2 students may be expelled over inhaler.

[Justice wanted]

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/01/28/2-students-face-expulsion-for-sharing-an-asthma-inhaler/


MONUMENT, Colo. (CBS4) – She says she was just trying to help a friend, but now two students from Monument face expulsion after one loaned another her asthma inhaler.

Alyssa McKinney thought her friend, Breana Crites, was having an asthma attack during gym class. It happened at Lewis-Palmer Middle School. Both Eighth-graders were suspended

* * *
Later in the Article

“I thought I was having and asthma attack and she’s seen people have asthma attacks,” Crites said. “So she thought I was having one too and she was worried. She’s like, ‘Just use this, it will help you.’ “

Crites suffered an allergic reaction to the inhaler and had to visit the school nurse. The principal found out what happened and suspended both girls
* * *
___________________________________________________________________________
I am torn. I can see see why the girls did what they did. My question is WHY wasn't the teacher noticing the girl's breathing issue? Why did it take another student to get the girl help?


I honestly think the school is wrong in this case. It wasn't like they where doing it to get high or anything. The girl was in trouble and the other girl was helping.

As I have said many times Zero Tolerence policies = Stupity at it's finest.

In this case the school's lesson to students is if you see someone in danger just sit there and don't do anything about it.

Think about someone giving another person CPR. Just because a person gave signs of needing it. That person is unconscious so do you sit there and contemplate do they really need CPR? Maybe I should wait until someone smarter than me tells me what to do or maybe I should wait until the EMTs get here. (maybe they are 5 or 10 minutes away). One would hope you jump in do the best that you can to help the person.

This is another step in creating a society that has learn to not care for one another. Care only about yourself.

[Scootaloo]

1. Yup, your last sentence hit the nail on the head

Goose-stepping towards a utopia of Randian "superman individualists"

[sharp_stick]

2. I love zero tolerance

this will teach those kids to sit back and do absolutely nothing the next time they see someone in trouble.

Anytime you see a place/institution with a zero tolerance rule you know that place/institution is being run or controlled by a bunch of people that have just given up and decided it's a lot easier to write some shit down than use their brains.

[leftyohiolib]

35. you teach them to go get help. get the nurse, a teacher or call 911

kids are not paramedics

[sharp_stick]

39. Yeah that would have

been a good idea but what does this have to do wrt the zero tolerance is for morons rant you replied to?

[pnwmom]

161. Neither are all other Good Samaritans.

And Colorado has a law that should protect them.

A child could die of an asthma attack while a teacher waited helplessly for 911 to get there. Should the teacher offer her own inhaler in such a situation? Or just let the student die?

Colorado's law:


http://home.mesastate.edu/~jerry/gmnc/Colorado%20Good%20Samaritan%20Law.htm


13-21-108. Persons rendering emergency assistance exempt from liability. (1) Any person licensed as a physician and surgeon under the laws of the state of Colorado, or anv other person, who in good faith renders emergency care or emergency assistance to a person not presently his patient without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident, including a health care institution as defined in section 13-64-202 (3), shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions made in good faith as a result of the rendering of such emergency care or emergency assistance during the emergency, unless the acts or omissions were grossly negligent or willful and wanton. This section shall not apply to any person who renders such emergency care or emergency assistance to a patient he is otherwise obligated to cover.

[rhett o rick]

169. And if they dont, you dont use your brains you just expell them.

No tolerance is for idiots. It means, "I dont want to use my judgement so I go literally by some stupid-ass policy, some stupid-ass nitwits came up with". Hire people that have common sense and let them use it.

[bluebendphoto]

3. ridiculous

I'm a former teacher of 10 years in elementary. I eventually quit because I couldn't stand the way the red tape and big brother bureaucracy in the US is going. I have talked to teachers in my old school and they tell me that they now HAVE to attend about 9 hours of "continuing education" PER WEEK. just ridiculous.

[Sanity Claws]

181. 9 hours a week!

That's more than an extra work day every week. Absolutely ridiculous.

Where is this going on?

[Warpy]

4. There are a couple of issues here

First, sharing prescription meds shouldn't be done. The helpful kid knows that now because her friend had to visit a hospital because of a reaction to it. I sincerely doubt she will ever do that again and it undoubtedly acts as a cautionary tale to other students.

Second, the school's reaction. It is over the top. It is utterly ridiculous. This would have been handled by a stern talking to with the parents present back in a saner age. Now that we live in a totalitarian society with its silly "no tolerance" rules, there are two kids who don't deserve it facing expulsion as though they were gang leaders pushing meth.

If something shouldn't be tolerated in schools, it's martinets who overreact to things that could be settled by an embarrassing meeting with parents present.

[redqueen]

7. +1

[Justice wanted]

8. It said nothing of the girl going to the hospital ONLY to the Nurse's office. My thought she was

only given benadryl.

[Warpy]

76. Then this is doubly insane

No tolerance rules work only for people with no brains.

[rhett o rick]

173. .

[Capitalocracy]

12. The rules change about sharing prescription meds when someone isn't breathing.

I have asthma, and having an asthma attack sucks. Helping someone who's having one is the right thing to do. The fact that she was allergic to this particular inhaler is something that they had no way of knowing, and which is valuable information to have going forward.

EpiPens are only available by prescription too, but if one person has one and another person's throat is closing up due to an allergic reaction, it's time to share prescriptions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. She wasn't having an asthma attack; the other girl just thought she was

What she 'had no way of knowing' was what was actually the problem with the girl.

And where does it say she 'wasn't breathing'?

[pnwmom]

162. How do you know she wasn't?

Diagnosing asthma isn't always that easy even for a professional. Many people have them for a long time before they're diagnosed. In this case, the girl herself thought she was having an attack. How would her friend know she wasn't?

“I thought I was having and asthma attack and she’s seen people have asthma attacks,” Crites said. “So she thought I was having one too and she was worried. She’s like, ‘Just use this, it will help you.’ “

[muriel_volestrangler]

163. Because the article states she doesn't have asthma

So some professional has actually made the diagnosis.

[pnwmom]

165. My husband and I were told by two different asthma specialists

that asthma sometimes cannot be diagnosed -- even by a specialist -- unless a person is actually having an attack. Not everyone has asthma symptoms between attacks.

So all that could be said of this girl is that no professional has diagnosed her with asthma.

[muriel_volestrangler]

172. OK, but other doctors don't say they have to wait until they witness an attack

Your primary care doctor will diagnose asthma based on your medical and family histories, a physical exam, and test results.

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/asthma/diagnosis.html

it does say the physical exam alone may not be enough; but it doesn't say a specialist must be present during an attack. It lists the tests.

[pnwmom]

174. Test results might be negative, too.

Medicine is still an art almost as much as a science.

[yellowcanine]

19. Sharing prescription meds is a huge no no. The girl could have died. So there needs to be some

consequences. Now I agree that expulsion is over the top. But the punishment should fit the crime - maybe have both students research the risks of taking prescription meds not prescribed by a doctor and sharing the results of their research with their fellow students in health classes.

[pnwmom]

164. Asthma attacks can kill. Even a first asthma attack can kill.

And 911 doesn't always get there in time -- every year there are children who die having untreated asthma attacks. So it isn't obvious to me that it would be wrong to offer an inhaler, particularly in light of Colorado's Good Samaritan law.

But I do agree with you that "the punishment should fit the crime" -- and that expulsion is unwarranted.

[tsuki]

72. I was lucky to be educated by the WWII generation. They were

the strictest, most tolerant bunch of teachers ever. They would have taken us in a room, and talked us almost to death. Pointed out, while we thought we were helping, this is what could have happened, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah. They would have talked to us so long and so earnestly that we would have been screaming in our head, "suspend us already".

I take that back. They would have noticed the student gasping and taken action. They were those kind of teachers.

[Saphire]

111. + 1

[HuckleB]

96. +1

[sudopod]

5. "The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference." --Elie Wiesel nt

[CreekDog]

6. This is to show that it's more important to punish a student for making an error

than to teach them to make better decisions later on.

but we can't have that --i mean, this is a school we're talking about.

[jberryhill]

9. "Crites suffered an allergic reaction to the inhaler and had to visit the school nurse"

"Alyssa McKinney thought her friend, Breana Crites, was having an asthma attack"

She thought her friend was having an asthma attack, so she gave that friend something that could have killed her.

The girl was in trouble and the other girl was helping.

The other girl was not "helping". This was a prescription medicine with serious side effects, and which provoked an allergic reaction.

In your CPR example, any CPR class teaches what signs to check first before administering CPR. If you DO administer CPR to someone who doesn't need it, and you injure them, yes you will be held liable in most states.

There is no indication that Ms. Crites had ever had a diagnosis of asthma. There are a lot of reasons why someone may be having trouble. An eighth grader is in NO position to diagnose an illness and certainly in NO position to administer a prescription drug to someone without either a diagnosis or a prescription.

She is lucky she didn't kill her friend.

[jeff47]

15. You clearly don't practice law or medicine

In your CPR example, any CPR class teaches what signs to check first before administering CPR. If you DO administer CPR to someone who doesn't need it, and you injure them, yes you will be held liable in most states.

Nope.

As long as it was reasonable to believe CPR was necessary, you're in the clear. So if you tackle someone who is walking around and give CPR, you're in trouble. If you find someone unconscious and give CPR, you're not liable.

Assuming you aren't a licensed medical professional (Paramedic, nurse, doctor, etc). They have different rules.

There is no indication that Ms. Crites had ever had a diagnosis of asthma.

And if this incident was about to lead to her diagnosis of Asthma? It's not like people are born knowing they will later develop asthma. It's one of those diseases that can wax and wane during a child's development.

An eighth grader is in NO position to diagnose an illness and certainly in NO position to administer a prescription drug to someone without either a diagnosis or a prescription.

Yes, which is why the question should be "Why didn't the teacher notice?" One would think a child in respiratory distress would draw a gym teacher's attention. Is it that there's 80 kids in the class thanks to budget cuts, or did the teacher ignore it?

She is lucky she didn't kill her friend.

The medicines in inhalers aren't that dangerous. You can tell because the friend wasn't even hospitalized.

Not saying the kid was right, but the kid is A FUCKING KID. The appropriate response is to explain to the kid why her actions were dangerous and send her on her way. The adults utterly failed in their responsibility and punishing the hell out of the kid won't fix that.

[jberryhill]

17. Good Samaritan statutes do not cover gross negligence or recklessness

It's not a matter of attacking a healthy person. If you were found to have engaged in gross negligence or recklessness in providing aid to another in an emergency you will be found liable for resulting injury. That is the default rule under Sections 323 and 324 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

There are state-by-state variations by statute as applied to EMTs, etc.

Whether one is grossly negligent in determining to apply CPR is not a subjective test.

If an incident of this kind happened in the future, and it was shown that the school did not maintain and enforce a policy of this kind, they would certainly be on the hook.

The children involved were certainly old enough to understand that one is not to share prescription medicines, and the facts of the story are insufficient to determine whether the girl having trouble would have brought that to the attention of the teacher or the nurse had it not been for the other girl providing the inhaler.

[jeff47]

110. Yes, that's what the tackling example was about

That would be gross negligence or recklessness. But finding someone lying on the ground, unconscious wouldn't be. It is reasonable that someone could fail to detect a pulse, even though one is present. And failing to detect a pulse, start CPR. And CPR will very likely break a rib or two so there will be injury.

If an incident of this kind happened in the future, and it was shown that the school did not maintain and enforce a policy of this kind, they would certainly be on the hook.

They don't have to have a moronic "zero-tolerance" policy. They can have a policy that lets administrators determine appropriate punishment. In fact, a "zero-tolerance" policy is far more legally problematic. It wouldn't be difficult to find one incident where it was not enforced.

The children involved were certainly old enough to understand that one is not to share prescription medicines

13. That's definitely below the level of "certanly". Plenty young to not completely understand the danger. After all, it makes her feel better, so it will probably make her friend feel better too. Also a competent administration would have discussed the issue with any kids who need an inhaler first, instead of relying on punishment after-the-fact.

and the facts of the story are insufficient to determine whether the girl having trouble would have brought that to the attention of the teacher or the nurse had it not been for the other girl providing the inhaler.

It was gym class. So the gym teacher is supposed to be supervising the exercise and looking for children in distress. If the 2nd kid was having enough trouble to be offered an inhaler, it's pretty clear the gym teacher should have noticed something was amiss. What's not available is the reason why the gym teacher did not do so.

[pnwmom]

175. Here's the Colorado statute.

Do you really think that it wouldn't protect someone offering an inhaler? If it wouldn't, then the law is pretty pointless. Anyone but a medical professional would probably be afraid of making a mistake.

Colorado's law:


http://home.mesastate.edu/~jerry/gmnc/Colorado%20Good%20Samaritan%20Law.htm


13-21-108. Persons rendering emergency assistance exempt from liability. (1) Any person licensed as a physician and surgeon under the laws of the state of Colorado, or anv other person, who in good faith renders emergency care or emergency assistance to a person not presently his patient without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident, including a health care institution as defined in section 13-64-202 (3), shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions made in good faith as a result of the rendering of such emergency care or emergency assistance during the emergency, unless the acts or omissions were grossly negligent or willful and wanton. This section shall not apply to any person who renders such emergency care or emergency assistance to a patient he is otherwise obligated to cover.

[yellowcanine]

21. "The medicines in inhalers aren't that dangerous. You can tell ... friend wasn't even hospitalized."

