Sabrina’s Law: The Girl and the Allergy Law
After all the delays, the government suddenly convened the standing committee’s review in early May. On May 16, the final vote on Bill 3 was held in the legislature. As parents and allergic children watched intently from the public gallery, all three parties voted in favour of Sabrina’s Law; it passed unanimously.
The law, which took effect January 1, 2006, requires school boards to have all principals implement anaphylaxis plans that include: strategies to reduce exposure to allergens, procedures to communicate to parents, students and employees about life-threatening allergies, and regular training on dealing with life-threatening allergies for teachers and staff.
In addition, principals are required to: develop an individual plan for each student at risk of anaphylaxis, maintain a file that lists that student’s prescriptions and emergency contacts and ensure that parents enrolling pupils supply information on a child’s allergies.
WHAT THE McGuinty Liberals may not realize, is that the progress of Sabrina’s Law was not just watched by the Shannons and by relatives of anaphylactic students in Ontario, but it has also been drawing attention in other provinces, and across the United States. The latter, in large measure, is a result of the lobbying efforts of Sabrina’s aunt, Kathleen Whelan.
In 2004, Whelan wrote to Robert F. Kennedy, who is on the board of the Food Allergy Initiative, the influential research and education organization based in New York. She had learned on the Internet that Kennedy has a son with peanut allergy and decided to let him know about Sabrina and how the family wanted to tell her story so that people would appreciate the gravity of anaphylaxis.
Kennedy seemed moved, and asked the former director of FAI to contact Whelan. Sabrina’s aunt is a writer, and FAI published a two-page story she’d written about Sabrina’s death in its annual gala journal. The organization’s gala in November 2004 was held at New York’s Plaza Hotel and was a star-studded affair.
Among the guests were Kennedy, Ron Perelman, chairman of Revlon, and his then-wife, the actress Ellen Barkin. As guests dined on fine cuisine and raised many thousands of dollars for research, they also read Whelan’s words about her niece.
Sabrina’s family impressed FAI and Rachel Sanzari, who was then its administrator. “It’s just amazing that they took a tragedy and used it to make anaphylaxis an issue in Ontario,” she said in May 2005.
While some states have anaphylaxis programs in their schools, other jurisdictions in the United States are still disputing whether children are allowed to carry medication in the form of EpiPens in their schools. Sanzari thinks a law in a province the size of Ontario “will serve as a model here in the United States.”
“No matter where you are,” says Anaphylaxis Canada’s Harada, “the issues are very similar, the emotional aspect and what’s going on in schools. So many jurisdictions are looking at what’s happening here because nobody seems to have any law. There are guidelines, there are directives, there are ministry of education policies, but there’s no law. This is precedent-setting.”
In the end, reminds Levac, Bill 3 is about saving students’ lives. It’s a point that is hard to forget around Sara Shannon.
“I loved Sabrina so much. I miss her terribly,” she says. “We have to make sure this doesn’t happen to another child. When everything is done, everything is in place, every procedure, every emergency plan, then if a child dies, we can say, ‘there was nothing we could do’. But when we know that there is something we can do to prevent this, we can’t live in a world of denial.”
Sabrina’s Law fulfils a promise that Shannon desperately wanted to keep.
Reprinted from Allergic Living‘s Spring 2005 issue. Updated in February, 2006. This article was a finalist at the 2005 National Magazine Awards.
To subscribe or order a back issue, click here.