Originally Posted by
bocastephen
I don't think you can compare nut allergies to smoking - the latter is harmful to everyone, including the person doing it, and long term exposure can result in certain death far earlier than expected, while a nut allergy is something that does not affect anyone but the one with the problem, and then it becomes a question of the rights/needs of the affected vs everyone else.
Over the years we've been down this road in multiple vehicles starting with the annoying soccer-mom types who've objected to reading or video material (including IFE) their precious delicate flower might catch a glimpse of - and then insisting it be turned off. Then it became perfume and cologne....and now here we go with nuts. I would agree - where does it end?
An airplane may be privately owned, but it's considered a public space and there needs to be balance. No one is suggesting at the slightest that we're going to blow nut breath on a child with a deadly allergy, but there needs to be some form of balance and fairness to both sides, soccer-mom opinions notwithstanding.
Smoking is probably not a good example because that is more likely to cause long term damage not an immediate reaction like an allergy.
The other way to look at this is you do nothing and someone has a severe reaction, in my experience of medical emergencies, that mostly leads to the flight being diverted, the last one I was on was
this which was very sad. Point being if airlines and/or passengers do nothing, the chances of a severe reaction and diversion are pretty high, wonder if that would change peoples stance on it, if the downside impacted them as well as the person who might die.