DefinitelyDressage.com

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/na ... /80917362/

This was an awful story to read at least to me. Why on earth wouldn't you as a passenger be understanding of a little boy that couldn't tolerate the presence of a service dog because of serious allergies through no fault of his own? At any rate, why can't the airlines coordinate flights of service animals and seriously allergic people by having a blocking function for each flight that would indicate you are ineligible to select this particular flight because of X being present.

The way it would work is that if you're someone w/a service animal you purchase your ticket and you acknowledge you would have your service animal w/you during the flight. An alert code would be placed on that flight indicating that someone w/an allergy to whatever species of service animal wouldn't be able to select that flight because of the prior registration of the service animal or vice versa if you're an allergic passenger, no one w/a service animal would be allowed to select that flight if you had been the one to purchase your ticket first. How can we STILL not have something as essential and straightforward as this figured out???

I agree this is an awful story and terrible for this little boy and family. What the passengers did was cruel and horrible. I wonder if the boy is able to take any medication (antihistamine or something) when this happens? Would it have helped them proceed with this trip? Lots of questions - service dogs are allowed on flights so wouldn't there be dander present - even from a prior flight? How close was the service animal to the little boy? Could this reaction have been avoided by moving seats? Maybe designated seats for passengers with service animals is needed - - would it make a difference in this situation? Very tough and complicated situation for allergic passengers and those requiring their service animals.....

I think what the passengers did was horrible. There are lots of questions that the story doesn't address, but still the passengers' behavior was atrocious.

I've actually wondered about how allergy issues are handled on planes. In general, it sounds like they aren't. I was on a flight a few years ago where they announced that someone had a severe peanut allergy, so no one was to eat peanuts and obviously they wouldn't serve them.

In this case: did the parents check with the airline about dogs on the plane? Did the passengers in the back know the circumstances? People get crazy when they're on a plane ready to go; they were probably just applauding the fact that their trip was no longer being delayed, and didn't think that they were hurting a young child's feelings. It seems that it was in the best interest of the airline and the family to remove him from the flight. The plane was obviously riddled with enough allergens that his reaction could have continued, or he could have worsened, necessitating an emergency landing. Removing the dog would not have removed the allergens. In this case, with such severe allergies, I wonder if he would have a reaction if he sat next to a person who had dog dander on their jacket or?? I would be interested to know the steps the parents normally take to protect a child with this level of allergies in close-quarters with strangers.

The tracking of medical conditions is strictly controlled by the security provisions of HIPAA. Any association between an individual as uniquely identified by any information (SSN, Drivers License Nr, Street Address, Birth Day, ticket number, etc) and a particular medical condition has to be approved by the person who has the condition and access to that information is limited those who have "a need for access." Remember all those forms that you sign when you visit a doctor? An airline ticketing system simply couldn't work under those restrictions.

Because of HIPAA, the onus is on the sensitive traveler to be aware of situations on a public conveyance that could be a possible trigger.

What is apparent from the limited information in the article is that the airline didn't have a protocol for when mutually exclusive medical requirements are scheduled to fly on the same airplane. As a result the flight crew didn't handle the situation in a timely and sensitive manner resulting in the other passengers behaving in a rude fashion. A rudeness that is inexcusable.

Every airline would have to obey similar protocols that would be legally enacted for all public passenger airlines, otherwise you'd end up w/a clusterf*ck. Obviously, I'm suggesting this be an instance where there is a VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE of such information by a passenger to the airlines. No one on the plane would need to know the IDENTITY of the passenger whose claim of allergies required the plane to be pet-free or assistance-animal free. Whatever information is voluntarily disclosed would fall into an exceptional category under HIPPA rules.

the problem with the story is that we don't know all the facts. Perhaps the parents were being rude on the plane? I agree with straightforward that removing the animal wouldn't have changed anything. I am also thinking that if I had a child with allergies like this I would have medications on me to stop it from advancing. My son was highly allergic to feathers so we always carried benadryl when we travelled because you can't always predict where you will run into them.

But is Benadryl always a powerful enough medication to prevent the situation from worsening? Would it have guaranteed the boy wouldn't have gone into anaphylactic shock?

This is a little OT but service dogs are proliferating and fake registries are pretty shamelessly advertising "Take your dog anywhere!"

I was on two flights this week with "service dogs" who looked really un-servicey: they jumped around on people in the gate area, were very untrained, climbed up on seats etc. and could not sit still.

Apparently a company can be sued for questioning a service animal owner, so all bets are off.

Alex wrote:But is Benadryl always a powerful enough medication to prevent the situation from worsening? Would it have guaranteed the boy wouldn't have gone into anaphylactic shock?

For my son it did. I have no idea as to this situation but if the boy was in danger of anaphylactic shock I would assume that the parents had an epi-pen.
I wasn't saying that the decision was necessarily correct. I was just saying that we don't know the full story. If I read it correctly they were waiting for the next flight and didn't need to take him to the hospital so I assume he recovered pretty quickly.

but that's the problem- we weren't there and don't know the full story.

Yes, I hate this whole fake service dog ploy. Those fake service dog registries ought to be ashamed of themselves and any dog owners who get their dogs fake certifications ought to be ashamed as well.