Just today we received a call from Erin Selby, MLA for Southdale informing us she will be introducing a Private Member's Bill, called Bill 232 – The Public Schools Amendment Act (Anaphylaxis Policies) to the Legislative Assembly on Monday, May 12th just prior to Question Period at 1:30 PM.
After being introduced, Bill 232 will still have to go through an extensive legislative process including first reading, second reading, committee, concurrence and third reading and finally royal assent.
As members of MAIN you are invited to attend in the Gallery which is a seating area for the public at the Manitoba Legislative Building. MAIN will be introduced at this time by Ms. Selby and it would be great to have representation from our group to show our support for Bill 232.
If you are able to attend please let Nancy Boni know as soon as possible. We need to provide a list of names of people who wish to attend for security purposes.
As this is only the initial introduction of Bill 232 it will not take very long.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
New Legislation Introduced in Manitoba to Protect Anaphylactic Children in Daycares
April 29, 2008
PROVINCE INTRODUCES WHAT WOULD BE CANADA'S FIRST LEGISLATED CHILD-CARE SAFETY CHARTER
- - -
Safety Plans, Codes of Conduct Would be Mandated: Mackintosh
Family Services and Housing Minister Gord Mackintosh today introduced legislation that would require comprehensive safety plans and codes of conduct for Manitoba's 1,113 licensed child-care programs.
"While we have made good advances to better protect the safety of school children through the Safe Schools Charter, children in child care deserve no less," said Mackintosh. "Child-care environments are generally safe but we must always be vigilant to reduce the risk of harm."
The charter would build on a history of regulations that have tended to focus on fire safety and would require each program to establish a safety policy plan to include:
- visitor access control;
- procedures to safety check both indoor and outdoor
spaces;
- emergency practice drills;
- respective roles in the event of an emergency;
- emergency procedures to deal with bomb threats, fires,
chemical spills, weather- and
health-related emergencies, threatening behaviour, evacuation, parent contact and communications especially with a school or another organization in the same building; and
- policies to meet the needs of children who have
diagnosed anaphylaxis.
As well, the charter would require each program to develop a code of conduct to include:
- what constitutes unacceptable behaviour, consistent
with the developmental capabilities of children enrolled including bullying, abuse, discrimination and other harmful conduct;
- use of e-mail, electronic devices and the Internet;
- application to not only children but also staff and
parents; and
- consequences for unacceptable behaviour.
Each safety plan and code of conduct would have to be approved by the director of child-care services and be reviewed annually by the facility.
Concurrently, work is underway to develop a protocol with police agencies to help ensure facilities are notified when a dangerous situation develops in the vicinity.
New resources, including departmental staff and model codes and safety plans, would assist programs to comply with the charter. Facilities would be given 18 months from royal assent to conclude their codes and plans.
PROVINCE INTRODUCES WHAT WOULD BE CANADA'S FIRST LEGISLATED CHILD-CARE SAFETY CHARTER
- - -
Safety Plans, Codes of Conduct Would be Mandated: Mackintosh
Family Services and Housing Minister Gord Mackintosh today introduced legislation that would require comprehensive safety plans and codes of conduct for Manitoba's 1,113 licensed child-care programs.
"While we have made good advances to better protect the safety of school children through the Safe Schools Charter, children in child care deserve no less," said Mackintosh. "Child-care environments are generally safe but we must always be vigilant to reduce the risk of harm."
The charter would build on a history of regulations that have tended to focus on fire safety and would require each program to establish a safety policy plan to include:
- visitor access control;
- procedures to safety check both indoor and outdoor
spaces;
- emergency practice drills;
- respective roles in the event of an emergency;
- emergency procedures to deal with bomb threats, fires,
chemical spills, weather- and
health-related emergencies, threatening behaviour, evacuation, parent contact and communications especially with a school or another organization in the same building; and
- policies to meet the needs of children who have
diagnosed anaphylaxis.
As well, the charter would require each program to develop a code of conduct to include:
- what constitutes unacceptable behaviour, consistent
with the developmental capabilities of children enrolled including bullying, abuse, discrimination and other harmful conduct;
- use of e-mail, electronic devices and the Internet;
- application to not only children but also staff and
parents; and
- consequences for unacceptable behaviour.
Each safety plan and code of conduct would have to be approved by the director of child-care services and be reviewed annually by the facility.
Concurrently, work is underway to develop a protocol with police agencies to help ensure facilities are notified when a dangerous situation develops in the vicinity.
New resources, including departmental staff and model codes and safety plans, would assist programs to comply with the charter. Facilities would be given 18 months from royal assent to conclude their codes and plans.
Monday, February 4, 2008
My Article from the "Allergy and Asthma News" 2007
Discrimination in Daycare Due to Allergies
By Krista Wiebe, Winnipeg, Manitoba
Our son is allergic to milk and peanuts. He is three years old. In September of 2006 he was excluded (read: kicked out!) from a daycare facility in Winnipeg, Manitoba because of his allergies. We were devastated and disappointed by this blatant discrimination. We asked how a daycare provider could discriminate against our son because of his medical condition.
Our son was scheduled to move from the daycare’s “infant” room to the “toddler” room. This meant a higher child to staff ratio (4:1 in the infant room and 8:1 in the toddler room). As a result of this change and our son’s allergies, the daycare asked us to observe mealtime in the toddler room. They also asked us to make recommendations on how mealtime could be made safer for our son. This sounded great and we were more than happy to work with the daycare to ensure the safety of our son.
When we observed mealtime, we were alarmed at the disregard for the daycare’s existing anaphylaxis policy. One of the most concerning observations we made was the failure by staff to have children wash their hands and faces after mealtime. We observed one child leave the table with milk on his hands and face. His shirt was also soaked with milk. As a result of our observations, we made several recommendations to the daycare.
After we submitted our recommendations, we asked the daycare to respond. We never received a response. We also asked the Board of Directors of the daycare to respond. They never responded to our recommendations either.
A few months later, after our son was moved into the toddler room, we received an unsigned, registered letter from the daycare. This letter was delivered to our home unexpectedly on a day our son was attending the daycare facility. The letter advised us we were required to find alternate care for our son within three weeks because of his allergies. The Board of Directors had advised us they were going to have a Board meeting to discuss our son and we specifically asked to be in attendance at any meeting that was convened to discuss our son! However, they had a “special Board meeting”, to which we were not invited, and determined that it was too stressful for staff and inconvenient for other children in the daycare to have our son attend the facility.
If you have ever tried to find a quality daycare space for your child in Manitoba (or other provinces with a child care crisis), you could understand how problematic this situation was. Quality daycare spaces are difficult to find. In Manitoba, prospective parents have been told to “get their ovaries on a daycare waiting list.”
To complicate things further, not only did we need to find a quality daycare spot for our son, our daughter was scheduled to attend the same daycare facility starting in January 2007. We were not comfortable putting her in a facility that discriminated against her brother because of his allergies. We were concerned she would develop allergies too (we have a strong family history) and also be kicked out!
We put our children on several waiting lists throughout Winnipeg. Frustrated with the inability to secure quality daycare spaces for our children, we chose to hire a nanny through the federal government’s live in caregiver program. This is more costly than daycare, however, was the only suitable alternative for our family.
What about the daycare you ask? We have since filed a complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. The complaint is now in the process of being investigated by the Commission.
It is against the Manitoba Human Rights Code to discriminate against anyone, including children, due to a medical condition, like allergies and anaphylaxis. If you think your child has been discriminated by a school, daycare, community club, or essentially by any service provider, due to his or her allergies, you should file a complaint on your child’s behalf with your provincial and/or federal Human Rights Commission.
We are our children’s advocates. It is of particular importance that we strongly advocate for our children who have allergies and anaphylaxis. These children must not be treated in a discriminatory manner because they have a “hidden” medical condition that is no fault of their own. If your child is a victim of discrimination I urge you to make a complaint. When complaints are filed and Human Rights decisions are made it helps protect all children with allergies and anaphylaxis.
When we receive a decision from the Manitoba Human Rights Commission regarding our complaint, we will share it with you all in the future.
By Krista Wiebe, Winnipeg, Manitoba
Our son is allergic to milk and peanuts. He is three years old. In September of 2006 he was excluded (read: kicked out!) from a daycare facility in Winnipeg, Manitoba because of his allergies. We were devastated and disappointed by this blatant discrimination. We asked how a daycare provider could discriminate against our son because of his medical condition.
Our son was scheduled to move from the daycare’s “infant” room to the “toddler” room. This meant a higher child to staff ratio (4:1 in the infant room and 8:1 in the toddler room). As a result of this change and our son’s allergies, the daycare asked us to observe mealtime in the toddler room. They also asked us to make recommendations on how mealtime could be made safer for our son. This sounded great and we were more than happy to work with the daycare to ensure the safety of our son.
When we observed mealtime, we were alarmed at the disregard for the daycare’s existing anaphylaxis policy. One of the most concerning observations we made was the failure by staff to have children wash their hands and faces after mealtime. We observed one child leave the table with milk on his hands and face. His shirt was also soaked with milk. As a result of our observations, we made several recommendations to the daycare.
After we submitted our recommendations, we asked the daycare to respond. We never received a response. We also asked the Board of Directors of the daycare to respond. They never responded to our recommendations either.
A few months later, after our son was moved into the toddler room, we received an unsigned, registered letter from the daycare. This letter was delivered to our home unexpectedly on a day our son was attending the daycare facility. The letter advised us we were required to find alternate care for our son within three weeks because of his allergies. The Board of Directors had advised us they were going to have a Board meeting to discuss our son and we specifically asked to be in attendance at any meeting that was convened to discuss our son! However, they had a “special Board meeting”, to which we were not invited, and determined that it was too stressful for staff and inconvenient for other children in the daycare to have our son attend the facility.
If you have ever tried to find a quality daycare space for your child in Manitoba (or other provinces with a child care crisis), you could understand how problematic this situation was. Quality daycare spaces are difficult to find. In Manitoba, prospective parents have been told to “get their ovaries on a daycare waiting list.”
To complicate things further, not only did we need to find a quality daycare spot for our son, our daughter was scheduled to attend the same daycare facility starting in January 2007. We were not comfortable putting her in a facility that discriminated against her brother because of his allergies. We were concerned she would develop allergies too (we have a strong family history) and also be kicked out!
We put our children on several waiting lists throughout Winnipeg. Frustrated with the inability to secure quality daycare spaces for our children, we chose to hire a nanny through the federal government’s live in caregiver program. This is more costly than daycare, however, was the only suitable alternative for our family.
What about the daycare you ask? We have since filed a complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. The complaint is now in the process of being investigated by the Commission.
It is against the Manitoba Human Rights Code to discriminate against anyone, including children, due to a medical condition, like allergies and anaphylaxis. If you think your child has been discriminated by a school, daycare, community club, or essentially by any service provider, due to his or her allergies, you should file a complaint on your child’s behalf with your provincial and/or federal Human Rights Commission.
We are our children’s advocates. It is of particular importance that we strongly advocate for our children who have allergies and anaphylaxis. These children must not be treated in a discriminatory manner because they have a “hidden” medical condition that is no fault of their own. If your child is a victim of discrimination I urge you to make a complaint. When complaints are filed and Human Rights decisions are made it helps protect all children with allergies and anaphylaxis.
When we receive a decision from the Manitoba Human Rights Commission regarding our complaint, we will share it with you all in the future.
February 2008 Status Update
Our meeting with the Minister of Health in January was unfortunately cancelled and resecheduled for February 13, 2008.
We are optimistic we will be successful obtaining the government's support of legislation to protect children in schools and daycares with anaphylaxis.
