NASN new position statement

[Mfamom]

http://www.nasn.org/PolicyAdvocacy/PositionPapersandReports/NASNPositionStatementsFullView/tabid/462/smid/824/ArticleID/9/Default.aspx

[CMdeux]

:sigh:

Completely banning nuts or other foods is not recommended as it is 1) not possible to control what other people bring onto the school grounds, and 2) does not provide the allergic student with an environment where he/she can safely learn to navigate a world containing nuts.  When a ban is instituted, parents feel their child will not be exposed to allergens.  A ban can create a false sense of security ("Banning allergies from school", 2012).

Seriously??     Are they STILL misusing and abusing FAAN/AMF's quote made back a decade ago??

Maybe the stupid parents actually think that...

And really... GOOD GRIEF, already??  Didn't the hearing officer pretty much debunk this on in Mystic Valley??  I thought so.

I did like that they now acknowledge that federal law has something to say on the subject of management...

Federal laws including the American Disabilities Act, Individual with Disabilities Education Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protect the legal rights of students with allergies along with the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) which became law January 2011.  These laws protect students' individual rights as well as direct schools to develop voluntary guidelines on food allergy management while they prohibit preempting state laws (FMSA, 2010).   

But, as usual... they get it wrong, wrong, wrong when it comes to interpretation of what federal law MEANS here.  It can, too, trump state law if an individual child's needs demand that it do so. 



NASN has consistently ticked me off over the past ten years, and this document is a shining (glaring?) example of why.  In the one instance, they make statements of OPINION (as in the first quote above) with zero evidence to support those statements, and then later on make stinkers like this gem:

Entering school or changes in the school environment are stressful events, and many parents view these events as opportunities that increase their child's chance of exposure to allergens (Roy & Roberts, 2011).

Uhhhh... NO.  We don't "view" them that way-- they are that way.  Evidence backs that up.  Disruptions in routine and a lack of clear expectations and communication = disaster.  Period.  Several studies have said so.

[Janelle205]

While I think that there are a lot of times that bans aren't necessary, the fact is that sometimes they are, and organizations should really be giving more support to the people that do need them.

It's like my asthma.  I don't think that most people with asthma have the same ridiculous sensitivity that I do.  I'm not asking for family members to not smoke or wear perfume for a 'false sense of security' though.  I'm asking them to do it so I don't die.


And for preschool aged kids and the younger grades, bans are necessary.  You can not expect a four year old to display the level of vigilance needed to keep them safe in a room full of their allergen with young children that touch EVERYTHING.  I'm an adult, and I couldn't keep myself safe in a preschool classroom where my allergen was present.

[GoingNuts]

While I think that there are a lot of times that bans aren't necessary, the fact is that sometimes they are, and organizations should really be giving more support to the people that do need them.

It's like my asthma.  I don't think that most people with asthma have the same ridiculous sensitivity that I do.  I'm not asking for family members to not smoke or wear perfume for a 'false sense of security' though.  I'm asking them to do it so I don't die.


And for preschool aged kids and the younger grades, bans are necessary.  You can not expect a four year old to display the level of vigilance needed to keep them safe in a room full of their allergen with young children that touch EVERYTHING.  I'm an adult, and I couldn't keep myself safe in a preschool classroom where my allergen was present.

Perfectly stated Janelle - as usual.

[Mfamom]

I feel like nurses are good at handling an emergency (in most cases), but they seem to be really weak on understanding how to prevent a reaction in the first place. 

As much as I worried about ds having a rx in his room in elem., I worried just as much about his emotional well being....he would be very distracted when he wasn't sure what people were eating and constantly being left out of classroom activities that turned to food fest bothered him.

Also, in early elem. especially, sometimes it is difficult to advocate for yourself.  Teacher is trying to keep kids orderly, move on with lessons etc and many times they dismiss kids in attempts to keep order.  My ds was dismissed many times (put your hand down, go back to your seat, etc).  I blew once when ds had hives all over his arms and he was dismissed/told to sit down.  Nurse said well, your ds needs to learn to speak up.  EHEM...he tried and was told to sit.  what is he supposed to do when that happens!? 

[ajasfolks2]

Nothing like putting the    risk    of an attack of false sense of security on par -- or even above -- the real AND DOCUMENTED risk of anaphylaxis or death for the LTFA child.

