<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>

Thank you to all of you who responded to my letter that I sent to TIME
about celiac disease.
I received about 15 responses from people who thanked me for my letter to TIME.

I received one message from somebody who was concerned that if we
write to many nitpicky grammar-guru messages, TIME will be turned-off
from writing about celiac disease and won't publish any more articles
about it. I respectfully disagree. Here is an excerpt from my reply to
that poster:

  "Thank you for sharing your concerns with me. I recognize where those
  concerns come from. I agree that it would be awful if we offend TIME's
  editors so that they avoid the subject in the future. If that happens,
  we have all lost.

  "In my response to TIME, I tried to be as upbeat and professional as
  possible. I noted that I disagreed with their expert, and thought they
  needed to check their sources. I also thanked them for taking the time
  to reply to me, and I encouraged them to consider future articles on
  celiac disease.

  "I hope that nobody who read the article sent mean-spirited replies to
  TIME. That would totally negate our cause. I also hope that when the
  TIME editors read my response that they will be interested in finding
  out the truth about celiac disease. That might lead to more articles
  (they will have done some research, so it wouldn't take that much more
  to actually write-up an article on it), and more publicity of our
  condition."

I also received a message from somebody who posed the following question:

> [...] I have 35+ years of nursing experience and many of those
> associated with Insurance and Worker's Comp issues. I am well
> associated with ADA,  and how it works in the workplace.  Since
> for many, CD can be quite debilitating, in my book it would qualify.

I want to share my personal view on this subject. I have a close
relative who will eventually die from complications related to
rheumatoid arthritis. He is severely disabled, and unable to function
"normally". I am glad that the ADA protects him and makes his life
easier in some respect. My condition as a celiac, in my opinion, does
not deserve the same level of protection that is provided by the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Consider for a moment an extreme example of what might happen, over
time, if celiac disease were covered by ADA:

Other intolerances and allergies would have to be covered as well.
That means that people with lactose intolerance, peanut allergies,
etc. would all be covered by ADA. Then you would have to cover people
with food-coloring sensitivities, animal dander allergies, and
seasonal allergies. Where does it stop? How do you cover gluten
intolerance by ADA, and not cover peanut allergies?  What about those
who are allergic to bee stings?

If my condition is covered by ADA, then I can sue my employer for not
providing reasonable accommodations for my condition. Does that mean I
can sue to keep my company from having an outdoor picnic because I
have a bee-sting allergy? Can I sue my pastor so he has to get rid of
his cat, simply because I have animal dander allergies? Can I sue the
bakery for not providing reasonable accommodations for my condition
because they only have gluten-containing rolls?

I recognize that the people who are asking that celiac disease be
covered under ADA are not asking for the extremes I'm outlining. I'm
just pointing out what I believe would be the logical outcome if
celiac disease were covered under ADA. In my opinion, ADA should
remain for those with severe disabilities. We can get by on our own
without it.

Paul Pehrson
Spanish Fork, UT

*Support summarization of posts, reply to the SENDER not the CELIAC List*