Milk allergy death- should the book be thrown at the staff involved?

[mids2019]

....or if you are minimum wage staff member working in a stressed environment without English as a first language there should be leniency. Doctors are paid for life and death decisions but are Costa staff?

Well there's no reason surely for the dentist to lie unless he/she was negligent in some way.

I do think the daughter running to the toilet, proclaiming that it wasn't soya milk and coughing up phlegm are possibly indicative of

1. The daughter's reactions had been serious in the past and she thus recognised it couldn't have been soya milk in the hot chocolate due to a familar reaction.

1. A serious reaction was already unfolding in the dentists because the phlegm is indicative of airways becoming inflammed

Possibly then 3. The dentist as a health professional recognised need for the epi-pen, but should not have allowed them to leave without administering the pen/calling an ambulance.

The mother says daughter appeared fine.

The pay in costa is a grey area, a franchise may pay less . The costa run cafes earn what has been stated on the thread. 2 near me both sets of staff earn different rates. One a franchise one not .

And good for them for not discriminating. I'm sure they're far from the worst employer in the hospitality sector. But the point remains, these are low paid roles and by their nature they can't offer much flexibility. If we want high standards and accountability, those are going to have to be paid for, because we already know what happens when we keep roles poorly paid with significant responsibility. Recruitment problems.

They shouldn’t be using the pass for gluten free if it’s used for gluten containing food - it’s cross contamination.

Thank you.

Oh, I hadn't realised some of them would be on lower. Thanks for the info.

That’s my point. If it’s life threatening then you make it your business to know. I know people have pointed out that at some point you have to trust otherwise your life would be very limited, but if any of my kids had a life threatening dairy allergy, a coffee shop would be the last place I’d visit. You have to minimise the risk. They can wash out the jug, but what about the milk frothing machine ? There are always going to be traces of dairy there and if the allergy is so severe that even a sip can kill, then I don’t understand why you would take that risk.

I wonder in that situation would it be instinct to run to the bathroom and try to make yourself sick after noticing you'd ingested an allergen, perhaps that's why she ran in?

The dentist said she coughed up a 'white liquid' but that Hannah said she was fine and that she still wanted to have the extraction done today.
(It would be convenient if all these quotes were in the same article because the quotes are all over the place)

I doubt the dentist could have stopped them from leaving. Perhaps if the allergic reaction had happened as a result of a procedure at the dentist and then he let her leave while knowing she was having a reaction then he could be in some way liable or responsible, but that's not what happened.

Possibly then 3. The dentist as a health professional recognised need for the epi-pen, but should not have allowed them to leave without administering the pen/calling an ambulance.

I don’t see how the dentist could have not allowed them to leave- you are allowed to refuse medical attention if you have capacity.

But surely you weigh the risk. What are the chances of having a crash, as against cross contamination if you have a serious allergy ? I don’t think they’re comparable.

I haven't read the full thread so this may have been said already....but the reason nuts and peanuts are taken seriously isn't spurious, it's because the chances of an anaphylatic reaction being fatal is higher with nuts/peanuts than with other foods. So if you are having an allergic reaction your 'odds' are worse if you've consumed nuts and peanuts.

52% of all fatal reactions in adults in the UK occur with nuts and peanuts. In 26% of cases the trigger is unidentified. In 22% it's other foods including dairy (5%) and fish/crustaceans (7%).

Dairy is often quoted as the most dangerous allergen for children, but that's in part to the way the figures were reported:
Dairy 26%, Peanut 14%, Tree nuts 9%, unidentified nut 12%. An unknown allergen is responsible in 29% of cases. Fish/crustaceans 6%.

That's in the context of nut allergies being taken so seriously by schools etc and, as pp have said, in general being easier to avoid vs dairy being everywhere for children especially. Thankfully children do often grow out of a dairy allergy but its risk to allergic children should never be underestimated.

All allergies should be taken very seriously and I really do agree that the general public don't realise dairy and other allergens can be as dangerous as they are. Some people don't seem to realise that they can be fatal too.
My own DC is allergic to nuts and peanuts, but also egg and it's egg that is more difficult to avoid and the one we've had to treat him for on occasion ...any by treat I mean hospital.

But there is a reason nuts and peanuts are considered dangerous. It's because they are responsible for more deaths from anaphylaxis. The risk of your allergic reaction being fatal is higher with these allergens.

Sorry, but I’m with that poster. You can’t compare getting into a car with taking the risk that someone will inadvertently kill you with cross contamination. Personal responsibility is key here.

Again not the same.

Everybody expects road safety. In fact we have a right to that assumption because everyone is tested to a certain agreed standard in order to pass a driving test. Same with catching a flight. I expect a pilot to be trained to whatever level his certification body agrees is right. And it's interesting because no one catches a flight thinking 'this plane cannot possibly ever crash' no. They catch it thinking , well it could crash, but the risk of that happening is very low statistically. Same thought process getting in a car.

You walking into a high risk environment that has the potential to render you dead in mere minutes and expecting me to be totally infallible whike also serving 5 different milks and a hundred customers is unrealistic. You are making a minimum wage worker more culpable than a highly skilled and paid airline pilot.

Human error will always happen. If milk can kill you the only way to be 100% certain is to avoid it.

Actually it is a privilege to be able to avoid your triggers. Some of us have airborne or unidentifiable, untestable allergies that are extremely difficult or impossible to avoid and live only by the grace of daily mega doses of antihistamine alongside monthly injections in hospital.

You don't have the right to put that responsibility for a trigger you can easily avoid by walking past a shop on some poor random person and make their entire life hell when it goes wrong, like this poor worker is experiencing. The guilt will live with her for the rest of her life and she's been dragged to court all because the mum couldn't just refuse a hot chocolate and probably feels guilty.

I myself would do the same as the mother, but I hope in years to come I would realise my expectations were not realistic. This is not even the same as the Pret scenario.

This exactly!
Truly tragic & thoughts are with the family but I would have thought a coffee shop would be the last place you would go to with a severe milk allergy.

I don’t believe a request for ‘no milk’ (and in this case it was said multiple times) is a huge responsibility to understand and get right when working in hospitality / a cafe, it’s part of the job, all jobs come with responsibilities and this is an important one, however as previous posters have said, I’d stay clear of establishments like Costa that serve a lot of milk if I had a serious milk allergy. What a heartbreaking thing to happen. Poor girl just wanted a hot chocolate, like so many children. I’m so sorry for her and her family.

Again, she wasn't killed through cross contamination. They accepted the risk of cross contamination. If there had been a reaction because of cross contamination, that would have been on the family (although there's every chance they took that risk on medical advice, we do).

They didn't accept the risk of the drink being made with the wrong milk. That's not cross contamination.

I don't think you recognise that there are legal expectations around food safety, both in relation to allergies and things like food poisoning. Just like driving.

@DysonSphere
Everybody expects road safety. In fact we have a right to that assumption because everyone is tested to a certain agreed standard in order to pass a driving test. Same with catching a flight. I expect a pilot to be trained to whatever level his certification body agrees is right. And it's interesting because no one catches a flight thinking 'this plane cannot possibly ever crash' no. They catch it thinking , well it could crash, but the risk of that happening is very low statistically. Same thought process getting in a car.

Disagree with this. My driving instructor told me to assume that everyone else drives like idiots. And many people regularly complain about the standard of driving that they see on the roads daily. I definitely don't assume I'm always safe on the roads.

I would see flights as different though because they're not dealing with potential idiots in the air for the whole journey, but obviously I expect them to know how to take off and fly and land a plane.

Yes maybe she tried to make herself sick. Good point.

It still suggests that it wasn't so unfamiliar to her to have a serious reaction hence the urge to 'get rid of it' quickly. Tomatoes can make my lips swell up but I wouldn't try to induce being sick. If they gave me a systemic reaction. Yes I would.

There truly isn't enough detail, and as you say the information is all over the place in the articles.

Yes even the direct quotes from the mothers statement are different on different websites.

Some of them say something like "I went in and asked for two hot chocolates and said my daughter had a dairy allergy and I needed the jug to be washed out"
And then others say "I went in and asked for two soya hot chocolates and said my daughter had a dairy allergy and I needed the jug to be washed out....."

Huge difference but the statement isn't available anywhere so it's all very confusing!

In costa they don’t usually use a dairy jug for plant milk . They are 2 separate jugs both with coloured tags indicating which is which. This happened because dairy was used and not soya as asked. Some reactions can come on slower and in stages. Due to swallowing a mouthful of dairy the allergy reaction may have come on faster. The costa employee gave the wrong milk ,child died. Human errors can and are made the mother explained a few times and still the wrong milk was used. Saying people with allergies should stay away from certain shops isn’t the answer.

You don't have the right to put that responsibility for a trigger you can easily avoid by walking past a shop on some poor random person and make their entire life hell when it goes wrong, like this poor worker is experiencing.

But where are you suggesting that avoidance stops @DysonSphere ?

Saying that people who have allergies stay at home and don't eat out at all - as far too many here have done - simply isn't realistic or fair to anyone trying to live a reasonably normal life. So much socialising is done around food. It is very difficult to exclude oneself from food situations without paying a high cost in other ways. It's not fair to just insist people stay in a bubble. I think the people suggesting that aren't affected by allergies themselves and haven't really thought the implications through. They don't fully realise what they're asking.

Okay, maybe this was a particularly risky enviroment and arguably better avoided - but almost all restaurants and cafes do have milk. You can't avoid them all. Either restaurants have a responsibility to get things right or they don't. The law says they do bear that responsibility.

Well, I'm going to say it. I wonder if there was some miscommunication as both the mother and the employee had strong accents? It's quite simple to misunderstand under those circumstances. I had a person telling me something quite simple one day, but the accent made it seem like something completely different.

I didn’t say she was killed with cross contamination, I was speaking generally in that getting into a car is not comparable with the risk from dairy allergy - especially one so serious that a sip can kill. And it’s really not clear what happened here - there is some dispute about the instruction the mother actually gave the barista.

Actually medical advice given is first and foremost avoidance.

Of course it's a drag not being able to eat out. But life is unfair. You have a serious illness. As a financially challenged person I can say, you do not need to eat out or drink £4 coffees in coffee shops. You can manage without. You might want to do it but you don't need to.

As I said some people have ridiculous allergies to things that aren't as controllable as 'do not enter the shop' or make your own coffee or food.

If you have allergy that is controllable through avoidance you are still in the fortunate category of severe allergy sufferers as some people have anaphylactic episodes and cannot even identify what is causing their reactions. They live with the unknowable walking around on serious doses of antihistamine.

And some of us have life threatening illnesses and are extremely allergic to the very medicine we need to control it. That's another particularly crap scenario.

And as has been pointed out several times - what about the milk frothers ? If the allergy was so serious even a sip was fatal, would it be worth the risk ?