps that need to be taken for the school to legally accomodate the medical problem. Its not cut and dry for some random school nurse to decide nor should it be.

There are lots of wingnut parents out there who are afraid of all sorts of things and yet many of you would be up in arms if a school had to accomodate something that you all didn't deem accomodating to special needs.

What if a parent was afraid that the water in the classroom contained chemical fumes and demanded the water fountains in the classrooms/hallways be shut off? Or the textiles in the building were toxic and their child needed to be housed in a room with no paint, carpet or other toxic compounds. What if a parent thought the plates the lunches were served on somehow caused their kids food to be contaminated and demanded the school use only glass? The glue in the binding of texbooks or the chemicals used in paper processing for said textbooks etc...... None of this is farfetched. Somewhere we have to draw a line and as a society start to push back a bit on overbearing big brother and overreactive parents.

Why should the parent who bought the shoes (novelty or not it really is not relevant) be penalized? Why should the parent of the shoe owner have to concede to something that from all I have read is purely conjecture, suposition and assumptions to say nothing of being IMO a bit overreactive.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

Wishuponastar outlined the steps that need to be taken for the school to legally accomodate the medical problem. Its not cut and dry for some random school nurse to decide nor should it be.

There are lots of wingnut parents out there who are afraid of all sorts of things and yet many of you would be up in arms if a school had to accomodate something that you all didn't deem accomodating to special needs.

What if a parent was afraid that the water in the classroom contained chemical fumes and demanded the water fountains in the classrooms/hallways be shut off? Or the textiles in the building were toxic and their child needed to be housed in a room with no paint, carpet or other toxic compounds. What if a parent thought the plates the lunches were served on somehow caused their kids food to be contaminated and demanded the school use only glass? The glue in the binding of texbooks or the chemicals used in paper processing for said textbooks etc...... None of this is farfetched. Somewhere we have to draw a line and as a society start to push back a bit on overbearing big brother and overreactive parents.

Why should the parent who bought the shoes (novelty or not it really is not relevant) be penalized? Why should the parent of the shoe owner have to concede to something that from all I have read is purely conjecture, suposition and assumptions to say nothing of being IMO a bit overreactive.

Thank you!

 

[PrincessKsMom]

Little Bobby has an accomodation to allow his seizure dog to go to school with him. Little Jimmy in his class and other children in the school are allergic to dogs. Who wins? Would someone please tell me where we draw the line? Who decides whose needs are more important? Again, if there is someone having seizures because of OP's daughter's shoes, THEN THE WHOLE SCHOOL NEEDS TO BAN THE SHOES, not just for one person. Why can't someone at least concede that point? And again, who says it's a student? I might very well be an annoyed teacher who is distracted by them who just doesn't want them in her/his class. This seems more likely since the school is only asking one person not to wear them.

 

[descovy]

It is not a novelty product. They are tennis shoes. They are meant for gym class etc. which is required for school. They just happen to light up. The point I am trying to make is that the child who has the light up sneakers needs those sneakers for school. They need them to participate in class. (gym) They also have a right to an appropriate education. That is a law too. They were given the supplies by their parents and now they are told -not a school wide ban- just this child- that they cannot wear the shoes that they need for class to be prepared. While I get that if someone has a legitimate medical issue of course I would do my best to accomodate them. However, I personally do not believe this is an issue in this case. Sorry but I don't.

Light up shoes ARE a novelty product. Tennis shoes are not. You can get tennis shoes for $12.99 at Target and they will do the same job as $45 canvas light up sneakers.

No one buys twinkle toes because they are a fabulous sneaker. They buy them for the attention getting, novelty lights. As someone else mentioned... the actual shoe quality isn't even that great... especially compared to your average $45 sneaker.

BTW the OP isn't even making as much a stink about this...

 

[Scurvy]

It is not a novelty product. They are tennis shoes. They are meant for gym class etc. which is required for school. They just happen to light up. The point I am trying to make is that the child who has the light up sneakers needs those sneakers for school. They need them to participate in class. (gym) They also have a right to an appropriate education. That is a law too. They were given the supplies by their parents and now they are told -not a school wide ban- just this child- that they cannot wear the shoes that they need for class to be prepared. While I get that if someone has a legitimate medical issue of course I would do my best to accomodate them. However, I personally do not believe this is an issue in this case. Sorry but I don't.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. A few years ago we bought my son a nice winter coat on sale before school started, only to discover once school started that no coats with hoods were permitted at that school any longer. We were able to buy him another coat, fortunately. If we hadn't been able to, I would have sold whatever I had to or gone to a charity if need be, but I would have gotten him a different coat somehow. I would not have expected the school to buy him one.

