Unamusing moral dilemma-y thing

The sadness moral of this story:  he has a disease: it is sad.  He can’t enjoy really a concert with this disease: it is sad too.  People around him can’t enjoy the concert too: it is 3 times sad!

To end,  we can’t do anything for it, perhaps just call his doctor and ask him to not recommend his patient to go to concerts..... But is it moral?

The same happened to me in the last concert, but the person was in a box (separate space with a few seats). I had a seat in the stalls close to him and was distracted from time to time. At the beginning I was a bit upset, but when I realized the person had the syndrome, I felt ashamed of my initial attitude because he had the deference to buy a ticket in a box.  The tics quickly lost importance  transforming the fact in an enriching experience. 

No dilemma to me! He should shut the $%&* up or stay the &*@% home. I feel sorry for him if he can't go to a concert without interrupting, but that's his dilemma, not yours: His disease does not limit him from understanding his impact in such a venue. If he knows his impact on others but doesn't care, he's the problem. Tourette's does not entitle him to be clueless. If he just had a cold, he would be rude and people would say so, end of story. Why should it change things that he has Tourette's? Tell him you're suffering from lack of empathy and your anger meds are wearing off. Shut the $%^& up. You are in the wrong hall. The rock concert is at Wembley, go there instead. It's like parents with bawling brats. Everyone has been in that situation, so you empathize and tolerate it some, but only to the point that if it were you, you would have excused yourself. 

And now I'll excuse myself 

There is an alternate solution, but one that only he can action (and probably has not considered).  Since Tourrette's Syndrome is a condition causing a long term impact on quality of life, he can use the provisions of Equality Act (2010) to require the venue to make Reasonable Adjustment.  In this case that would almost certainly amount to them providing a box at normal prices so as to enable him to access the concert without risk of getting a discriminatory reaction from other people.

Your reaction is entirely understandable; however although technically it's discriminatory, your action is not in any way culpable as you didn't pursue the matter after you became aware of the cause.  You acted appropriately.  If the venue were aware and refused to make reasonable adjustment, or worse still, refused him entry then they would be culpable under the terms of the act.  He should sort the matter out with the venue, and this is where the failing lies.

Clemenza, it does seem as though your condition is to have a pathological lack of empathy!  (Or are you just playing that part?)

Just as an example:
You state "Tourette's does not entitle him to be clueless.", and yet your expressed attitude to this person shows you to apparently be equally clueless as to the impact your lack of empathy has on others.   (Alternatively, are you playing Devil's advocate or maybe attempting humour? - I don't know).

This is why we have the act, to help different people get on without causing excessive friction that harms others.

I am speechless by Clemenza's Neaderthal rant, and some idiots have even 'liked' it. What the hell?

+1 for Huge's balanced narrative.

Do you think the bloke's happy with his condition or he's not aware he's doing it? What does he do, stay in all his life? So he 'ruined' your evening. His life is ruined. I don't understand the dilemma. There isn't one. No concert is ever perfect, there's always people ruining it by standing up, talking, taking videos/pics, deviously & subtly pushing in front of you, etc... They're all a pain. I feel sorry for the guy and after the response from him, I'd be happy not to be him and probably enjoy the concert more.

Regardless of the Torrettes issue, please please don't attend a classical music concert f you have a cold as you will ruin other people's night. It's basic common-sense and decency.

Ray

thebigfredc posted:

Regardless of the Torrettes issue, please please don't attend a classical music concert f you have a cold as you will ruin other people's night. It's basic common-sense and decency.

Ray

Aside from the particular disability in the case cited, in respect of which I think Huge's contribution is pertinent, the question of a cold and attending a concert is purely a matter of courtesy and consideration for others. In practical terms I think the question has to be at what point do the symtoms of the cold become significant enough to be a real distraction to others in the audience, and where to draw the balance between that and the cost and significance to the individual of the event (bearing in mind tbat for some ecpvents the cost could be £100s). If controllable with gentle (quiet) nose blowing during pouder parts of the music and coughing negligible then it might not be unreasonable to go, but if a hacking cough every minute or two and constant loud sniffing between foghorn blows of the nose, then clearly that would be unacceptable.

