Earlier this week an interesting story emerged of another unprecedented Human Rights case, to be heard by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. This time over the intrinsic evil that is, not banning dairy products, from eggs, to yogurt, to pizza, to pasta and on and on it goes, by Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Elementary School; when one, count them one girl, is so allergic to dairy products that if she comes into external contact with them, not just ingests them, but just comes into external contact with them, her life will be threatened. In other words, the mother wants the school to be forced by the government to give her child the same protection that schools have given children with tree nut and nut allergies; by, just as they have banned all foods containing nuts, banning all dairy products from the premises. So does she have a point?
Well that depends on whether or not you agree with the schools ban on all foods containing nuts. Since, if we as a society have deemed banning food, as an appropriate reaction to children with nut and tree nut allergies, then of course the mother has a point. Since why should the fact that it is only her child that is allergic prevent the same reaction from occurring with dairy products? Since don't we hold in this society that every child's life is sacred, and that anything is worth it if we could just save even one. Moreover, think of the child's self-esteem, why should she be segregated from the other students and banned from fun days, barbeques, from the lunch table with her friends etc.; simply because we as a society are so selfish that we refuse to not eat food and thus become malnutritioned and die.
See, this is the problem that we have gotten ourselves into because we have not gone at this problem of allergies and food from principles, but feelings. Since if banning food is truly the way society should view and deal with allergies and food in the classroom, and segregation is deemed inappropriate, then before long, once there is a child allergic to every type of food imaginable or at least the vast majority of food types, no one will be able to eat anything and our kids will all die or at the very least become malnutritioned and not develop properly. Why? All so that we can feel good about ourselves and say, "see we are such great parents by allowing the government to protect our dead and deformed children's self-esteem like this."
This is why even banning foods with nuts is an inappropriate response to nut allergies in the classroom. Since this suggests that society is somehow to blame for the fact that your child's nature has been negatively altered, so that they have obtained such a severe allergy that if they merely come into external contact with nuts or dairy products or whatever it is, there life will be threatened. When in reality you have to take that up with your God/gods, or yourself and your DNA if you aren't religious. Thus, because society has nothing to do with the fact that your child is like that, it has no responsibility to cater to their unique set of survival requirements. Moreover, the notion that it should, that government must step in and see to the well being of and take care of your child, means that you have, simply put, failed as a parent.
Moreover, the notion that your child, when their intrinsic nature is different than the average person's intrinsic nature, should be treated equally in all respects and thus be given the equal opportunity to participate in fun days, barbeques, the lunch table with friends etc. is nonsensical. Since things that have intrinsically different nature's cannot be properly said to be equal in all regards. Furthermore, the school is segregating her, not simply because she has an allergy and thus because she is intrinsically different, and because they want to destroy her self-esteem, but because of the specific nature of her intrinsic difference and because our society should believe in the principle of the preservation of life, and that life is more precious then self-esteem. Since as I alluded to above, what is the point of your child's self-esteem if they are dead or deformed; or all alone because everyone else is dead or deformed from malnutrition.
Also, to suggest that the school is the only one who has singled her out and treated her differently because of her allergy, and thus prevented her from doing things the rest of the kids are allowed to do and therefore the school alone should be punished, is nonsense. Since she as a mother does the same thing, and already prevents her daughter from doing all sorts of things, when kids all around her are allowed to do them; from disallowing her to go to many establishments with her friends or for her birthday (most notably restaurants), to disallowing her to go over to her friends house out of fear she will come into contact with dairy products over there. And if the mother says that is not true, then she is either willingly putting her child's life at risk and thus is indeed an unfit mother, or the allergy isn't as severe as the mother is making it out to be and thus her human rights violation claim and the result she wishes to obtain from it, which is the ban of all dairy products from all schools, is made even more nonsensical.
In conclusion, because banning all foods from the classroom is nonsensical and hazardous to the health of our children, making segregation the only option. This lady should not be declaring herself an unfit mother by demanding that government step in and take care of her child for her (for she could simply home-school her instead), but should instead be teaching her child how to deal with the segregation. Since, newsflash, your child is going to be around dairy products her whole-life, and around people who ingest them and live off them until your daughter dies, hopefully at the ripe old age of 120; and so she is going to eventually need to willfully segregate her own self from others simply in order to survive. So your daughter might as well learn to deal with it and get used to it. Instead of teaching her to be a spoiled child for the rest of her life, by teaching her that the whole world must stop for her and cater to her unique set of needs; especially when the action being preformed by the world that you are objecting to, has been a necessary action since the beginning of human existence, eating food in order to survive.