The shoes are a novelty. They aren't standard shoes, they are shoes with flashing lights. They are as much a novelty as Heelies or those squeaking shoes. Many schools have already banned those products and hopefully the rest will follow suit. They are a distraction, they are annoying, they encourage kids to fidget and kick things all the time and they can aggravate some medical conditions. There is no good reason to allow them at school and there are plenty of reasons to ban them.

You don't believe there's a medical issue in this case. Fortunately for the child in question, you don't have to believe it. You apparently are firmly convinced that no one can possibly notice the shoes despite the fact that several people on this thread have told you that they can. You do not believe that they can cause migraines despite the fact that several migraine sufferers on the thread have told you that they can. You do not believe they cause seizures despite the fact that one poster says she actually saw her daughter's shoes cause one. There's obviously no convincing you that you are wrong unless the kid's actual doctor comes and explains it to you, and I have my doubts you would even believe that. But it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. It doesn't matter if parents of the other kids in that class believe it, either. All that matters is whether the school administrators believe it, and fortunately for the child in question they do believe it. And frankly that's all a moot point anyway, since the school has every right to ban the shoes simply for being a distraction.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. A few years ago we bought my son a nice winter coat on sale before school started, only to discover once school started that no coats with hoods were permitted at that school any longer. We were able to buy him another coat, fortunately. If we hadn't been able to, I would have sold whatever I had to or gone to a charity if need be, but I would have gotten him a different coat somehow. I would not have expected the school to buy him one.

The shoes are a novelty. They aren't standard shoes, they are shoes with flashing lights. They are as much a novelty as Heelies or those squeaking shoes. Many schools have already banned those products and hopefully the rest will follow suit. They are a distraction, they are annoying, they encourage kids to fidget and kick things all the time and they can aggravate some medical conditions. There is no good reason to allow them at school and there are plenty of reasons to ban them.

You don't believe there's a medical issue in this case. Fortunately for the child in question, you don't have to believe it. You apparently are firmly convinced that no one can possibly notice the shoes despite the fact that several people on this thread have told you that they can. You do not believe that they can cause migraines despite the fact that several migraine sufferers on the thread have told you that they can. You do not believe they cause seizures despite the fact that one poster says she actually saw her daughter's shoes cause one. There's obviously no convincing you that you are wrong unless the kid's actual doctor comes and explains it to you, and I have my doubts you would even believe that. But it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. It doesn't matter if parents of the other kids in that class believe it, either. All that matters is whether the school administrators believe it, and fortunately for the child in question they do believe it. And frankly that's all a moot point anyway, since the school has every right to ban the shoes simply for being a distraction.

You are right. There has been no compelling argument yet that has made me change my mind. So that is my opinion. The one thing that I will disagree with you on is that the administrators are not the one calling about this problem. The school nurse is. She is not an administrator and is in no position to make rules and demands like this.

 

[mamacatnv]

You are right. There has been no compelling argument yet that has made me change my mind. So that is my opinion. The one thing that I will disagree with you on is that the administrators are not the one calling about this problem. The school nurse is. She is not an administrator and is in no position to make rules and demands like this.

Exactly - I am no more convinced now than I was 15 or so pages ago, this has been a long drawn out bleeding heart thread that has no actual factual basis that supports the nurses statements from what I have read and I agree that the "nurse" was way out of line. If it were my kid they would be wearing their blinkie toe shoes along with all the other kids at the school.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Okay, so, let's all assume that there is this poor child in the DD's class who is going to go into an epileptic seizure and die because of these shoes.... Then, why are a big percentage of the other kids in the school wearing the shoes???? This child is very obviously going to be around the school property, lunch, recess, gym, library, music, etc... etc... etc... and be subjected to these shoes.

Why was the OP called to interrupt her entire day to go switch out her DD's shoes, when the child that needs to be accomodated should have been removed to a risk-free area, and/or had HER parents called.

Like I said many times, this is not about compassion for a real and bonafide issue.

It is about how the school has handled it.
ALL WRONG...
Totally and completely WRONG.....
No question.
No amount of flaming about being 'uncompassionate' or any other completely false accusation could change my views on this.

AND THIS IS COMING FROM SOMEBODY WHO WOULD NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS BUY THOSE SHOES FOR MY KID, EXPECT TO SEND THEM TO SCHOOL, OR EXPECT THEM TO BE ALLOWED AT SCHOOL.