This is seriously flawed reasoning. Aspirin isn't that dangerous either - unless you happen to be allergic to it or take it when you have certain viral diseases and develop Reyes syndrome.
The fact that the girl wasn't hospitalized does not mean she wasn't at some risk of severe illness or death. It just means that thankfully she did not have as severe a reaction as she could have. Any allergic reaction is potentially dangerous.

Besides this misses the point that students should know not to diagnose sudden illnesses in fellow students, let alone try to medicate them. An adult should be notified immediately and if none is available, 9-11 called.

[jeff47]

112. And a severe allergic reaction would have required at least seeing a doctor if not hospitalization

And why, exactly, are we to assume students are born knowing triage?

When I've had to deal with prescriptions and schools, the nurse held the drugs and the kid had to go to the nurse to get them. For cases where quick treatment was necessary (such as asthma), the kid could carry the drug but had to meet with an administrator at the beginning of every year, who would explain that sharing the drug is dangerous and forbidden by school policy. That's not what they do at this school.

The kid's 13. In her mind she's still immortal and has probably entered the "I know everything" stage. So left to her own devices she's gonna do something like this. The proper response is still to explain what she did wrong and why. Not to throw her out of school.

[JoePhilly]

166. You have this correct.

As an Asthmatic myself ... I often carry an inhaler. And if I encountered a person who was in respiratory distress, and I did not see a realistic alternative, I'd allow them to use it.

Being unable to breathe is a terrible feeling. Most people who experience it panic, which simply makes the situation worse. They start to breathe faster, and try to breathe deeply, which makes them cough. Which causes them to try to breathe deeply, and so on.

As you correctly state, the side effects of most prescription inhalers are minor, and rare.

And as you point out, no adult seemed to notice any of this. The child who tried to help should have asked an adult prior to taking action ... but that child's instinct to help a friend was the right one.

I'm curious what the reaction was. Some inhalers will make one's heart race a bit. And I wonder what the "alergic reaction" was ... or if it was an actual "allergic reaction" at all.

[pnwmom]

16. But the question is, is suspending both girls a reasonable response to their well-intended actions?

Yes, they made a mistake. But does every wrong thing that happens in a school have to be met with that consequence? I think suspending students should be rare, but it seems to be becoming all too common these days.

[stevenleser]

64. I agree. Intent is the key here, as it is in all questions of crime

If you kill someone, depending on your intent and the circumstances, you can either go scott free, or face life in prison or execution with many variations in between.

[pnwmom]

82. And Colorado, like many states, has a Good Samaritan law,

designed to encourage adults to help in medical emergencies. Why should this girl face a consequence as serious as expulsion when no adult would have been liable for any consequence?

http://home.mesastate.edu/~jerry/gmnc/Colorado%20Good%20Samaritan%20Law.htm


13-21-108. Persons rendering emergency assistance exempt from liability. (1) Any person licensed as a physician and surgeon under the laws of the state of Colorado, or anv other person, who in good faith renders emergency care or emergency assistance to a person not presently his patient without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident, including a health care institution as defined in section 13-64-202 (3), shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions made in good faith as a result of the rendering of such emergency care or emergency assistance during the emergency, unless the acts or omissions were grossly negligent or willful and wanton. This section shall not apply to any person who renders such emergency care or emergency assistance to a patient he is otherwise obligated to cover.

[Journeyman]

10. And still, some people who wonder why I have zero respect for the American education bureaucracy...

[Jack Rabbit]

11. When my younger son was in school, he experienced zero tolerance regimes

It was left to me to pick up the pieces after he was suspended from middle school for asking another inmate to repay a loan in a dramatic but clearly tongue-in-cheek manner. My son, probably the smallest boy in his class, got two bigger kids to stand behind him as he "threatened" the debtor. When I talked with the principal about the situation, she told me she could have had my son arrested and charged with extortion. I'm sure it would have stood up in court.

My son just graduated from college with a BS in sociology with an emphasis in criminology. Yes, his run ins with "the Man" as a teenager influenced his academic discipline.

[provis99]

13. American schools are the nation's training ground for fascism.

[laundry_queen]

66. +1 nt

[Drale]

14. There is a very easy way to fight bullshit like this

When I was in 8th grade, I got blamed for writing swears on a desk, which I did not do. The principal threatened me with suspention, my parents got involved and all they had to do is say "you'll be hearing from my laywer" and the entire thing was dropped and I got an apology.

[Jennicut]

18. You can have pretty bad reactions to albuterol

if you are indeed allergic to it. Albuterol is the medicine used in a lot of inhalers. Poor kids didn't know any better so I wouldn't suspend them. However, one can react really badly to an inhaler. Sharing prescriptions is usually not a good idea because one never knows how they will react to certain medicines.

[Justice wanted]

20. Normally I don't agree with sharing drugs either. But given the facts in the situation I have

to salute this girl for trying to help her friend.


Keep in mind the girl who owns the inhaler has Ashma. She has seen Ashmatic attacks and probably been through a few herself.

So when her friend had her episode (though we don't know what caused her friends breathing problem) she probably saw signs that reminded her of her own attacks.


Too me she reacted to help her friend not to hurt her.

It wasn't like they where using the inhaler to get high. She thought it was a legit medical emergency plan and simple.

[leftyohiolib]

27. beana didnt have asthma and the other girl is not a doctor

breana should have been taken to the nurse.

[Capitalocracy]

22. I don't remember any kind of test to see if I was allergic before I was prescribed albuterol

If this girl went to the doctor for her asthma, the doctor would've prescribed it, and then she would've ended up having the allergic reaction anyway. The fact that this girl gave it to her doesn't make much of a difference in that regard.

[leftyohiolib]

29. thats speculation but if a doctor gave it to her and she had a reaction the school wouldnt b liabel

[pnwmom]

185. The Good Samaritan law would protect the student and thus the school from liability.

That is the point of the law.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

23. The legal defense is necessity.

Perceived necessity to save a life.

[pnwmom]

84. And Colorado has a Good Samaritan law. Why should a child be subject to consequences

when an adult would not?

http://home.mesastate.edu/~jerry/gmnc/Colorado%20Good%20Samaritan%20Law.htm


13-21-108. Persons rendering emergency assistance exempt from liability. (1) Any person licensed as a physician and surgeon under the laws of the state of Colorado, or anv other person, who in good faith renders emergency care or emergency assistance to a person not presently his patient without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident, including a health care institution as defined in section 13-64-202 (3), shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions made in good faith as a result of the rendering of such emergency care or emergency assistance during the emergency, unless the acts or omissions were grossly negligent or willful and wanton. This section shall not apply to any person who renders such emergency care or emergency assistance to a patient he is otherwise obligated to cover.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. DRUGGGZ!! DRUGGZZ!! ZERO FUCKING TOLERANCE!!! DRUUUGGGGZZZZ!!!!!!

