Educator overreaction and school ban inanity drama continues

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/hi ... 53949.html

Allergic reaction, sure, more like the student in question was a liability, and they do not want to be sued and lose their precious reputation and money.

Unrelated, the schools name is the definition of irony.

Scented toiletries were a huge problem when I was in high school (especially in marching band and colorguard). Some kids practically bathed in perfume and cologne, and I'd hate to imagine how bad it is when it's available in an aerosol form. The administrators will have to treat it like countless other items that are banned from campus due to kids being too immature to use them responsibly.

I've had to leave store lines before because of this, a little is fine, but some people use way too much. I used to just leave, now I say out loud "someone has a lot of perfume on and my throat is closing up" then I will say some thing to the effect about how some people can't handle it and I would go into anaphylactic shock if I stay. before I thought it would be rude, but if I had too much of some thing I would like to be told.

Thats not an over reaction. Axe body spray is the worst.

I hate Axe body spray. Whenever my littlest brother sprays that s**t on himself, it smells like he splashed it all over the walls of every room in the house. I had to vent out the house for an hour to make the smell go away by opening both doors, windows that are easy to open, and turning on both ceiling fans.

I work in a hospital.

Anyone doing direct patient care, OR having contact with patients.....transporters, x-ray techs, etc., have rules regarding perfume, heavily-scented deodorants, lotions, anything that could cause an allergic reaction, or, especially in post-op patients, nausea.

Years ago, a nurses' aide showed up at morning report in the Pediatrics department, wearing perfume that the head nurse deemed too strong.

She explained to her the effect this could have on sick children, and sent her to the ladies' room to wash it off.
She did, and worked the shift.

The next morning, she showed up for report, scented to high heaven, again.

The head nurse, seeing no regard for the patients, sent her off the floor.

And the nurses' aide was indignant!

Sylkat

You may doubt it, PM, but the objective facts in the report demonstrate not only that an ambulance was called, but that the EMTs were presented with a situation that they determined warranted taking the student to a hospital emergency room.

There's nothing wrong with using a critical eye. But when your assumptions fly in the face of the facts as reported, you're not being critical, you're being prejudicial.

I was not being critical of the student, I was pointing out the obvious fact that the school did not care about the girl's well-being, but only cared about liability.

There are additional pieces of information here...

The school district in question just got sued for (allegedly) having a student die without proper medical attention. That may have something to do with the new policy.

The school district in question also has the dubious distinction of being one of the few to sue A PARENT for bringing (mostly) successful special education appeals against the district. A federal jury (yes, this actually went to trial) heard the case and ruled against the School District. My understanding of the case is that there may have been ASD issues involved.

It seems to me that you are using some strange, new definition of the word, "obvious," that I am not aware of.

Where in this story do you see any evidence that supports your claim that the school (personified), did not care about her well-being?

Liability being discussed ad nauseam anytime this sort of thing comes up.

It is blatantly obvious because warnings and institutional bans are a result of litigation or fear thereof.

That is evidence of nothing but your prejudices.

Are you suggesting that I am not a caring physician when I ask a patient to sign a consent to treatment form? Am I being derelict in my duty when I take the time to tell a patient that the drug that I am prescribing may have certain side effects?

There are some of us on the planet who are blessed with the cognative capacity to be motivated by concern for other people and to take the steps mandated by our insurers to mitigate potential liability.

I wonder exactly what chemical in AXE body spray caused this student to have allergic reaction. It seems pointless to ban just AXE but not other body sprays. Don't all body sprays have more or less the same chemicals in them?

You see prejudice, I see being blunt about the over litigious nature of the American public.

Are you a physician in a place where the only objective of the healthcare industry is to put profit before helping your fellow man? I think not.

You do a great disservice to many.

"Only objective?" Surely individuals can be motivated by multiple objectives. Even if profit making was a person's primary objective, that profit comes from giving services to others. I practice medicine to make a living. Does my expectation of earnings negate the good that I do? I insure myself against error. My insurer takes steps to mitigate claims--not only their scope, but also the errors that give rise to them. Does this make my insurer the bad guy, or is my insurer encouraging my to be a more conscientious doctor?

I share your disaffection for the nature and scale of litigation in the United States. But I also recognize that it exists because this is how you have chosen to structure your approach to risk management. Civil litigation is, in many respects, a clearing house in which insurers trade off each others risks, and in which the uninsured seek to mitigate their risk. Are there better systems? I like to think so. But for all its faults, your system still functions at a much better level than that in many other places.

If you are going to complain about the system, you might do well to consider how you would improve the system. What would you do to make it work better? And what would be the potential unintended consequence of those changes? What would be the impact on consumers if insurers were limited in their capacity to mitigate losses through litigation? The money to pay out claims has to come from somewhere--and if litigation recoveries are gone, or diminished, then all that's left are premiums and return on investment. Given that return on investment can't be controlled, there is a cost consequence for all of us when insurers' recoveries are limited. Maybe that's a price that we should be willing to pay, but let's quantify it before we started throwing out baby, bathwater and tub.

Maybe you failed to understand me, in Canada, the objective of healthcare is to help your fellow man, in the US, the ONLY OBJECTIVE is profit regardless of the patient's well-being or in some cases, life or death. There are countless bills on the tables of many local, state, and federal legislative bodies to circumvent the litigious nature of the American public, but their chances of passing are usually slim because the insurers and attorneys have to make a profit. The only objective of insurers should be to pay for medical and other expenses and the fact the trial attorneys can make commercials promising $500,000+ settlements is outrageous.