One of the strange elements about group dynamics is how when a relationship sours in a mixture of personal conflict and safety issues, people who attempt to be peacemakers often ignore the safety problem to focus on the personal conflict.
Historic reenactment is among my hobbies, which is not easy to do with OAS anaphylaxis. Imagine spending four days on a remote campsite forty minutes from the nearest emergency room while sharing a kitchen with ten people. You have to really trust your group.
About five years ago it became obvious that there was a problem. Someone who was camping with us needed a medical airlift and had stopped breathing. That in itself is a serious problem, but another member of the group interfered with the rescue.
"You don't understand!" That person interjected, attempting to persuade the first responders that the real problem was a relationship issue.
This behavior had red flags all over it.
The individual who needed the rescue did not have anaphylaxis--their underlying medical problem was different and, thankfully, that person survived without serious harm. Yet as anyone who does live with anaphylaxis can understand, the thought in my head was how in the worst case scenario that could be me.
Maybe if the person who interfered with the airlift were extremely young it would have been feasible to sit them down for a talk. This individual was over forty and had an underdeveloped sense of personal boundaries.
Not every event is a four day camping trip. I distanced myself afterward, but noticed that this person started to corner me and tried to start relationship discussions when my own health was shaky.
At a later event--and yes it was a bad idea to try the cole slaw without getting a complete rundown of the ingredients but who puts apple into cole slaw? I mistook the slivers for radishes and spat out the first bite, rinsing my mouth with water repeatedly and leaving the table. From there it was a waiting game: self-medicate, monitor the symptoms, stay calm, and hope this does not end in a trip down winding mountain roads to a hospital.
At that juncture this person decided to block my path and start a discussion about why I had been avoiding her.
Nope.
Really the last thing I wanted to hear at that moment is how much she
cared. She had no healthcare background at all, not even a first aid certificate, and I had zero desire to bond with someone who had a track record of getting in the way when a patient stopped breathing. My response to her by no means encapsulated all of these thoughts yet it was more blunt than diplomatic.
Although I apologized for the bad manners within the hour and she said she accepted the apology, the inter-group political gears started turning pretty soon afterward. I wanted to stop camping with that group but my better half did did not see the problem himself and disagreed. This led to friction. Frankly I wanted to drop it and cut ties, but several people took me aside to express support. The same individual who was causing my problems had done similar things to other people before.
Frankly, none of these were conversations I wanted to have. I would have stopped camping with that group immediately after the incident with the medevac except for very strong pressure from the better half. I really do not want anyone who thinks relationship issues are more urgent than airway obstruction if I go into anaphylactic shock.
A former Navy Corpsman understood and agreed with those priorities; others did not. I was not going around raising complaints, yet when someone took me aside and started the conversation I responded truthfully. I still do historic reenactments--just not in close contact with that group.
One refrain was, "You'll meet people like that everywhere." This comes to mind today because the same words were recently directed at a friend with different medical problems who contemplated leaving a similar social group that had stopped being a safe environment. On both occasions those words were well-intentioned.
You'll meet people like that everywhere backfires in this context.
Conflicts are inevitable; many conflicts can be resolved, some cannot. If there had been any chance of talking me out of that departure the safety issue would have been central, which could probably be worked out for day events but not for extended camping trips.
You'll meet people like that everywhere is beside the point: I do not spend the rest of life separated from the nearest hospital by forty minutes of winding mountain roads. That other patient was lucky to get her breathing passage reopened before brain damage set in. I choose to avoid that risk. If you insinuate that this decision is on par with an adolescent who runs away from conflict out of ignorance about what the world is like, you are missing the point. That does not reassure me; the effect is quite the opposite.
What followed in my case was an offer of mediation. I declined. Experience had taught me that what follows takes the shape of a hostile negotiation in which my health needs get treated as an opening bid. That becomes a no win situation: if I make concessions I accept an unsafe environment, if I stand firm by my needs the negotiation fails and I get branded as stubborn. Theoretically I could exaggerate my needs in order to make meaningless concessions, but that would undercut my credibility--which becomes a foolish choice in the long run if new allergies develop or if the existing ones become more severe. Even if we somehow achieved detente, the other person could extract new concessions at any time in the future by reopening the negotiation. I have to give in; my health depends on it.
That isn't mediation. It's blackmail.
