- Welcome to Food Allergy Support.
Posted by asdf
- January 29, 2016, 01:34:21 PMBLUF: Change the arguments and solution.
It fails to answer policy question in terms of consequence. Removal of allergens is deemed (by authors' personal opinion mixed in with medical and academic, no less) too difficult and unnecessary. Fine, then enact and support enforceable policy that explicitly states the plane will be diverted to seek emergency medical services as per doctor's orders without delay upon patient or caregiver identified anaphylaxis with use of epinephrine. NOT Joe Blow on the ground, or any other individual not qualified to interpret anaphylaxis to the degree necessary for the affected individual in situ. Else this is no different than any other protracted inaction. There already exists a corpus of data sufficient to show risk; only diminishing return will be found in rehashed meta analyses. From a policy standpoint it is worthy of consideration to see anaphylactic patients within the air travel industries' categorical approach to accommodating disability as a cost vector. The position thus far has concentrated on allergen removal with the prerequisite to 'prove it' explicitly linking aerosol exposure to inducing late stage or full on anaphylaxis. Forget that. It's a distraction tactic to keep everyone busy. The goal post will be moved if that requirement is ever met. The real problem here is plane diversion to seek medical services, and that has nothing to do with the government's stated prerequisites on clear causal links to aerosol inhalation.
It fails to answer policy question in terms of consequence. Removal of allergens is deemed (by authors' personal opinion mixed in with medical and academic, no less) too difficult and unnecessary. Fine, then enact and support enforceable policy that explicitly states the plane will be diverted to seek emergency medical services as per doctor's orders without delay upon patient or caregiver identified anaphylaxis with use of epinephrine. NOT Joe Blow on the ground, or any other individual not qualified to interpret anaphylaxis to the degree necessary for the affected individual in situ. Else this is no different than any other protracted inaction. There already exists a corpus of data sufficient to show risk; only diminishing return will be found in rehashed meta analyses. From a policy standpoint it is worthy of consideration to see anaphylactic patients within the air travel industries' categorical approach to accommodating disability as a cost vector. The position thus far has concentrated on allergen removal with the prerequisite to 'prove it' explicitly linking aerosol exposure to inducing late stage or full on anaphylaxis. Forget that. It's a distraction tactic to keep everyone busy. The goal post will be moved if that requirement is ever met. The real problem here is plane diversion to seek medical services, and that has nothing to do with the government's stated prerequisites on clear causal links to aerosol inhalation.
Posted by CMdeux
- January 29, 2016, 10:23:10 AMWell, kind of, anyway.
I find it startling that they don't advocate removal of an allergen from a flight when there is a known risk with an individual with this type of reaction history, for example.
I can't possibly imagine a worse set of circumstances under which to evoke anaphylaxis. It truly makes NO sense. I mean, they list all of the precautions that the individual is supposed to take...
but that doesn't really square with the rest of the anecdotal reports in the review, either. None of that is really anything like a failsafe under conditions aboard, say, a trans-continental flight.
I find it startling that they don't advocate removal of an allergen from a flight when there is a known risk with an individual with this type of reaction history, for example.
I can't possibly imagine a worse set of circumstances under which to evoke anaphylaxis. It truly makes NO sense. I mean, they list all of the precautions that the individual is supposed to take...
but that doesn't really square with the rest of the anecdotal reports in the review, either. None of that is really anything like a failsafe under conditions aboard, say, a trans-continental flight.
Posted by GoingNuts
- January 29, 2016, 10:15:57 AMHalle-freaking-lujah. Someone believes us.
Posted by eragon
- January 29, 2016, 05:23:57 AMhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651849/#!po=0.543478
am not sure if I haven't posted this already.
am not sure if I haven't posted this already.