Hell, they should just give them both 'the chair'; I bet Newt wouldn't be scared to say so.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

54. Maybe he would sentence them to community service

doing janitorial duties.

[tsuki]

75. Too bad we don't have zero tolenance to banksta gangsta fraud. We've

got plenty of tolerance when it comes to the 1% thieving.

[leftyohiolib]

25. [perhaps it didnt happen in front of any teacher and she's not asthmatic

from the article
Crites suffered an allergic reaction to the inhaler and had to visit the school nurse. The principal found out what happened and suspended both girls
also
“I would never give someone a medication and risk them dying,” McKinney said. but thats exactly what she did. if youre a child you dont give someone a prescribed drug
Crites doesn’t have asthma.
if breana crites went into a coma and died everyone here would be saying sue the school and where was the teacher and why did the scholl let this happen.
lawsuits are the reason for zero tolerance.

[Justice wanted]

26. But what happens if you are on the street and you see someone is about to step in front of

a bus do you not shout or pull them back to keep them from getting hurt? Do you risk a lawsuit than?


The girls parents saw no malice either.


The idea that we are teaching our children that if you see a person in destress you do not help them is a frightening step we are taking in this society.

We start teaching kids to turn a blind eye than what type adults are we going to have?

[leftyohiolib]

30. we arent talking about 2 hypothetical people were talking about children

you dont teach them to ignore a person in distress you teach them to go get help or call 911.
kids shouldnt be playing paramedics.

[Justice wanted]

33. The adult in charge was not around. And what does one do if they can help when the parmedics

are not quick enough? IF you listen to 911 calls the first thing they tell you is IF you can GIVE aid to that person than do so.

[Snake Alchemist]

38. Correction.

They just weren't right there. They may very well have been around.

[Justice wanted]

40. BUT they didn't react to someone having Respritory destress.

[Snake Alchemist]

42. Describe in detail her respiratory distress.

She could have had a mild cough that did not appear concerning.

[Justice wanted]

44. The girl who owns the inhaler has Asthma and have seen people in distress with breathing problems

I don't think she would have given the medicine for a mild cough.

[Snake Alchemist]

45. I have lupus and know the symptoms.

Would you be comfortable with me giving you my meds if I saw what I thought were the symptoms?

[Justice wanted]

51. Now you are comparing apples to oranges! You are talking about a illness and a LIFE THREATENING

situation!

I have a friend who has lupus as well so don't go there!


Like I said before IF you are comfortable what happen to those girls and you think that THIS country should have a Zero Tolerence so be it. I find the school reacted wrong and are teaching people not to care for one another!

[Snake Alchemist]

53. I also know the symptoms of a heart attack.

What pills can I administer if I see the symptoms? Shortness of breath is a sign.

Another question is if this girl had died from the reaction to the medication what do you think the reaction should be?

[Justice wanted]

55. I would hope that if you know the symptoms of a heart attack and someone is displaying the

sympthoms you would react with some sort of LIFE SAVING measures instead of playing this silly game
!


I stand by the girl and will continue too!

[Snake Alchemist]

56. So I could give them some of my nitro pills if I see someone short of breath?

Good to know.

You did not answer the 2nd question.

[Justice wanted]

58. OMG you are IMPOSSIBLE I would think that if the girl had died the people would have realize

this other girl was trying to help the girl!


HONESTLY I would not like to trust with my life or the life of any of my relatives because IF they where in a life or death situation I would by all these questions you would be so worried about getting SUED or doing the wrong thing you'd forget to call 911!

[Snake Alchemist]

60. Just because you are "trying" does not make it the right thing to do.

Once again, if the girl had died from the medication what do you think the appropriate reaction would be? Or what would you have done if it was your daughter that had died.

[Justice wanted]

63. That is YOUR OPINION! IF I had a daughter in that same situation in that same situation I

would have NOT blamed that girl for trying to help! NOR would I sue!

[Snake Alchemist]

65. I would most certainly blame the school for not supervising the use of medications.

I would also blame the girl and her family for what amounts to medical malpractice.

Would you blame a doctor that botched a surgery if he was "trying to help"? Of course not. Respiratory distress could be ANYTHING from heart issues to lymphoma. A person with no medical knowledge can make matters a lot worse in a short period of time.

[Justice wanted]

70. AND THAT IS WHAT MAKES YOU DIFFERNENT FROM ME! YOU SEE BLACK AND WHITE I SEE SHADES

OF GRAY and I'm not playing your freakin what if game anymore because your ractional is going TOO far away from facts and just mind boggling insane. You compare two completely different situations and are just going round and round in circles! IF it is an attempt to make me say I was wrong and BELIEVE as you do it won't work!

[Snake Alchemist]

80. You seem agitated.

May be signs of a heart issue. I suggest defib if possible.

[Justice wanted]

81. I just can't stand stupid!

[Snake Alchemist]

83. I'm only trying to help. nt

[Justice wanted]

88. NO you are not helping. You are trying to push your point of view on me.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

146. No. Actually you're not trying to help

Your words ably demonstrate the falseness of your claim.

[HuckleB]

109. Do you see the world you want?

You want a world where no one helps another.

Wow!

[pnwmom]

105. Lupus is a chronic condition, not an emergency.

However, if you had an Epi-pen because you were allergic to bee-stings, and you saw someone having a bad reaction to a bee-sting, I would hope you'd share your Epi-pen.

[Snake Alchemist]

106. Lupus can be an emergency. Trust me.

Better comparison would be if I saw someone that I thought was having an allergic reaction, should I stab them with my pen. (I actually have one of those in my pocket right now).

[pnwmom]

120. Okay, so would you use your Epi-pen on someone who had had a bee sting

and suddenly couldn't breathe?

I would hope so. And in most states, you would be protected under the Good Samaritan law.

[Snake Alchemist]

124. What if I didn't know if they had been stung?

I just thought it might be some allergic reaction to something? What if it was a small child (I've actually thought about this because of the dosage amount)?

[pnwmom]

140. You didn't answer the question. What if you knew a person had been stung,

and that person suddenly couldn't breathe, and you had your Epi-pen handy. Would you withhold it?

As to your question, if a person suddenly was panicking because of a closed-up throat and I thought it was an allergic reaction, yes, I would take the chance of using my Epi-pen (if the person wanted me to -- or if the person was not breathing and unconscious). That's a good question about the dosage that I will ask my doctor about.

[Snake Alchemist]

145. Apples and oranges.

If I knew for sure he had been stung and was having a reaction is quite different from "maybe, might, sorta looks like which was the situation here.

Funny, you should mention that. We just had a situation like that a few weeks ago at the dinner table. Person took a shot of alcohol and then got up and began turning red, then blue and making odd movements. Turns out there was a bottle cap at the bottom of the shot glass. Glad I did not stab him with my epi-pen, but it was scary.

He ended up dislodging it on his own.

[pnwmom]

147. He needed a Good Samaritan to give him the Heimlich.

But I'm glad he was able to dislodge it on his own.

[Snake Alchemist]

149. We had no clue what was going on.

He had just drank a liquid so choking was not at the forefront of our minds. He also wasn't using the usual choking body language. He will be from now on though.

[leftyohiolib]

43. that isnt what happen breana had an allergic reaction an still made it to the nurse

if she made it to the nurse while having a reaction she could have made it there while she wasnt having a reaction. people at 911 may tell you that but what they dont ask is if you have any of your prescription drugs around to give the person in need of help. aid like cpr ways of stopping bleeding ot treament for shock. they dont want you to start giving them your meds.

[pnwmom]

113. No. If her airways were closing up, the albuterol could have opened them

and made it more possible for her to walk to the nurse's office.

We don't know what this "allergic" reaction was. Sometimes, even in people who are supposed to use albuterol, there can be an initial feeling of irritation -- but then it goes away and the breathing quickly improves.

There is another situation that you apparently are unaware of. If you had an Epi-pen for bee stings and you encountered someone whose throat was closing up because of a bee-sting reaction, the "people at 9/11" would hope that you would use that Epi-pen on that person.

[Snake Alchemist]

114. Or it could have masked a much more serious condition. nt

[pnwmom]

87. Colorado has a Good Samaritan law, so if this girl offered her inhaler to someone in the park

who appeared to be having an attack, she most likely wouldn't have been liable.

http://home.mesastate.edu/~jerry/gmnc/Colorado%20Good%20Samaritan%20Law.htm

13-21-108. Persons rendering emergency assistance exempt from liability. (1) Any person licensed as a physician and surgeon under the laws of the state of Colorado, or anv other person, who in good faith renders emergency care or emergency assistance to a person not presently his patient without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident, including a health care institution as defined in section 13-64-202 (3), shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions made in good faith as a result of the rendering of such emergency care or emergency assistance during the emergency, unless the acts or omissions were grossly negligent or willful and wanton. This section shall not apply to any person who renders such emergency care or emergency assistance to a patient he is otherwise obligated to cover.

[joeglow3]

28. I am glad to see DU is back to opposing zero tolerance

After seeing so many teachers support forcing a kid to piss himself in the name of zero tolerance, this is refreshing.

[leftyohiolib]

32. a kid pissing him/herself is better then the kid killing his/her friend because

the friend is allergic to the scripted drug. true?

[Justice wanted]

34. I would rather a child try and help another child than stand by and do nothing. Standing there

and ignoring a possible life and death situation is FAR worse in my mind than someone trying to help!

[Snake Alchemist]

37. She was having a headache so I gave her my....nt

Insert what you would be comfortable with and what you would not be comfortable with.

[Justice wanted]

46. Let's put you in that situation. You see someone having problems breathing. You call for help but

it is not coming quick enough. Do you stand by and do nothing or do you do your best to help!

THIS GIRL knows what respritory distress is! She was trying to aid someone in need of help!

Honestly if you believe in zero tolerance and believe that the schools reaction was just I do not wish to live in that world.

[Snake Alchemist]

49. Rewind there.

She called for help? The girls never claimed that.

I would have done an emergency trach. I've seen that done for a respiratory blockage.

[backscatter712]

61. That's right. All children are taught to do emergency trachs at the age of seven. n/t

[Snake Alchemist]

62. Probably seen more trachs on TV than pharmacological knowledge. nt

[A Simple Game]

86. That would have worked except for one thing.

Schools also have zero tolerance for anything that could be considered a weapon. No blade or sharp object, no trach. Or were you just going to drive the gutted pen into her throat?

[Snake Alchemist]

91. Use the pen and then the empty tube. nt

[leftyohiolib]

71. lets not go doddering off into hypothetical land. that isnt what happened

stop trying to craft a scenario that didnt exsist. if she had breathing problems( which may or maynot be the truth) she could have and should have gone to the nurse

[pnwmom]

90. A headache isn't an emergency. An asthma attack can be. Are you opposed to Good Samaritan laws?

Or do you think they should only apply to adults?

Here is Colorado's:

13-21-108. Persons rendering emergency assistance exempt from liability. (1) Any person licensed as a physician and surgeon under the laws of the state of Colorado, or anv other person, who in good faith renders emergency care or emergency assistance to a person not presently his patient without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident, including a health care institution as defined in section 13-64-202 (3), shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions made in good faith as a result of the rendering of such emergency care or emergency assistance during the emergency, unless the acts or omissions were grossly negligent or willful and wanton. This section shall not apply to any person who renders such emergency care or emergency assistance to a patient he is otherwise obligated to cover.

[Snake Alchemist]

95. A "headache" could be an aneurysm. An "asthma attack" can be a cough.

When you have zero medical training it is grossly negligent.

[pnwmom]

104. An asthma attack can lead to death, and you weren't there, so you have no way

of knowing how serious it appeared to be.

I think the girls should be given the benefit of the doubt. They would be under the Good Samaritan law.

[Snake Alchemist]

107. No, but we know 1 had time to take it out and give it to the other girl.

Have to assume there was some sort of instruction since it's not obvious (I use 2 different kinds)

[jeff47]

117. Are you operating under the delusion that she doesn't know how to use her own inhaler? (nt)

[pnwmom]

118. Does the fact that it took a minute or two mean it wasn't an emergency?

Not under any law I've ever heard of.

[leftyohiolib]

48. wth is wrong with people here you act like there are only 2 choices,feed the sufferer with w/ meds

u have or stand by and do nothing. here are some other choices you take her to a nurse, go get the nurse or a teacher or some adult you call out for someone wth a cell phone. you dont risk her life by experimenting with your scripts. are there any parents here?

[joeglow3]

69. So, intent has zero bearing on a crime?

[leftyohiolib]

74. there was no crime commited here.

she broke a zero tolerance rule therefore intent has zero bearing. that breathing problem, for all we know could just be a lie made up to give cover to the transgression. not all kids are innocent angels theyre just normal kids

[joeglow3]

85. And those rules threaten the safety of children

How many kids, in that situation (assuming it played out that way), would say "fuck it" because they don't want to risk getting in trouble. That is the problem with these idiotic zero tolerance policies.

[pnwmom]

92. The zero tolerance rule conflicts with the state's Good Samaritan law.

An adult in the same situation would be protected by Colorado law, and there's nothing in the law that exempts children.

[chrisa]

31. Another story about idiot school admins.

Oh my...

[Snake Alchemist]

36. I can totally understand the schools reaction.

They are likely to be sued.

[pnwmom]

94. Why? The state's Good Samaritan law says that a person can't be held liable

for offering medical assistance to another.

[Snake Alchemist]

97. This wasn't an emergency.

She was not on the floor gasping for air.

[pnwmom]

102. How do you know? She was appearing to be having an asthma attack,

according to both girls. Were you there? Have you seen a video?

Should the girl with the inhaler waited till the other girl was passed out and unconscious before trying to help?

[Snake Alchemist]

103. The one girl had time to grab an inhaler and give it to the other girl and I assume advise how

to use it. She could have just shouted for a teacher at the top of her lungs.

[jeff47]

119. They're nowhere near that hard to use

Especially since the first girl could have "operated" it for the second. The instructions would be "breathe deep".

Oh yeah, that's gonna take hours and a video in health class to explain.

[Snake Alchemist]

122. I have 2. First blow out until your lungs are empty. Then breathe deep.

See? Even you got it wrong.

[jeff47]

127. So in your mind "exhale first" would take an hour to explain? (nt)

[Snake Alchemist]

130. About 5 seconds to get out, 15 seconds to explain, 5 seconds to hand over...

and about another 15 seconds to use the thing.

I should know. 3 time a dayer here.

Plenty of time to get a teacher.

[pnwmom]

155. And what could a teacher do? A student could die in five minutes from an untreated asthma attack

while the teacher was still on the phone with 911.

Haven't you ever heard about people dying within minutes because their inhalers were empty? There isn't always time to get professional emergency help.

[Snake Alchemist]

168. LOL. Thank goodness she acted.

I don't know why they even have a school nurse. ROFL.

[pnwmom]

176. Our middle school shares a nurse with two other schools.

And I don't know what you think is funny about an asthma attack.

[Snake Alchemist]

177. What good are they?

The students are a much better resource and adept at making snap judgements.

[pnwmom]

178. A student with an inhaler might be of more use than a nurse doing her shift

at another middle school.

Or even a nurse sitting in her office without an inhaler.

[Snake Alchemist]

179. Try opening a DU thread saying that you are having strange symptoms and ask

for advice. The reaction should tell you something.

[pnwmom]

125. How do you know kids weren't calling for a teacher? And what could a teacher have done

if the child was having a life-threatening asthma attack?

Wouldn't it be better, if you saw someone having an asthma attack, to provide an inhaler to prevent it from worsening? If you waited until you KNEW it was life-threatening . . . the person would be unconscious and unable to use the inhaler -- or dead.

[Snake Alchemist]

128. They did not claim to be.

We can only go by what they have said.

Was she having an asthma attack? Has that even been diagnosed?

Maybe she had medical training, maybe she could have got the nurse, maybe she should would have called the paramedics.

Looks like they got her fast, appropriate treatment when she had the reaction.

[pnwmom]

134. We don't know that she even had an allergic reaction -- just that she felt better later.

As I said, albuterol can feel like an irritant at first, before the airways open up.

[Snake Alchemist]

135. Sure we do.

"Crites suffered an allergic reaction to the inhaler and had to visit the school nurse. The principal found out what happened and suspended both girls."

We also know there is a nurse on staff.

[pnwmom]

136. You still haven't explained why this wouldn't fall within the protection of

Colorado's Good Samaritan law, which allows anyone to give medical help, without fear of liability, in case of an emergency. Any one of the listed signs below could indicate an emergency -- including trouble talking, struggling to breathe, or breathing hunched over.

Do you really think the student should be EXPELLED for trying to help? Even if there might have been time to wait for 911 help to come?

http://www.pedipress.com/pdfs/School%20Emer%20Guide%203.2.pdf

Asthma Emergency Guide
an assessment tool for teachers, aides and coaches “Rule of Nine”

DANGER SIGNS: Call 911 if you see any ONE of the following:
• Trouble walking or talking
• Child is struggling to breathe
• Lips or tips of fingers are gray or blue
• Peak flow less than 50% of predicted or personal best
• Child is breathing hunched over
After calling 911, call the office and tell them to contact a parent.

[Snake Alchemist]

137. I would say it falls under gross negligence if I was a lawyer.

Person had no diagnostic or medical training to speak of.

I think one of the biggest dangers would have been to mask something that may have been much more serious.

[pnwmom]

138. But the Colorado Good Samaritan law doesn't require any medical training

and exempts anyone who tries to help in an emergency from civil liability.

An adult who tried to help in this situation would be exempt from liability under this law. Why shouldn't a student also be protected from negative consequences?

[Snake Alchemist]

139. So you can do anything if it's to try to help? I doubt it works that way.

Person faints. I try to use a rock to open the skull to relieve pressure on the brain.

Only problem is he's a diabetic and it's just low blood sugar.

Am I exempt from liability? Why or why not?

[pnwmom]

141. Read the law. I've posted it here in several places.

And you know as well as I do that opening the skull with a rock is not at all comparable in risk or possible benefit to sharing an asthma inhaler. No one would argue that cracking someone's skull with a rock is a reasonable medical procedure for a layperson to undertake. Sharing an inhaler that most people would not be harmed by is a very different thing.

[Snake Alchemist]

142. I am not a lawyer.

I am asking you if you believe it works that way. What if I thought the rock was the only way and was trying to be a good samaritan?

What are the risks with an inhaler? You know they make you test them out before they give them to you in the dr.s office.

[pnwmom]

143. I wouldn't believe you if you said that -- or I'd think you were a nut case.

But the vast majority of people can safely use an asthma rescue inhaler -- allergic reactions to albuterol, fortunately, are rare.

Cracking someone's head open with a rock would almost certainly lead to death. Sharing an asthma inhaler would be very unlikely to do so. I just don't see how you can equate the situations.

[Snake Alchemist]

144. But I would still be a good samaritan.

What if I used a drill?

There is a reason you need a prescription and have to test them in front of the dr.

Like I said, I would worried that it would mask something worse.

[pnwmom]

148. I think, if these cases were to go to a jury,

that they would look at how reasonable the measures were.

An asthma inhaler is unlikely to cause damage worse than an asthma attack because allergic reactions are very rare. Therefore, it would be reasonable for a Good Samaritan to offer one.

Cracking open the skull of anyone with a rock wouldn't be a reasonable response for a Good Samaritan or anyone else.

Comparing these two situations is just silly.

[Snake Alchemist]

150. Who knows? I would have to see cases where the law was invoked/invalidated. nt

[FloridaJudy]

192. Or she could have felt her heart racing

And thought she was having an allergic reaction. That's another fairly common side effect of albuterol. If she'd gotten it from a doctor, he or she would have warned her of this in advance.

I don't think her friend was right to lend her the inhaler. But I think we have to distinguish between offering a rescue inhaler - or a Midol, for that matter - to a friend in obvious distress, from sharing some crack cocaine. That would require deciding each case on its merits, which people seem increasingly reluctant to do. Much easier to engrave a rule on stone and follow it no matter what.

I remember reading recently of a kid who was stripped searched because the school suspected her of carrying a concealed Advil.

We've officially gone nuts.

