To feel frustrated and let down by the portrayals of Anaphylaxis in the film The Roses? (Spoiler alerts sorry)

[Hiddenraspberries]

I just can't understand how they included anaphylaxis to raspberries as a plot strand three times- and yet did absolutely zero research into anaphylaxis and how it should be treated.

The result, a dangerously misrepresentative and misleading depiction that could lead people to think anaphylaxis is quite casual and that there's zero risk provided you have an EpiPen.

Olivia's character is shown twice deliberately choosing to eat raspberries (once because she likes them, once because she wants attention) even though she knows she has anaphylaxis. The implication is that an EpiPen will always solve it. This is not correct, EpiPens often help but sadly not always.

Secondly, the first aid they showed was so astonishingly flawed -.the pen was injected in the arm with a brief stab - it should be injected in the thigh and held there for several seconds.

And then she was shown as immediately better and back to running around like nothing had happened. Whereas you should go to hospital and avoid all exercise (and also avoid fizzy drinks and hot baths etc)

I accept it is a film, but the problem is it feeds into the myth that allergies "aren't all that bad really" and that EpiPens are a panacea whereas the reality is so much more complex.

I just don't understand how not a single person in the production team queried the stupidity of how anaphylaxis was presented.

It was a comedic farce of a movie, nothing more than that. Deliberately designed to be stupid.

I haven’t seen that film but I get what you mean. It’s ridiculous when tv and film people insist on including something as a plot but do zero research about it. You’re sitting going ‘that’s not how it works!’ and it totally takes you out of the scene.

I know they are not there to educate in most cases, but rather to entertain us, however how hard would it be to show someone using the pen in at least the correct place? Then maybe referencing needing to rest or get checked out. A close family member has a serious nut allergy and after they inject (usually if they’ve experienced cross contamination because most places are shit with allergies) they either throw up, or pass out, or are very wobbly and need a lot of time to sleep and recover. Definitely not just rush about as normal.

Why would someone with an allergy deliberately eat the thing anyway? Was the purpose of the scene to make her look stupid? (Ok if it’s a mild intolerance, I understand you might really want a taste and know you’ll vomit or be on the loo but I don’t know anyone with a serious allergy who goes ‘oh fuck it, why not, I’ve got my EpiPen kicking about somewhere and I might not die’.)

Maybe thats the case. It's just I have battled so much with ignorance around allergies and stupid dangerous things being said by people who should know better that I struggle to see the funny side

Eg. My son's first head teacher, when he was given food he was allergic to at lunchtime (aged 4) and she attempted to breezily dismiss my concerns by saying "he has his EpiPen though so it would have been fine!".

Or the family member who tried to sneak a bit of something he is allergic to into his food because they thought we were "just being dramatic first time parents " (this was after the first time he had anaphylaxis)

Medical stuff is nearly always wrong in films and tv. Look at every kind of CPR you see on things - the person is always flat on their back with their neck straight, rather than having their head tipped right back, and the person doing CPR is always far too far back with their hands in front rather than underneath them. Supposedly thousands of people have had training on CPR and yet every tv and film gets it wrong. If they can't be bothered to get that right, you can't expect them to get more complex stuff right.

There is a misapprehension that as long as you have an epipen shot, you will be fine. Peter Rabbit showed this, I noticed and along with the throwing of blackberries at him by the other characters who knew he was anaphylactic! That was neither funny nor responsible.

Most films don't depict strict medical reality...like women going from nothing to suddenly screaming and waters breaking in labour...they're just films

Exactly @SmallOrFarAway I eat cheese and ice.cream sometimes even though I am lactose intolerant but the worst side effect is having to rush to the loo.

In my experience most people with anaphylaxis find foods they are allergic to disgusting - like a natural protective method. My children cant stand the smell of eggs or nuts.

I get that, I do, but it wouldnt have harmed the film to have shown this more accurately. And it's hugely harmful to present EpiPens as reversing reactions like that. As a minimum they could have just injected in the right place

Anaphylaxis is so scary, so many people don’t realise that an EpiPen hopefully buys time to get life saving treatment and sometimes doesn’t achieve that.

See also, every nerdy kid having a quick hit of ventolin without holding their breath afterwards and going from audible wheezing to back up and running in seconds. Thanks Spielberg, twat.

I've not seen it, but having a 19 year old son with a severe cashew allergy I had to deal with anaphylaxis when he ate Dubai chocolate (yes it was massive negligence on my part) it was scary. I had to administer the EpiPen to his thigh through his jeans (rather hard). I called an ambulance and they were there within 5 minutes. He was fine luckily but I don't ever want him to go through that again

Movie makers don’t really care about accuracy, just what suits their films. I studied Classics at university and the profs would make comments about inaccuracies in Gladiator, 300 etc despite historical advisors on set was certainly interesting. I do get that anaphylaxis is different and even watching The Roses I noted it too (DD’s bff has a nut allergy and I know how to use an epi pen if need be) but I really think they just don’t care. The plot doesn’t suit calling an ambulance multiple times.

I saw The Roses last night. One of our DC is an Epipen-carrying sufferer of anaphylactic reactions to certain foods, and whilst DH and I really enjoyed the film, we both thought that the portrayal of anaphylaxis was unnecessarily cavalier.

The suggestion that a reaction can be instantly halted by an apparently painless and side-effect free jab in the arm, with no short or long term adverse consequences, is so far off the mark. Whilst I'm not a killjoy, this type of portrayal doesn't help with the struggle to get severe allergies taken seriously.

Oh yes!! That gets to me too! It's just a lazy shorthand for nerds
(Not that there's actually anything wrong with being a nerd)

The suggestion that a reaction can be instantly halted by an apparently painless and side-effect free jab in the arm, with no short or long term adverse consequences, is so far off the mark. Whilst I'm not a killjoy, this type of portrayal doesn't help with the struggle to get severe allergies taken seriously.

Yes. This sums it up for me. It just felt lazy and stupid and so irresponsible.
I think unlike the example of CPR (above), the difference here is not just the inaccurate first aid itself, but the fact it could lead people to be sloppy when catering for allergies etc due to a false assumption that they can always be instantly r eversed.by a swift jab with an EpiPen

Just watched the film - loved it, really funny.

The film wasn't meant to be a true depiction of anything. It was just a lighthearted black comedy. There was absolutely nothing realistic in the film; from the building to the business to the kids to the divorce to the ending

I understand you may be upset because of your personal experience, but this really isn't an educational film. I didn't come away thinking anaphylaxis is that flippantly treated any more than I came away thinking Irish moss is a better colour than American moss.

My dd and I walked out of the film at the cinema after anaphylaxis was used as “comedy” for a third time. We have seen a close relative become seriously ill with anaphylaxis and it isn’t a laughing matter whichever slant is used. To show the lead character use her severe allergy in the manipulative way she did and for her DH to do the same was appalling, EpiPens do NOT always successfully treat an anaphylactic reaction and the flippant way the character was treated with one and made immediately well again is a dangerous illusion. Nobody is saying that the entire medical protocol is followed in a film but certainly don’t portray severe, life threatening allergies as things which are easily managed. They are not. People can die, EpiPens can fail, repeated reactions can occur within 12 hours, none of it should be amusing and yet the danger is that the majority of a cinema audience may see these types of allergies as comical, easy to treat, and not worthy of anyone’s time, care or attention. We walked out of the film in disgust and anger.

I couldn’t wait for the film to end. Started off quite funny then became incredibly tedious and toxic.

I agree, it totally lost its sense of humour part way through.

And I don't mind jokes about allergies if they are in good spirit. And I don't mind a portrayal of anaphylaxis for a plot. But these were all problematic because they showed a damagingly unrealistic depiction. The film wasnt some surreal cartoon yet the depiction of anaphylaxis was so unrealistic that it was the equivalent of someone shooting a person through the head and that person popping a plaster on the gaping hole and carrying on like nothing had happened.

I'm lucky as we've never needed to use DS's epi-pen. However from what I understand, it's more like a DeFib machine, it might save their life, but it might not, and you're being blue lighted to hospital anyway.

I know exactly what you mean OP. My family and I were discussing exactly this in relation to The Last Anniversary's portayal of anaphylaxis. It was farcical. It's also the use of anaphylaxis as a lazy plot device in the first place - it's become such a trope.

See also, every injection into a neck. I'd love to know where this originated. But if there's an injection needing to be given in a drama or sci-fi production it's given into the neck, via an enormous needle, more often than not. WTF.

Absolutely this. And you have to rest and not move even after using it because activity/hot drinks /caffeine etc can all re -trigger the reaction. And the adrenaline itself can make you feel quite unwell . And there is a decent risk of a bi-phasic reaction (a reoccurrence of the reaction) so you should rest and be monitored for 6-12 hours afterwards (minimum)

And EpiPens are not a panacea. They don't always work sadly. So noone takes a risks and consumes the allergen because they have their EpiPen handy. It's just not that much of a guarantee

Ugh. I didn’t watch Peter rabbit because of this so will not be watching this either. FGS the instructions are on the epipen, how can they get it so wrong?!

The live action Peter Rabbit film received criticism for this same reason.

That's such a good point about the instructions being on the EpiPen! There's no excuse!