Back to Topics │ ⇐ Back │ Start: Framing │Forward => │
On a trip to the UK in January 2026, I became aware that in the restaurant we visited the serving staff asked:
“Does anyone have any allergies?”
At first glance, situations like this appear simple: someone identifies a risk, and others respond. In practice, the question is more complex—who is best placed to manage that risk, and what is a reasonable expectation of others?
The question irritated me, although at the time I couldn’t clearly articulate why. It felt oddly detached from the immediate context. For the rest of this section, Peanut Allergy serves as an alias for allergies in general.
On reflection, I think my irritation stemmed not from the issue of allergies themselves, but from the question implied by the question: why is this important here, and why now? It felt like an additional social obligation being placed upon me — a subtle demand for disclosure — and another example of how modern society increasingly expects individuals to adapt their behaviour, and even aspects of their identity, to fit evolving collective norms.
Why
I cannot accurately look back into the past of my parents – however a story of anyone going into analectic shock and the disturbing nature of the fit did not appear to have been a common event. During my childhood and up until the 1990’s I cannot recall this as an issue.
Then came Boston Legal in the early 2000’s with an episode about a teacher being sued for not reacting quickly enough to save a pupil from having a fit and dying. Another pupil had smuggled a chocolate bar into the class and in a cruel and tragic way curiosity killed the cat.
The teacher had been distracted for a short moment with the news that her father had died – (Entertainment likes to frame). Looking back this may been a form of bias that I picked up on then and the restaurant incident in the UK violated it. What I am grateful for if this case is that it triggered my curiosity.
What Changed Since the 1990s?
This question is somewhat paradoxical. The consequences of advancements made before the 1990s were only fully realised later, and for a small but significant portion of the population these consequences became devastating. The outcome in question is morally abhorrent: the potential for death.
Over the last half century:
- Infant mortality has been significantly reduced through medical advancement.
- Average life expectancy has increased.
Coldly put, the human body can be viewed as a mechanical system whose failure rate over time resembles a bathtub curve — a concept long used in engineering and actuarial science, including life insurance.
Early in life, failure rates are high. Childhood is dangerous due to a combination of genetic defects, developmental vulnerability, and accident. During the working years, failure rates fall and are dominated by external events such as accident and illness. Later in life, failure rates rise again as the body wears out. Consistent with this, adolescent and young adult males under 25 present a higher actuarial risk than females, while mortality rates increase markedly beyond the age of 65.
In the coldest terms of design:
- In manufacturing, not every unit produced is identical; some will fail early.
- During the operational lifetime, failure is largely driven by accident and intervention, such as disease.
- A fixed lifespan may be part of the design, but how the system is used determines when it ultimately fails.
This behaviour defines the age-dependent rate of death: high at the start, falling through maturity, and rising again later. There is no political correctness in this curve — it simply describes observed reality.
Under these constraints, the bathtub curve has not disappeared. Its detailed shape has changed, but its fundamental form remains. What has shifted is the distribution of failure: premature death has been reduced, while mortality is increasingly concentrated later in life. These changes are largely the result of 20th-century developments in medicine, hygiene, and lifestyle.
An Accident Waiting to Happen
In aircraft design, the “peanut allergy scenario” would be considered a nightmare. In aerospace, the preferred remedy is to eliminate the failure mode during manufacturing — ensuring the defect never leaves the ground. This approach exists because the consequences of premature component failure are catastrophic, and because civil litigation has historically imposed costs so large that accident prevention is engineered directly into the system.
This philosophy has shaped modern aviation safety. Known catastrophic failure modes are designed out wherever possible. As we examine this approach through the lens of peanut allergies, its impracticality in a human context becomes immediately apparent.
Viewed from an aerospace perspective, mitigation strategies follow a familiar hierarchy:
- Engineer the weakness out of the component entirely.
- If that is not possible, replace the component frequently through maintenance to account for a short or uncertain lifespan. If lifespan remains unpredictable, revert to step one.
- Apply regular inspection and verification procedures to detect degradation before failure. If failure is sudden and catastrophic with no reliable precursors, revert again to step one.
This is how law, liability, and engineering co-evolved in aviation to minimise death from aircraft accidents.
A person with a severe peanut allergy can only be considered analogous to a component in this system if viewed purely through the lens of cost and liability. In reality, such a reduction is neither acceptable nor possible. As a result, the primary aerospace solution — redesigning the component to eliminate the failure mode — is not available. This immediately exposes the limits of design-based safety when applied to biological systems.
It also raises uncomfortable questions:
- What constitutes reasonable behaviour for those who do not have such an allergy?
- Have we created environments where accidents are statistically inevitable?
- If an accident occurs, and one is not the allergy sufferer, what degree of responsibility is reasonable to assign?
These are not questions of blame. They are questions of system design under unavoidable constraints.
The Way Forward
Having, or not having, a peanut allergy is a characteristic of the individual and therefore forms part of that individual’s identity. It is not something sought or chosen; it is imposed. The individual must live with it.
I have lived with mental illness. Its patterns are embedded in me. In many ways, this is analogous to alcoholism: a recovered alcoholic remains an alcoholic who actively chooses not to drink. Likewise, I must manage triggers and follow therapeutic practices to remain healthy. In an unexpected way, the experience has expanded me. I consider myself fortunate. Nonetheless, it remains part of my identity.
In my case, support structures exist should my condition deteriorate again. However, I do not believe it would be reasonable to expect members of the public to anticipate, accept, or adapt to any chronic behaviours I might exhibit. That would constitute an unfair distortion of their world. My responsibility is to manage my condition so that I can continue to function as a strong contributor.
Peanut allergies share some similarities with this situation, but also differ in important ways. Questions of responsibility and disclosure are therefore complex. When should an individual identify themselves as having a peanut allergy? Who, among the public, should reasonably be expected to react to that information?
If an allergic reaction occurs and the individual is unconscious, should identification of the allergy be available? Should the individual be expected to carry medication, and if so, who should be trained to administer it? At what point does protective regulation become punitive, and does it meaningfully reduce risk?
The Boston Legal episode frames these questions well — not by offering answers, but by exposing the tension between responsibility, liability, and reasonable expectation.
📖 Series Roadmap
- ######:
- Balancing the Books (23.04.2026)
- Money Makes the World Go Around (23.04.2026)
- Framing (23.04.2026)
- Peanut Allergies (24.04.2026)
- Identity (24.04.2026)
- ###### (04.11.2025)
- ###### (11.11.2025)
- ###### (18.11.2025)
🔗 R&R Navigation
Back to Topics │ ⇐ Back │ Start: Framing │Forward => │
Take a Second Thought 
Leave a comment