- “Justice Department Sues Public School For Refusing to Manage Student’s Service Dog” [Minh Vu, Seyfarth Shaw]
- Feds finally propose exempting historians and some others (but not folklorists) from IRB/human subject research rules [Zachary Schrag, more]
- Could the University of California’s planned “principles against intolerance” someday restrict the scholarship of criminologists? [Heather Mac Donald/City Journal, earlier]
- “District officials say the staff did everything right..The inhaler doesn’t have Emma’s name on it” [Lenore Skenazy]
- “Remember Your Old Graphing Calculator? It Still Costs a Fortune — Here’s Why” [Jack Smith IV, Mic]
- At hearing, Sen. Lamar Alexander criticizes Department of Education use of Dear Colleague letters to push regulation into new areas [The College Fix, CEI, Scott Greenfield]
- Roughhousing is important for kids. Stop trying to ban it [Virginia Postrel, New York Post]
2 Comments
RE: Inhaler incident in Utah….
The school was not acting under it’s own policies. It was acting under Utah law.
53A-11-602. Self-administration of asthma medication.
(1) As used in this section, “asthma medication” means prescription or nonprescription, inhaled asthma medication.
(2) A public school shall permit a student to possess and self-administer asthma medication if:
(a) the student’s parent or guardian signs a statement:
(i) authorizing the student to self-administer asthma medication; and
(ii) acknowledging that the student is responsible for, and capable of, self-administering the asthma medication; and
(b) the student’s health care provider provides a written statement that states:
(i) it is medically appropriate for the student to self-administer asthma medication and be in possession of asthma medication at all times; and
(ii) the name of the asthma medication prescribed or authorized for the student’s use.
To me that says that the school administration was only an accomplice in this idiocy and the lawmakers in Utah (and other states) are the true idiots.
This is a case that typifies “Overlawyered” in that the school / law demands a letter or a form they designed to be filled out rather than the kid’s possession of the inhaler being evidence of the doctor’s approval to begin with. In short, the law says that a piece of paper is more important than a child’s health or a doctor’s medical opinion.
That’s simply nuts.
Might this be a place where our disability jurisprudence is helpful? Can it be argued successfully that asthmatic students are “disabled,” thus putting the financial and time costs (up to $1000 a year according to one commenter) back on the school district for meeting their own paperwork requirements?