I don't envy adults who walk around with an EpiPen in case they go into anaphylactic shock due to a debilitating allergy, which are all too common. I certainly don't envy the parents of children with dangerous allergies, parents who live each day with the anxiety that their child might just be out of reach of an EpiPen or someone capable of administering the shot, when they need it the most. One of those parents is Mark Hemingway, commentary staff writer for The Washington Examiner.

Hemingway channels his personal experience with his young daughter, who would have a fatal allergic reaction if she were exposed to tree nuts and an EpiPen were out of reach, to imagine how parents of epileptic children must feel about a recent and unfortunate development in the California legislature. According to Hemingway, unions, eager for reasons to add more jobs to the payroll, killed a bill that would allow teachers to be trained to administer a seizure-ceasing life-saving medication, Diastat. Diastat is quite similar to an EpiPen in that it is a miracle of modern medicine, designed and packaged to be administered with minimal training at the time it is most crucial: before an ambulance can even arrive. (Watch the ReasonTV video that inspired Hemingway's column below).

Approximately 10,000 California school children are at risk of having prolonged seizures that could result in severe brain damage or even death. So why did the unions kill the bill? Although they claim to be looking out for the well-being of the students, their solution to this grave risk is: hire more school nurses. We shouldn't be surprised that in this economy, with tight budgets and empty coffers, the unions are still only suggesting one solution: more jobs. This same logic just cut $12 billion from the Food Stamps program to fund crippled state budgets, particularly to save public sector jobs.

Is there no limit to what is fair game when lobbying for more jobs? Are children seriously better off if teachers are not allowed to be trained to administer Diastat, as they had been for the past 10 years?

The bill was supported by the Epilepsy Foundation, the California Medical Association, and the Association of California Neurologists, among others. Dr. Howard Taras, professor of pediatrics at UC-San Diego and a medical consultant to school districts in California, testified that the legislature that Diastat is safe and urged lawmakers to pass this "no-brainer decision." However, the bill died in committee.

Union leaders testifying stressed the possible medical complications if it were improperly administered (teachers and other non-nurses would be trained) or lawsuits that could arise from this rectally-administered medicine (aside from training any parent would be grateful if it were properly administered), however real examples from the past 10 years when non-nurses were legally administering Diastat in schools were merely anecdotal. If there were a string of families who suffered from this policy, rest assured they would have been paraded before the legislature. It is difficult not to conclude with Hemingway that the real motive behind the union opposition is to use the issue to argue for more jobs, which means more in forced union dues, despite the obvious risk to the school children.

As the bill's sponsor concluded about the unions: "They see it as a jobs bill, I see it as a children safety bill."

Did the California unions go too far by blocking Diastat to argue for jobs instead?
Do the benefits of non-nurses administering Diastat outweigh the potential risks?
Comment below.

email to friend

Print

comment

Permalink

Comments (4)

Submit a comment

Name and location

Email (not published)

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment