Beccabunny
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- May 31, 2007
Because the rules of the provider allow the child with autism to be accommodated easily and do not allow the peanut-allergy sufferer to control what other people eat. We accommodate the person who complies with the rules, minds their own business and doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.
When two needs conflict, someone loses out. There is no way to set up the world to accommodate everybody. That autistic kid can't demand that nobody shout in line for example, or that the one effect on Fantasmic that freaks him out be shut off for the showing he attends. Other kids have the right to make noise and live their lives and if the disabled kid can't cope, the disabled kid loses.
If flying on a plane with other people minding their own business and obeying the rules could KILL my kid... I cannot imagine what would be worth me taking that risk. I have a potentially fatal cigarette smoke allergy myself and if a place allows smoking I don't go there. My "right" to insist that nobody smoke where smoking is allowed is allowed is not something I am comfortable risking my life on, nor do I feel that it's responsible to place that in someone else's hands. The idea that I would get on a flight that allowed smoking is simply utterly outside my scope of reasonable. "Everyone should just not smoke for 6 hours" is not a good plan to keep me alive.
A previous poster brought up an example of a flight where peanuts were not served and passengers were asked not to open peanut products. The airline has the right to do that, even though most airlines will not. If a passenger MUST have a certain food that is not allowed, then that passenger should not be flying on the particular flight. Airlines have been known to reschedule passengers due to situations where two disabilities could not be accommodated on the same flight, and a severe food allergy is a recognised disability.