- advertisement -

Waterpark access denied with omnipod??

Discussion in 'Parents of Children with Type 1' started by dzirbel, Aug 2, 2012.

  1. Bsbllmom

    Bsbllmom Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,269
    I know that all the waterparks we have been to do not even allow rivets or exposed zippers on bathing suits or swim trunks. You have to either cover them up, turn it inside out or don't go on.
     
  2. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,543
    I agree with you as unfortunate that situation might be I doubt the ADA would be applicable in that case.
     
  3. sooz

    sooz Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,330
    Anyone care to speculate about how an Omnipod could possibly damage a commercial water slide?
     
  4. Christopher

    Christopher Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,771
    It doesn't really matter. If the owner of the park wants people to cover them up, then people should do that. Speculating how they may or may not mess up the slides doesn't really change anything. Just my 2 cents.
     
  5. Ali

    Ali Approved members

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,223
    My guess is that of course they do not know if the "pods" damage the slides. They just have a generic policy in place. I suspect that if you could get a hold of someone higher up they would just wave a Pod thorough. Attorneys want to cover all possible future lawsuit issues so "stuff" is usually broadly worded. and the employees reading the "stuff" do not recheck with the attorney but just go with the safest answer...which is always No. If it was me I would just not even mention and just wear it where no one would notice. Frankly I can not imagine a water park employee even noticing a Pod or even if they did and you said it is a medical device, I suspect most would just say OK and pass you through.
     
  6. sooz

    sooz Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,330
    Let me try to explain why in my mind it definitely matters. It is the crux of the issue. If an Omnipod, which is made of a fairly soft plastic with rounded corners, cannot damage a commercial water slide, then how is it not a discrimination issue? How is it a safety issue? There was a time in this country's not too distant past when owners of businesses such as public swimming pools denied access to groups of people based on the busness owner's personal bias. This country determined that this was wrong and passed laws to protect people from arbitrary discrimination. People with disabilities fall into that class. An owner of a public business cannot decide he "wants people to cover up" or remove a life saving medical device based on his own "wants." If we as people who understand more than anyone what our children have to deal with every day don't stand up and say this kind of treatment of them is wrong, then who will? For the sake of this discussion, let's take the child's mother's word for what happened, that her child was told she had to remove her Omnipod if she wanted to go down the slide after she had paid admission to the park.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2012
  7. sooz

    sooz Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,330
    Further, if this issue is determined not to fall under legally protected parameters, wouldn't it be in our kid's best interest to try to get this kind of ignorant policy changed?
     
  8. kiwikid

    kiwikid Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    3,011
    I would think they would be just as worried about the child having the pod pulled off, as their own slide.
     
  9. dzirbel

    dzirbel Approved members

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    170
    She did infact end up removing the pod and had to deal with the park manager glaring at them and "keeping an eye on them".

    You cant go on their slides if you have ANY plastic, even a clasp on a swimsuit. Imagine paying to get in and then find out that tiny clasp holding your swimsuit around your neck will prevent you from using the rides.

    The local news channel is going to be covering the story.

    An Omnipod on the belly is not going to scratch a slide that you ride down on your bottom.

    It's especially wrong when it seems most all other waterparks have no issue with it, based on others' experiences.
     
  10. caspi

    caspi Approved members

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,134
    I will be interested to see how this all pans out. Can you please provide the links to the local story when it comes out? :cwds:
     
  11. Christopher

    Christopher Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,771
    Good, so she complied with the rules of the park and got to go down the slide. It all worked out in the end.

    It is probably hard to guarantee that a person won't twist around when going down a slippery slide.
     
  12. sooz

    sooz Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,330
    I don't see how this can be seen as "it all worked out in the end." Perhaps people who use Omnipods see this differently. How would people feel if the next "rule" the owner of this park decides is a "safety issue" is no syringes in the park, or no child who is on any kind of insulin because they may go low? Kids who wear Omnipods participate in all kinds of sports. It is not denied them because they might go low. As for the pod breaking on the slide, anyone who has heard the screech of death of a pod knows you can't even break them by hitting them with a hammer. Syringes are much more of a "safety issue" in my mind than an Omnipod, do people who think this owner has the right to make people remove their Omnipods also think it would be ok to ban all syringes or all insulin users from the park? If it were your child who was the one affected by this arbitrary "rule" would you feel the same way if your kid was the one who was singled out in front of their peers and once again made to feel different because of their diabetes? That is ok? As for the issue of the pods scratching the slide, other parks do not make people remove Omnipods, so I can't buy the scratching excuse.
     