For information on how law is made in Manitoba click here:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/legislature/info/factsheets/fact4.pdf
We are optimistic we will be successful obtaining the government's support of legislation to protect children in schools and daycares with anaphylaxis.
For information on how law is made in Manitoba click here:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/legislature/info/factsheets/fact4.pdf
Monday, December 3, 2007
Petition!
We already have over 100 signatures on our petition! Way to go! The more support we have on this issue the better!
Friday, November 30, 2007
On Line Petition!
Click here to sign the electronic petition to support legislation in Manitoba to protect children with anaphylaxis:
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/manitobaanaphylaxis
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/manitobaanaphylaxis
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Ontario's Groundbreaking Legislation
Sabrina’s Law (2005)
Definitions
1. (1) In this Act,
“anaphylaxis” means a severe systemic allergic reaction which can be fatal, resulting in circulatory collapse or shock, and “anaphylactic” has a corresponding meaning; (“anaphylaxie”, “anaphylactique”)
“board” means a district school board or a school authority; (“conseil”)
“consent” means consent given by an individual with the capacity to provide consent to treatment for the purposes of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996; (“consentement”)
“employee” means an employee of a board who regularly works at the school, in the case of a school operated by the board. (“employé”) 2005, c. 7, s. 1 (1).
Expressions related to education
(2) Expressions in this Act related to education have the same meaning as in the Education Act, unless the context requires otherwise. 2005, c. 7, s. 1 (2).
Establishment of policy
2. (1) Every board shall establish and maintain an anaphylactic policy in accordance with this section. 2005, c. 7, s. 2 (1).
Contents of anaphylactic policy
(2) The anaphylactic policy shall include the following:
1. Strategies that reduce the risk of exposure to anaphylactic causative agents in classrooms and common school areas.
2. A communication plan for the dissemination of information on life-threatening allergies to parents, pupils and employees.
3. Regular training on dealing with life-threatening allergies for all employees and others who are in direct contact with pupils on a regular basis.
4. A requirement that every school principal develop an individual plan for each pupil who has an anaphylactic allergy.
5. A requirement that every school principal ensure that, upon registration, parents, guardians and pupils shall be asked to supply information on life-threatening allergies.
6. A requirement that every school principal maintain a file for each anaphylactic pupil of current treatment and other information, including a copy of any prescriptions and instructions from the pupil’s physician or nurse and a current emergency contact list. 2005, c. 7, s. 2 (2).
Contents of individual plan
(3) An individual plan for a pupil with an anaphylactic allergy shall be consistent with the board’s policy and shall include:
1. Details informing employees and others who are in direct contact with the pupil on a regular basis of the type of allergy, monitoring and avoidance strategies and appropriate treatment.
2. A readily accessible emergency procedure for the pupil, including emergency contact
information.
3. Storage for epinephrine auto-injectors, where necessary. 2005, c. 7, s. 2 (3).
Administration of medication
3. (1) Employees may be preauthorized to administer medication or supervise a pupil while he or she takes medication in response to an anaphylactic reaction, if the school has up-to-date treatment information and the consent of the parent, guardian or pupil, as applicable. 2005, c. 7, s. 3 (1).
Obligation to keep school informed
(2) It is the obligation of the pupil’s parent or guardian and the pupil to ensure that the information in the pupil’s file is kept up-to-date with the medication that the pupil is taking.
2005, c. 7, s. 3 (2).
Emergency administration of medication
(3) If an employee has reason to believe that a pupil is experiencing an anaphylactic reaction, the employee may administer an epinephrine auto-injector or other medication prescribed to the pupil for the treatment of an anaphylactic reaction, even if there is no preauthorization to do so under subsection (1). 2005, c. 7, s. 3 (3).
Immunity
(4) No action for damages shall be instituted respecting any act done in good faith or for any
neglect or default in good faith in response to an anaphylactic reaction in accordance with this Act, unless the damages are the result of an employee’s gross negligence. 2005, c. 7, s. 3 (4).
Common law preserved
(5) This section does not affect or in any way interfere with the duties any person may have under common law. 2005, c. 7, s. 3 (5).
4. Omitted (provides for coming into force of provisions of this Act). 2005, c. 7, s. 4.
5. Omitted (enacts short title of this Act). 2005, c. 7, s. 5.
Definitions
1. (1) In this Act,
“anaphylaxis” means a severe systemic allergic reaction which can be fatal, resulting in circulatory collapse or shock, and “anaphylactic” has a corresponding meaning; (“anaphylaxie”, “anaphylactique”)
“board” means a district school board or a school authority; (“conseil”)
“consent” means consent given by an individual with the capacity to provide consent to treatment for the purposes of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996; (“consentement”)
“employee” means an employee of a board who regularly works at the school, in the case of a school operated by the board. (“employé”) 2005, c. 7, s. 1 (1).
Expressions related to education
(2) Expressions in this Act related to education have the same meaning as in the Education Act, unless the context requires otherwise. 2005, c. 7, s. 1 (2).
Establishment of policy
2. (1) Every board shall establish and maintain an anaphylactic policy in accordance with this section. 2005, c. 7, s. 2 (1).
Contents of anaphylactic policy
(2) The anaphylactic policy shall include the following:
1. Strategies that reduce the risk of exposure to anaphylactic causative agents in classrooms and common school areas.
2. A communication plan for the dissemination of information on life-threatening allergies to parents, pupils and employees.
3. Regular training on dealing with life-threatening allergies for all employees and others who are in direct contact with pupils on a regular basis.
4. A requirement that every school principal develop an individual plan for each pupil who has an anaphylactic allergy.
5. A requirement that every school principal ensure that, upon registration, parents, guardians and pupils shall be asked to supply information on life-threatening allergies.
6. A requirement that every school principal maintain a file for each anaphylactic pupil of current treatment and other information, including a copy of any prescriptions and instructions from the pupil’s physician or nurse and a current emergency contact list. 2005, c. 7, s. 2 (2).
Contents of individual plan
(3) An individual plan for a pupil with an anaphylactic allergy shall be consistent with the board’s policy and shall include:
1. Details informing employees and others who are in direct contact with the pupil on a regular basis of the type of allergy, monitoring and avoidance strategies and appropriate treatment.
2. A readily accessible emergency procedure for the pupil, including emergency contact
information.
3. Storage for epinephrine auto-injectors, where necessary. 2005, c. 7, s. 2 (3).
Administration of medication
3. (1) Employees may be preauthorized to administer medication or supervise a pupil while he or she takes medication in response to an anaphylactic reaction, if the school has up-to-date treatment information and the consent of the parent, guardian or pupil, as applicable. 2005, c. 7, s. 3 (1).
Obligation to keep school informed
(2) It is the obligation of the pupil’s parent or guardian and the pupil to ensure that the information in the pupil’s file is kept up-to-date with the medication that the pupil is taking.
2005, c. 7, s. 3 (2).
Emergency administration of medication
(3) If an employee has reason to believe that a pupil is experiencing an anaphylactic reaction, the employee may administer an epinephrine auto-injector or other medication prescribed to the pupil for the treatment of an anaphylactic reaction, even if there is no preauthorization to do so under subsection (1). 2005, c. 7, s. 3 (3).
Immunity
(4) No action for damages shall be instituted respecting any act done in good faith or for any
neglect or default in good faith in response to an anaphylactic reaction in accordance with this Act, unless the damages are the result of an employee’s gross negligence. 2005, c. 7, s. 3 (4).
Common law preserved
(5) This section does not affect or in any way interfere with the duties any person may have under common law. 2005, c. 7, s. 3 (5).
4. Omitted (provides for coming into force of provisions of this Act). 2005, c. 7, s. 4.
5. Omitted (enacts short title of this Act). 2005, c. 7, s. 5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)