[Mfamom]

I also hate the statements about "learning to live in a world full of your allergens".  Need to navagate life statements etc.
Different at school because you have to be there, options outside of school include non attendance etc.  I think this statement along with the false sense of security statements are total spineless copouts.

[Jessica]

does not provide the allergic student with an environment where he/she can safely learn to navigate a world containing nuts.

I always love this stupid argument (not). I liken it to letting your 5 or 6 yo child cross a busy street on their own or play at the park unsupervised or something similar. They'll have to learn to deal with strangers and busy streets someday right? Not to mention that they are 1) trapped at school without any way to get away from risky situations and 2) subject to authority from adults who they are supposed to obey but it seems the majority don't really get it.

[socks on a rooster]

I say that not banning allergens in a classroom setting creates a "false sense of learning." My 8 yr old daughter once ran from her classroom forgetting her homework and everything else because the teacher's daughter pulled out a bag of carrots in the back of the room which she thought were Cheetos. The only thing my daughter was learning was precisely how much danger she was in at any given time. Teacher could not wrap her head around the fact that chocolate indeed contains milk, even if they are on raisins. That's with a 504 plan. 

[Momcat]

Think they'd listen to us?

http://www.nasn.org/AboutNASN/ContactUs

[ajasfolks2]

Think they'd listen to us?

http://www.nasn.org/AboutNASN/ContactUs

We can always try.

Needs to be from UNemotional stance -- facts, studies, evidence of bans making things better/safer . . . anecdotal experiences (so far as more emotional situations) might be best separately?

This should be about the WHOLE child . . . and the WHOLE learning environment!

[YouKnowWho]

While I think there doesn't need to be a blanket answer to not removing allergens from the classroom, nor do I think all classrooms need to have removal of all allergens.  This truly needs to be a case by case basis. 

Okay fine, my son can have gluten and egg containing snacks in his class.  But at the same time, I am not crazy about him touching those items to graph with and frankly cooking in class using wheat is a personal nightmare.  Yes, real world.  I get that.  My DS has to wear a mask if we are going to be in our grocery store buying produce because of the location of the bakery.  Do you think he wants to do that in the classroom or is it better he just be asked to leave (which is what the preschool teacher asked us to do for the pancake making lesson).  Neither is exactly inclusive.  But my point is - there are no clear cut rules for any of us dealing with allergens in the classroom. 

[CMdeux]

Think they'd listen to us?

http://www.nasn.org/AboutNASN/ContactUs

No.  I don't.

The reason is that there is language in this statement that is (deliberately, I should think) indicative that parents are, by definition, rather 'emotionally invested' to a degree that prevents any FA parent from objectively evaluating risk.

In other words, that parents are not "experts" in management (by definition) because they are parents.  The reason that planning needs to include them is to make them FEEL more comfortable, and to make sure that the school gains their cooperation. 



Until NASN begins to understand that its members would be well-advised to LEARN about management quirks from the parents, because those parents are quite often experts in that particular child's medical management by the time schools see those children...


well, I don't think that anything that a group of parents says to them is going to get through this kind of hubris, honestly.  I hate to sound bitter, but there it is.

[rainbow]

This is really bothersome.

I do think we should write to NASN.  The parent is actually the expert on that child's food allergy management.  Parents do focus on PREVENTION, not just treatment, which is the focus of nurses.

Remove food from the classroom and most of these problems are a non-issue. 

Nurses are totally underestimating the stress on the child of being around his allergens in a classroom, a place where the child should be able to learn safely and inclusively.

I do think we need to separate the *real* risks from those that are not significant....peanuts/nuts account for most (90%+) reactions in schools.  Spillable milk also significant concern for person with anaphylactic dairy allergy....otherwise no one will listen. 

Really think we should be writing to NASN or FAAN/FAI to address this.

[twinturbo]

I also hate the statements about "learning to live in a world full of your allergens".  Need to navagate life statements etc.
Different at school because you have to be there, options outside of school include non attendance etc.  I think this statement along with the false sense of security statements are total spineless copouts.

It certainly has no clinical relavence. My phone is uncooperative at the moment but I was trying to search for that excerpt in the citations from "Section 504 Complance Advisor" does anyone know if that is some sort of industry journal? I'd like to source that directly.

Found info that it's a private publication newsletter from LRP Publications. Will update as I find more. Plan on rectifying it if I can maybe forward it to OCR.