I once went to a concert, with no trace of a cold, but developed a tickle in my throat during a quiet part. I managed to resist the urge to cough until a crescendo, when i coughed to clear it - but instead of clearing that made it worse, and I had to hurriedly leave my seat and exit the auditorium until after it had stopped, when I returned and stood by the door intil convenient to return to my seat. To me that is reasonable behaviour, and I would excuse my neighbour doung the same.

As for people sniffing, such uncouth behaviour is a pet hate of mine, and I find it really onjectionable to have someone near me sniffing, anywhere not just in a concert - though I would accept it of someone if I knew it to be the result of an unavoidable medical condition (and under such circumstances it is not uncouth behaviour) - and I suppose one thing this thread has done is make me aware that sniffing could have such a cause, of which hitherto I was unaware.

...............I cannot enjoy the concert but it is my right to make sure that those around me cannot enjoy the concert either........  Seems reasonable enough.

French Rooster posted:

......He can’t enjoy really a concert with this disease: it is sad too......

Er...why not?

Based on what Huge said.....

Rod behaved impeccably.

Rod had no knowledge of the unfortunate man’s condition. He made a polite request, and then accepted the situation.

I’m not really impressed with the man with Tourette’s. Or his wife. With his condition they should appreciate the effect he has upon others. They should also be aware of his right to Reasonable Adjustment and make use of it.

SongStream posted:

French Rooster posted:

......He can’t enjoy really a concert with this disease: it is sad too......

Er...why not?

yes, perhaps he can, but better at home, for the others.....  I am a bit mean but pragmatic. One pleasure have not the right to be spoil the pleasure of the others.  

Geez you guys are literal. Of course I’m hamming it up, but I’m definitely playing devil’s advocate because I think Rod’s behavior was better than that of Tourette’s guy.

Neanderthal as I am, I’ll try to put myself in the other guy’s shoes. I know I’m not as good at it as you guys, but here goes: I want to go to the concert. It’s a fairly quiet venue. I know myself. I know that I will make noise or am likely to. I know noise will be distracting to others and it may be rude to the performers if it is audible to them as well. Do I even go? I’m not sure I should go at all. Maybe this concert is something my wife really wants to go to and she really wants me to go with her. Tourette’s shouldn’t stop us, should it? I tell her that I don’t want to make a spectacle of her or make other people uncomfortable if I can’t control it. We talk it over and come up with a game plan. Maybe I call ahead and see if they have box accommodations or an area where loud guests are directed. Maybe I go, but at the first sign of being distracting to people I apologize and move to a boundary near an entranceway to see if that works and if it doesn’t, I probably leave. Does my wife want to stay if I leave? Maybe if I have to excuse myself, she stays and I wait for her outside or something. Maybe I introduce myself to the people around us when we get there and tell them that I have Tourette’s and my tic is sniffling/coughing and ask if it will disturb them. I tell them to be honest, to not feel like they have to suffer through it if I'm too noisy. I don't want them to feel like they have to walk on eggshells around me. Say something if it bothers you. If I have to leave, it isn’t the end of the world. I gave it a go and it didn’t work out. My wife knows me and knows that this might happen. One thing I would not do, is just say “Sorry, I have Tourette’s” and that’s that. Might as well say go #$%% yourself. How empathetic would that make me? Would I want everyone to empathize with me but I refuse to empathize with them? I don’t want to hide behind Tourette’s. I offer it by way of apology, but I would not use it as an excuse and I would not want others to be uncomfortable, like they can’t say anything to me without fear of being insensitive. I want them to treat me as an equal. If I cannot behave as expected, I excuse myself. I certainly cannot imagine my wife responding by asking “does he want a go with you?” when both of us know people will think I have a cold and we expect them to find the behavior rude. We've been through it before, we know it is coming.

So, when I empathize with this man, what should I take away from it? If it were me, I would shut the @#$% up or go the @#$% home.

Empathizing is one thing, sympathizing is another. If I’m imagining myself with Tourette’s, I don’t want sympathy, I want to be treated normally. But that means I need to know I've lost control, its bugging other people and its time to go.

Or maybe this guy had a cold and told Rod he had Tourette’s to shut him up. That happens too in this best of all possible worlds.

Clemenza

The correct and thoughtful answer.

A decongestant could have gone a long way.

Every concert you go to entails a risk.  You risk having 'bad' neighbours all around, you risk food poisoning from the snack bar, you risk having beer spilled over you by some idiot, you risk being 'mugged' by hyped up prices, you risk being involved in some kind of altercation, you even risk disappointment from the artist having an off-day...   Nope concerts are a definate no-no, buy the album instead and have a much more controlled and safe evening at home.

Interesting how society has evolved to accommodate disabilities. When my son was in daycare 18 or so years ago I was informed suddenly that I could no longer pack peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in his lunch. The daycare had taken in a new child with a peanut allergy and all nut products had to be eliminated from the facility. I had no substitutes on hand, so sent my son in with his usual lunch the next day. The daycare's response was to isolate my son in a separate room from the 50-60 other children to eat his peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I felt he was essentially vilified in order to accommodate a child with special needs, and forced to comply with their new policy, unstated when we joined the daycare.

In my mind the obvious response would have been to isolate the child with the restriction and maintain the status quo - allow children without dietary considerations to eat as they normally would. No, society and its regulations demands that we accommodate all components of the population, theoretically because to isolate the child with the disability might disadvantage his/her social integration. The endgame for me in that situation - one person's restriction was imposed on the whole. That's the state of our current, litigious society. Comply or depart.

Legal rights these days often seem to supersede common courtesy. As to the OP, good to have taken the higher ground.

The nut allergy point it interesting. I have a potentially fatal allergy and when I fly we tell the airline. They then don’t sell nuts on the flight and ask everyone not to eat any they have bought themselves. If they didn’t do that I’d have three choices: don’t fly, sit on the wing, or risk death. I’ve never heard any grumbling when the announcement is made, with everyone seeming happy to make a tiny sacrifice to keep someone else safe. 

As HH points out just the amount of nut allergen that can be taken into the air as vapour can, in some cases, induce fatal anaphalactic shock.

The decision to remove you son and his peanut butter sandwich was the correct one.  You should have complied with their instruction.  OK, you didn't know the consequences of not doing so, but their action made sure you did comply later!  In terms of isolating the child with the allergy - yes that would work AFTER ALL the other children had been washed and given a change of clothing and the place cleaned - so as to remove any life threatening contaminant still present!

Hungryhalibut posted:

The nut allergy point it interesting. I have a potentially fatal allergy and when I fly we tell the airline. They then don’t sell nuts on the flight and ask everyone not to eat any they have bought themselves. If they didn’t do that I’d have three choices: don’t fly, sit on the wing, or risk death. I’ve never heard any grumbling when the announcement is made, with everyone seeming happy to make a tiny sacrifice to keep someone else safe. 

Gosh HH, that's a bit scary, having to keep clear of nuts.  I was a bit worried at first, but I suppose when we are kept at a long distance away (I'm up in Cheshire for example) and on the end of an internet connection, it's not so bad.   I (and I think I talk for all the other nuts on the forum) wish you well during this coming nut-filled Christmas season   

ps - the thought of life without of chocolate & hazelnut spread scarcely bares thinking about  

count.d posted:

 So he 'ruined' your evening. 

I said no such thing. And you not only put words into my mouth, but you actually put it in quotes.

Once I had the explanation, as others have inferred, I was happy to put up with it. I imagine that he, and his girlfriend, have become so accustomed to the noises that they can 'tune out' in much the same way that a ticking clock at home that you no longer notice may keep a house guest awake at night. As soon as I knew there was an explanation, and no resolution, I too stopped thinking about it and allowing it to bother me. As I said, I actually felt awkward at having said anything (although I've no idea how I was supposed to know).

It did spoil my impression of the concert because the music was not very loud, and just a soloist, but it did not ruin my evening and I never claimed that it had.

joerand posted:

Interesting how society has evolved to accommodate disabilities. When my son was in daycare 18 or so years ago I was informed suddenly that I could no longer pack peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in his lunch. The daycare had taken in a new child with a peanut allergy and all nut products had to be eliminated from the facility. I had no substitutes on hand, so sent my son in with his usual lunch the next day. The daycare's response was to isolate my son in a separate room from the 50-60 other children to eat his peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I felt he was essentially vilified in order to accommodate a child with special needs, and forced to comply with their new policy, unstated when we joined the daycare.

In my mind the obvious response would have been to isolate the child with the restriction and maintain the status quo - allow children without dietary considerations to eat as they normally would. No, society and its regulations demands that we accommodate all components of the population, theoretically because to isolate the child with the disability might disadvantage his/her social integration. The endgame for me in that situation - one person's restriction was imposed on the whole. That's the state of our current, litigious society. Comply or depart.

Legal rights these days often seem to supersede common courtesy. As to the OP, good to have taken the higher ground.

Wow. I'm going to fundamentally disagree with you. It was entirely appropriate that your son experienced a single, extremely minor, disruption to his socialisation, rather than have a policy that results in the allergic child experiencing repeated social isolation, every time a parent has "no substitutes on hand" and therefore must put peanut butter on their children's sandwich. I guess it was too much to ask that for just one day, your son had "jelly" sandwiches for lunch. Your example has nothing to do with legal rights; common courtesy would have had your son mildly inconvenienced as the preferred option here.

(By the way how, other than "suddenly" could you be informed? - It is a single piece of information. You don't know it one instant and then do know it the next instant. OK, maybe you found out the morning that you were packing the lunch, I guess. That's more a case of being informed quite late, rather than "suddenly", though)

Interesting to me how folks tend to latch onto the peanut allergy and its potential severity. I was unaware at the time, but learned from the circumstance I described above that allergic reactions to peanuts can be potentially life threatening. At the same time, serious anaphylaxis is rare. The (US) Center For Disease Control documented 13 deaths attributable to peanut allergies between 1996 and 2006, so perhaps less a concern than often sensationalized by the notion of reaction to vapors, especially given the prevalence of peanuts and their by-products in the food chain. By comparison, 374 people in the US were killed by lightning strikes between 1995 and 2000. Still good to take all measures, especially those preventable. At some point the peanut allergic child will have to attend elementary school, and I've yet to hear of a school that banned PB&J sandwiches. A bee sting on the playground can induce anaphylaxis, but I suppose that is considered unpreventable.

The larger issue to me (as I thought I prefaced in my post and more to the OP) is how society has come to deal with accommodating disabilities/impairments/allergies, etc. In the situation with my son the daycare could have taken several approaches:

1) the daycare could have informed the parents of the allergic child that they could not guarantee the facility could be made peanut-free and therefore were unable to ensure the safety of that child, That child could have sought alternate daycare, perhaps  in a smaller setting, maybe employ a nanny.

2) the daycare could have informed the parents of current enrollees they were considering taking on a child with needs that would restrict food allowed in the facility. Were the current parents willing to comply in order to accommodate the new member? I was never given the choice.

Ultimately though, there is massive legislation, fear of litigation, and to a lesser degree political correctness that rules institutional choices. Whether it's the guy with turrets next to you at the concert or a kid at daycare, how far do we go to accommodate, where do we draw the line, and can society afford every new caveat or special need that manifests itself?

The lady next to me on a recent flight was allowed to bring her tiny "service dog" on board. No one from the airline asked me whether I was allergic to dogs (or to a lesser degree whether I cared to contend with its yelping). Allergic reactions to dogs can cause anaphylaxis in some people.

My wife is a school business manager at a school with a nursery class and children up to age 11. The whole school is ‘nut free’ and it’s never been an issue. I suspect a lot of schools are the same.