[leftyohiolib]

186. no and neither were you. is that what was happening? since you werent there you dont know

is the girl a medical proffesional? is the girl in anyway qualified to diagnose a health issue of another? no. there are many reasons for breathing problems (if thats what was really going on) the girl is not qualified to be dispensing meds.
kids do stupid things then make up lies to cover their assess
"Should the girl with the inhaler waited till the other girl was passed out and unconscious before trying to help?" another 2 solution thinker. it's either give what ever script you have on hand or stand by and do nothing. WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE WAS TO RUN AND GET A NURSE or another adult or someone with a cell phone. schools are full of people and she should have gotten help

[HuckleB]

98. Baloney.

They should be sued for suspending kids for no good purpose.

[Iggo]

41. "Zero Tolerance" is for idiots.

[truebrit71]

47. Zero Tolerance is for those that can't (won't) think independently...

...so yes, you are right, it is for idiots...

[leftyohiolib]

50. zero tolerance is for schools that dont want to be sued b/c of the actions of kids.

they have other kids to think as well as those 2 idiots

[Justice wanted]

52. Zero Tolerence is what is wrong with this country TODAY! We are teaching people not to care for

one another or help one another!

[leftyohiolib]

77. no thats not it. we're teaching kids to let doctors and emts adminster drugs

[backscatter712]

59. Right. I'll just chalk you in with the folks who are cheering for wrecking the lives of two children

Assuming we accept that the kid needs to be punished for this...

What's wrong with an afternoon of detention? Why is expulsion necessary?

Zero tolerance is zero intelligence.

Zero tolerance is a tool for authoritarians used to create petty reigns of terror.

It's not proportional, it's not just.

Zero tolerance should not be tolerated.

[leftyohiolib]

68. their lives are hardly wrecked. although if alyssa killed breana but doing this their lives would be

permanent expulsion isnt necessary but cetainly suspension and you do it so the other kids realize this is serious and to go get help instead of giving someone your scripted drugs

[Iggo]

78. How is zero tolerance protecting the school from being sued?

[jeff47]

121. Zero-tolerance is what lets them get sued.

All ya gotta do is find one incident since the policy was put in place that wasn't punished.

You will easily find at least one. Now you get to sue far more easily than if they didn't have a zero-tolerance policy.

[Initech]

57. There's a special place in hell for the inventor of ZTP's

[leftyohiolib]

67. anyone consider that the breathing problem could be a lie,kids do that.

alyssa uses the inhaler breana says let me try that alyssa says ok. breana tries it has a reaction they goto the nurse and knowing the zero tolerance policy says breana had a breathing problem in an attempt to cover their butts. its possible

[Justice wanted]

73. OH Brother

:eyeroll:

[FloridaJudy]

93. I don't know of anyone who uses albuterol to get high.

It wasn't ritalin or oxycontin, for crying out loud!

BTW, allergic reactions to it are very rare. More often it's used to treat allergic reactions.

[pnwmom]

101. +1000. n/t

[pnwmom]

99. Why would you assume that the kids are lying? I've had three kids with inhalers and nobody

treats these things like toys or as something to get high on.

Without actual evidence that the students were lying, the principal shouldn't be punishing either one of them, zero tolerance or not. The state of Colorado has a Good Samaritan law which should have applied in this situation.

[jeff47]

123. Wow are you desperate to justify this. (nt)

[backscatter712]

153. This mindset is why our schools are so much like prisons...

[Posteritatis]

158. Occam called; he has a few words for you about how you're treating his razors. (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

89. Don't Americans tell people with prescription drugs not to share them?

Especially children?

There's one solution - the friend ought to have been told not to share her inhaler. Then she'd have known she could have been harming her friend by pretending she was a doctor with the ability to do an instant diagnosis and prescription.

[pnwmom]

100. Would you say the same thing if someone's throat was closing up after a bee sting

and someone else didn't share her Epi-pen?

There is a controversy right now over that situation. The school nurse couldn't save the life of a child, because the only Epi-pens in the office were designated for children other than the one who was dying. In that state, at least, someone has proposed a law to address that situation.

But Colorado right now has a Good Samaritan law which should have protected this girl. It would have, if she were an adult -- and the law, as written, doesn't distinguish between adults and children.


13-21-108. Persons rendering emergency assistance exempt from liability. (1) Any person licensed as a physician and surgeon under the laws of the state of Colorado, or anv other person, who in good faith renders emergency care or emergency assistance to a person not presently his patient without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident, including a health care institution as defined in section 13-64-202 (3), shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions made in good faith as a result of the rendering of such emergency care or emergency assistance during the emergency, unless the acts or omissions were grossly negligent or willful and wanton. This section shall not apply to any person who renders such emergency care or emergency assistance to a patient he is otherwise obligated to cover.

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. Not being legally liable does not mean that it's a good idea

so the wording of the law is irrelevant. If the school nurse had decided it was an asthma attack and was so serious that immediate treatment with someone else's drugs was the only way to save her, then at least someone with medical training would have been making the decision, rather than a child. I would tell someone who thought that someone's throat was closing up due to an allergy "seek medical help". I wouldn't suggest they play doctor and try to diagnose it and treat them themselves.

[pnwmom]

116. Suppose it wasn't a "good idea." Do you agree with the principal's recommendation to expel her

from school for a "not good" but well-intentioned idea?

Or do you think this principal is taking an extreme position that conflicts with the Good Samaritan law?

[muriel_volestrangler]

129. Expelling them seems too draconian

I can see that some form of reprimand for the girl with the inhaler was needed, but even the suspension sounds a little too much (the knowledge that she put her friend in even worse danger may have been enough to teach her the needed lesson). I find it more difficult to blame the girl with breathing difficulty for anything - she won't have had a specific lecture on "this is a drug we're giving you, for you to use only for yourself when you need it", though I'd expect everyone to know the principle of "don't share prescription drugs", and it's not so easy to think straight if you have breathing difficulty.

[pnwmom]

132. Then we agree on the bottom line.

The principal's recommendation to expel this girl for trying to help her friend does seem "too draconian."

[HuckleB]

133. Exactly.

This is teaching them not to learn from their mistakes, but to make sure they never try help others lest they be suspended or worse.

It's ridiculous.

[jeff47]

126. Don't your children occasionally disobey you?

Kids don't always do what they are told. The fact you don't seem to know this is rather surprising.

[muriel_volestrangler]

131. Several DUers seemed to be saying the girl did a good thing

so I was wondering how widely the "don't share your drugs" message had made it. And if she had been told that, then some form of punishment is justified - though I think expulsion is far too much.

[Justice wanted]

151. I can't speak for everyone here BUT I am saying in my opinion in this ONE case This was a case

where a girl was trying to do the right thing and help a fellow friend. I'm not saying EVERY child needs to share drugs. I'm saying in what appeared to be a life threatening issue the girl did the right thing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

167. And I think you're wrong to say girls should attempt to diagnose problems and give drugs

Your advice, for instance, on a DU thread, would cause it to be locked. Someone saying "that sounds like an asthma attack, use someone else's inhaler" would be giving dangerous medical advice.

Yes, her intentions were good; but she did not do the right thing. Getting medical help would have been.

[Justice wanted]

180. I can't speak to what a web forum does I CAN speak to what people should do if they physically

see someone in distress.

[pnwmom]

152. I think the girl's intentions were good, and that she shouldn't be punished

for an act that an adult would most likely be protected for, under Colorado's Good Samaritan law.

[jeff47]

187. Try reading more carefully

Several DUers are saying the girl had good intentions. And they praised her for trying to help someone in need.

That's not saying the actual act was a good thing. The motivation behind it was.

[muriel_volestrangler]

188. And yet the thread starter is reiterating that it was the right thing to do

see #180 - not just 'the right intention', but giving her the drug was right. And there's the argument in the thread that it's just like using an 'EpiPen' injector, which they are saying should be done for anyone, without waiting for someone with medical training.

[jeff47]

189. Again, you need to read more carefullly

The Epipen examples explicitly state that it is an emergency situation where there is no time to wait for someone with medical training. Such as "throat closing up".

Similarly, the other posts talking about this situation are treating it as if it's an emergency. It's not completely clear that this situation was an emergency. But if it was, the inhaler isn't a bad idea. If it wasn't, then it would be better to get a trained professional involved. The girl, thinking it was an emergency, did the former.

[muriel_volestrangler]

190. Which seems to prove my point

Posters are claiming (without decent evidence) that this was an emergency, and that therefore using the inhaler was the right thing to do, because they think anyone should make their best guess at what's wrong, in what they see as an emergency, and use any drugs they have to hand.

[pnwmom]

184. And we also tell people that if someone is having a medical emergency

you should try to assist them -- not just by calling 911 but actively assisting them, whether it's by doing the Heimlich, CPR, applying a tourniquet -- or maybe even offering an Epi-pen or an inhaler. That's why all 50 states have Good Samaritan laws.

So there is a conflict here and I don't think we should punish a 13 year old for erring on the side of trying to help someone.

[Saphire]

115. when my kids were in school, they couldn't

Keep meds with them. They had to keep their inhalers in the nurses office.

[pnwmom]

157. That is a very stupid policy that medical professionals want schools to change.

Students who need rescue inhalers and Epi-pens need to have them immediately available, not in the nurse's office.

http://www.nasn.org/Portals/0/briefs/2011briefinhalers.pdf

It is the position of the National Association of School Nurses to support students with asthma who actively participate in the self‐management of their condition and in self‐administration of prescribed, inhaled, quick relief bronchodilator asthma medications (rescue inhalers).

SNIP

Rescue inhalers are emergency medications and must be dispensed quickly to effectively treat asthma symptoms. Legislation that protects a student’s right to carry and self‐administer asthma medications in schools is now in effect in all 50 states (ALA, 2010b). Most of the laws regarding self‐administration of inhalers do not distinguish between the kindergarten and 12th‐grade student.

[Posteritatis]

160. Keeping rescue inhalers and epipens under lock and key is staggeringly stupid. (nt)

[pnwmom]

154. This is exactly why Colorado and other states have Good Samaritan laws:

to encourage people to give medical assistance in a perceived emergency, without fear that they will be held civilly liable for well-intentioned mistakes or unfortunate outcomes.

Under Colorado's law, an adult wouldn't likely be held liable for doing the same thing in a public park -- and the law doesn't discriminate according to the age of the helper.

Why should these girls face expulsion from school when nothing would happen to adults who did the same thing?

Colorado's law:


http://home.mesastate.edu/~jerry/gmnc/Colorado%20Good%20Samaritan%20Law.htm


13-21-108. Persons rendering emergency assistance exempt from liability. (1) Any person licensed as a physician and surgeon under the laws of the state of Colorado, or anv other person, who in good faith renders emergency care or emergency assistance to a person not presently his patient without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident, including a health care institution as defined in section 13-64-202 (3), shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions made in good faith as a result of the rendering of such emergency care or emergency assistance during the emergency, unless the acts or omissions were grossly negligent or willful and wanton. This section shall not apply to any person who renders such emergency care or emergency assistance to a patient he is otherwise obligated to cover.

[Posteritatis]

156. This thread's exactly as depressing as I figured it would be from the headline. (nt)

[HuckleB]

159. What about it is depressing?

[Posteritatis]

170. The stack of "the school is right to punish these students harshly!" ranters

And that's even before going into things like "let's just assume they're lying," another gem that shows up at least once per school-discipline thread regardless of context.

[HuckleB]

171. I think there is only one, maybe two.

[markpkessinger]

182. Rather than focusing on whether or not it is right to expel the two girls, why not try . . .

. . . asking a better question? I mean, look, I think we all agree that, as a general rule, kids should not be sharing prescription medications with one another. But I think we have to acknowledge, too, that there can be situations that arise that could lead a conscientious child to question if in fact absolute adherence to the general rule was the best course in a particular situation. So the question for me becomes one of how best to get the message across to the girl that (a) her concern for her friend is something truly to be commended, (b) that her willingness to go out on a limb a bit is appreciated, even if perhaps not entirely appropriate, and yet (c) restate and reinforce in her the understanding of why sharing prescription meds should probably be avoided in the overwhelming majority of cases. Is expelling her really the way to convey that message? i mean 13 is pretty delicate age emotionally speaking, and were I her parent, I would worry that coming down too hard on her for something that was driven by a genuinely pure motivation, even if possibly not the most complete deliberation, could have the effect of shutting down her willingness to risk using her judgment in a situation she honestly felt warranted it.

I would think a far more effective way of handling it would be to have her and her parents meet with the school principal and school nurse. The principal, as well as her parents, could genuinely commend her for her care and concern for her friend. The impulse to help someone in need is one of the highest values we can aspire to, and the parents as well as school officials should express genuine pride that such a value is so present in this young girl. And after spending some real time discussing the positive aspects of what she did -- enough time that the girl's emotional defenses have come down (as they are likely to be up just by virtue of being in a meeting with the school principal and her parents) -- then allowing the school nurse to pick up the conversation and very, very gently bring it around to the problem of sharing medications, and the possible consequences of doing so. For a 13 year old girl, I think this kind of approach is likely to make a far greater impression, and a much more positive long-term impact, on the girl than expelling her, and thereby making her feel that the entirety of her impulse was some kind of criminal act.

[pnwmom]

183. You suggest a very reasonable approach that is age and developmentally appropriate.

Too bad you're not the principal of that school.

[octothorpe]

191. Something along those lines makes the most sense

and I'm betting most people would agree with that course of action.

I wonder if the school fears a lawsuit or something.