I’ve seen some outrage over a story headlined with various incarnations of, “Boy removed from plane over allergies, passengers applaud.” The
soundbite version of the story is that a seven-year-old boy, along with his mother and
terminally ill, cancer-stricken father, were thrown off a plane because the boy
was allergic to dogs. When he was
thrown off, people clapped.
It’s a little more subtle than that, but those are the basic
facts. I’m not sure the outrage is warranted; I’m actually impressed with the
airline, from the perspective of an animal rights activist, for not automatically
valuing the boy over the dogs.
If a flight attendant indeed “smirked” as she said, “there
are dogs on every flight,” that was probably not the best customer service. I suggest that what she meant was that there was no way to guarantee a
dog-allergy-free flight, since there was almost certainly stray dog hairs from
people’s clothing and previously traveling service and pet dogs present in the
plane.
I also posit that the people in the back of the plane meant
no malice. Most likely, their clapping was primarily motivated by the situation
being resolved so the plane could leave. It may have been insensitive of them
clap without knowing the entirety of the story, but I know what it feels like for a dispute delaying a plane to end. We live in a world
where many people’s first reaction to hearing dishes break at a restaurant is
to applaud and cheer; the behavior on this plane simply isn’t that outrageous.
The more interesting question to me is the most objective
way to balance the child’s interests with the interests of the dogs and their human
companions.
I fully understand many, many people will say that it’s no
question; the child always gets precedence over the dogs. I also understand that
many dog companions consider their dogs the same as children. And there are those who are only interested in the convenience of the adult humans on board. I am a
child-free, vegan, animal activist with allergies and with no non-human animals currently in my home. My allergies used to
be worse than they are now; I'm usually fine with dogs and I hope to bring one
into our home soon. I prefer dogs to children and we will not be welcoming any
children into our immediate family. My default setting is that each animal creature
is entitled to its own basic rights to life and enjoyment and we should all try
to respect that to the extent possible.
So for me, one child with allergies vs. one dog on the plane
is a coin flip. The fact that the child probably has a ticket while the dog
likely does not gives the child precedence, and the dog and its companion
should be removed. If both the dog and the child have tickets, nor neither does, then the size of
the parties would be the tiebreaker so as to minimize the number of
ticket-holders inconvenienced. In other words, it comes down to the majority
rule of ticket holders.
There are other options, of course. The parents should have
had some kind of allergy medication on them in the first place, but even if
they didn’t, surely there was a first aid kit on board with a basic allergy
medication. Assuming all alternatives failed and it came down to either the
allergic or the allergen needs to get off the plane, I don’t see it as
automatically outrageous that the boy went instead of the dogs.
I fully understand the frustration of being a PWA (person
with allergies). I also understand the need to carry around
Benadryl/Zyrtec/Flonase or whatever because there is allergenic stuff all over
the place. I used to disdain dogs and gripe about people bringing them into my
space, but the more they were in my space, the more I learned how awesome they
are.
Incidentally, such increased doggie interactions also got me on
better allergy medication, so that it is now possible for me to bring a doggie
into the home. Watch this space for the third V, coming soon...
No comments:
Post a Comment