  13. timsma

    timsma Approved members

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    421
    I couldn't agree with you more Susan. I'd further this to get them to comply with the ADA that should be protecting them against this type of thing.
     
  14. caspi

    caspi Approved members

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,134
    Again, we really don't know all the facts of the case, what was actually said, etc. What I am beginning to wonder is if the park was concerned about the pod being torn off and being liable for injury since it is a medical device?
     
  15. sooz

    sooz Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,330
    For the sake of discussion, let's assume the OP is presenting the case as it was. Do you think it is ok for the park to ask that a pod be removed because they are concerned about being liable for injury? Which do you think would make injury more likely, wearing a pod, or doing without it if you needed it?
     
  16. caspi

    caspi Approved members

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,134
    Well, having a pod torn off isn't fun (from what my son says). I guess some over zealous attorney could even argue that the pod could fly off and hit someone or that the pod ripping off could cause insulin and blood to spill into the pool or on the slides.

    What it comes down to is that they didn't force this person to remove the pod. They told them that the rules were no plastic and if they wanted to go on the slide, the pod had to be removed. They seem to be extremely picky, stating that plastic clasps aren't allowed bathing suits. Personally, I wouldn't have removed my son's pod. If they wouldn't accomodate us after we explained the situation, I would have left and then contacted the ADA to see if this was legal or not. I honestly don't know if it is or isn't.

    ETA: Just to be clear, I would contact the ADA for clarification of the law, not for the sake of filing a lawsuit. That's not my style.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2012
  17. virgo39

    virgo39 Approved members

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,691
    I think if the park has a "no metal/ no plastic" rule that has some reasonable health/safety basis and is consistently enforced, then the park can say to one wearing a pod that they are not allowed to participate unless the metal/plastic is removed. Until this thread, I was unaware of these kind of rules. (I wonder what those with artificial limbs do?)

    The rule has an adverse impact on someone with a disability, but it doesn't sound like it's a pretext or a rule intended to discriminate against someone with a disability (as a " no insulin users" rule would) .

    As for your second question, I don't think the park owner is required to balance the probability in the way the question seems to suggest (i.e., low likelihood of harm to slide against some harm to pod user who goes without a needed pod) . While we definitely believe that pumping offers benefits, and i would prefer my DD to be able to wear her pod, I don't think choosing not to wear it in order to participate in an activity islikely to do her an injury.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2012
  18. kiwikid

    kiwikid Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    3,011
    For those who do wear pods - surely they could be covered by a swim shirt or all in one togs? A highly visible pod worn on the belly with a 2 piece suit would surely make the slide attendants uneasy both for the child if it were pulled off and for the slide if that is what they are responsible for. Why not just wear your pod hidden and therefore more safely secure??
     
  19. sarahspins

    sarahspins Approved members

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,205
    OT, but they typically don't swim with them so it's not as much of an issue.

    I really think that there are some posters making a mountain out of a mole hill on this one. No, it's not exactly fair to be asked to remove a pod, BUT, if the policy of the park is "no plastics at all on the ride" then I actually do feel like it is a reasonable expectation for customers to be aware of this and make the appropriate changes to their D management... which may mean removing the pod for a day.

    I really think that ADA only applies when a group is being singled out somehow, and that really isn't the case here - no one is allowed to have any kind of plastic, they're not targeting diabetics or anyone else with a disability, it's simply a policy that applies to EVERYONE and that is not discrimination. Wearing a pod is NOT the only way to manage D, and to insist upon leaving the pod on at all costs when there are viable alternatives for a day at a waterpark is just silly.

    Granted I realize the OP's friend likely didn't know this was the case when they paid admission, but now they do know now, and thanks to this experience, a bunch of us are aware that it could be an issue. I wouldn't have really worried about it before, but now I might.
     
  20. Darryl

    Darryl Approved members

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,313
    Their policy doens't sound right to me, but when we've gone to waterparks the pod was worn beneath a rash guard (lycra shirt) and not visible anyway. We didn't do this because of park rules, but to avoid the pod getting ripped off going down slides. I think it's likely the pod would come off if contacted the slide on the way down.
     

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice