JackieRabbit: I don't blame them. I'd not be administering any seizure medication to a kid either. If you administer the drug and something goes wrong, and you are a medical professional or have received training in said administration, you are liable. The law suit is an inevitability. I think they were probably acting on advice of counsel. The US attorney's probably going to lose this one. They did not say that epileptics couldn't participate in activities, but only that they would call 911 instead of administering drugs.

It's a program for disabled kids. They most certainly have medical staff, and it's probably not even the most critical drug they might have to administer.

So if I got this right, you see an 8 year old girl having a seizure you are supposed to pull her pants down, and stick a plastic syringe up her ass? And somehow avoid jail?

Felgraf: Craptastic: I can understand both sides of this argument, and I don't really have a big disagreement with either side. That said, if I had to stick something in a kid's ass to save their life, I'd do it no matter how uncomfortable it made me feel.

Perhaps if the parents signed a waiver for the kids who are "at risk"...?

I dunno, but let me put it this way:

At the girlscout camp I volunteer at, we had a child this year who, if she hit her head IN ANY WAY, we had to call an ambulance so she could go get CAT scanned-She had a super-low platlet disorder, so any blow to the head could cause cerebral hemmoraging. Thankfully, she was in the age range where she knew she needed to tell us if she smacked her head, even if it meant missing a chunk of the camp (I think she was.. 14, 15ish?), which made the whole thing *slightly* less terrifying.
/And she made it until the *last day* until she ran headlong into a dayshade. Argh. She was fine, at least!
//That is nowhere near the most terrifying camp story, though admittedly some of the scarrier ones are from before I began volunteering.

Ha! I used to volunteer at a Boy Scout camp. Worst thing that happened there was some kid surrendering his pinky toe to a snapping turtle while he was swimming in the lake. That was gruesome.

I doubt the problem is they are squeamish. And its not the liability of administering the drug it the liability of having to play with the ass of under age girls.

hdhale: JackieRabbit: I don't blame them. I'd not be administering any seizure medication to a kid either. If you administer the drug and something goes wrong, and you are a medical professional or have received training in said administration, you are liable. The law suit is an inevitability. I think they were probably acting on advice of counsel. The US attorney's probably going to lose this one. They did not say that epileptics couldn't participate in activities, but only that they would call 911 instead of administering drugs.

I realize we live in the land of lawyers and bureaucrats now, not the United States of America, and common sense hopped on the last plane to Costa Rica a few years ago, but...

Wouldn't have made sense to have a nurse on staff that was qualified to handle all this stuff? That and a waiver form stating that "we will have a professional nurse on the premises at all times and they will be available to render medical assistance...blah blah blah...you can't sue them or us if the nurse makes a good faith effort to render aid....so on and and so on. A good lawyer could bullet proof that pretty effectively and if the parent refuses to sign, no camp for kiddy.

I wish it were that simple. They should have a nurse, of course. But he or she would be at great risk for malpractice. A nurse hold a medical license and any malpractice attorney will tell you that a waiver is not worth the paper it is printed on. The truth is that you, with no training, could administer that medication and not have to worry about a law suit, as you would be covered under the Good Samaritan statute. But medical professionals are precluded from the statute. Believe it or not, lawyers aren't really the problem (well, maybe the ambulance chasers). It's people. Everyone's looking for an angle. While many malpractice suits are justified, the vast majority are nothing more than a shakedown to get the health care worker's insurance company to settle. People go looking for the lawyers.

I hold a medical license, even though it is not active. And I know that every time I have assisted a accident victim or performed CPR on someone, I have put myself at risk to be sued, regardless of the outcome.

But.. but... but... but...

hdhale: JackieRabbit: I don't blame them. I'd not be administering any seizure medication to a kid either. If you administer the drug and something goes wrong, and you are a medical professional or have received training in said administration, you are liable. The law suit is an inevitability. I think they were probably acting on advice of counsel. The US attorney's probably going to lose this one. They did not say that epileptics couldn't participate in activities, but only that they would call 911 instead of administering drugs.

I realize we live in the land of lawyers and bureaucrats now, not the United States of America, and common sense hopped on the last plane to Costa Rica a few years ago, but...

Wouldn't have made sense to have a nurse on staff that was qualified to handle all this stuff? That and a waiver form stating that "we will have a professional nurse on the premises at all times and they will be available to render medical assistance...blah blah blah...you can't sue them or us if the nurse makes a good faith effort to render aid....so on and and so on. A good lawyer could bullet proof that pretty effectively and if the parent refuses to sign, no camp for kiddy.

How many kids wont be able to go to camp because 75k of their budget has to be diverted to pay for the nurse for 2 kids who will probably will never need the services of said nurse?

/Things cost money.
//Actions have consequences.

sk8r: I have clients on diastat rectal, clonazepam po and midazolam nasal spray. The biggest problem isn't administration- it's securing the meds. This is valium. They probably don't want the liability. Even if they had diastat, by the time they found the narc keys the ambulance would be there.

Midazolam nasal spray is fantastic for interruping a seizure. Too bad it is nasal versed. Party time!

They may be in trouble from this lawsuit if they are willing to give narcs to other campers. The rectal route is one of the safest- unless you are using Franzia. Then no route is safe.

Best part of a Versed party is no one remembers it the next day

Con Fabulous: Fine, I'll be the first to say it. If an 8 year old is seizing in front of you and you hide behind some policy to protect your legal liability rather than give them their medication, you are scum.

On the other hand, it does show you're reasonably intelligent.

Do it wrong, do it without the proper training, do it without being the right gender, or without supervision, do it to a minor, etc: These are all things that could result in anything from destroyed life to federal prison.

My wife was chuckling about how her sister saw a naked 3 year old kid run down the middle of her street. She believed that the kid might have come from a house at the end of her block, but she wasn't sure what to do.

While ethically, the right thing to do would be to remove the kid from danger, and then find it's parents, doing so is a legally dangerous thing.

Any adult interacting with a naked child in public is in immediate legal danger, especially when they're effectively a stranger. Bringing them to your house is probably worse, especially if you're seen. Bringing them to the right house could expose you to physical or legal attacks by the parent who thinks you STOLE their child, and I don't have to tell you that the WRONG house would be pretty bad too. Hell, just keeping an eye on them from a distance could land you in jail, especially if you're male. Calling the police but doing nothing at all in the meanwhile might get you in trouble for taking no action in a situation that was potentially harmful to the child.

Attacked, sued, fined, imprisoned, losing job, relationships, families from social stigmas associated with the aforementioned penalties?

There's no public phones anymore, so it'd be rough to report in anonymously - most businesses will have video cameras and memories, and when it comes to threats against children, some folks will stop at nothing to criminalize all those involved.

I thought about it for a bit, and I decided the only safe thing to do was to pretend it never happened - you never saw the kid, and therefore, you're off the hook.

That's where we're at with today's society. I don't think this is a cowardly move, or lazy, or corrupt. It's simply a result of our current culture of excessive legislation.

What ever happened to the kid that ran down the street? Dunno. Probably the parents eventually noticed he was missing. I mean, parents notice those things. Sure it was just outside of Gary, Indiana, a horrific area for crime, but I'm sure it was okay. They could tell he didn't have his wallet on him!

"It's not a seizure! I'm not having a seizure!"
"Oh, sorry. Well, I guess you can pull your panties up then".

quietwalker: Con Fabulous: Fine, I'll be the first to say it. If an 8 year old is seizing in front of you and you hide behind some policy to protect your legal liability rather than give them their medication, you are scum.

On the other hand, it does show you're reasonably intelligent.

Do it wrong, do it without the proper training, do it without being the right gender, or without supervision, do it to a minor, etc: These are all things that could result in anything from destroyed life to federal prison.

My wife was chuckling about how her sister saw a naked 3 year old kid run down the middle of her street. She believed that the kid might have come from a house at the end of her block, but she wasn't sure what to do.

While ethically, the right thing to do would be to remove the kid from danger, and then find it's parents, doing so is a legally dangerous thing.

Any adult interacting with a naked child in public is in immediate legal danger, especially when they're effectively a stranger. Bringing them to your house is probably worse, especially if you're seen. Bringing them to the right house could expose you to physical or legal attacks by the parent who thinks you STOLE their child, and I don't have to tell you that the WRONG house would be pretty bad too. Hell, just keeping an eye on them from a distance could land you in jail, especially if you're male. Calling the police but doing nothing at all in the meanwhile might get you in trouble for taking no action in a situation that was potentially harmful to the child.

Attacked, sued, fined, imprisoned, losing job, relationships, families from social stigmas associated with the aforementioned penalties?

There's no public phones anymore, so it'd be rough to report in anonymously - most businesses will have video cameras and memories, and when it comes to threats against children, some folks will stop at nothing to criminalize all those involved.

I thought about it for a bit, and I decided the only safe thing to do w ...

IIRC there was a story recently where a couple of under age girls were flashing boobies to passing cars. When a guy made a 2nd pass and took pics with his cell phone as he drove by the cops arrested him and charged him with manufacturing child porn for his trouble.

As you point out laws to protect children now put children in danger.

Government gave it to us rectally throughout the Bush administration.

What plans do Obama and Romney have for anal seizure medication?

pdee: How many kids wont be able to go to camp because 75k of their budget has to be diverted to pay for the nurse for 2 kids who will probably will never need the services of said nurse?

The argument is that it's a camp for disabled kids; the nurse would be there for a lot more stuff, there might even be a dedicated medical staff. Also, it wouldn't be $75k, more like $4k for a week long camp. 

Of course, I think we need to grow a spine when it comes to medically necessary drugs. Don't lock them up excessively, administer the dang things. As long as the staff are given simple, clear directions on when to give the drugs, they should be in the clear. If the instructions aren't sufficiently clear, decline while stating 'Sorry, but that's too complex for our non-medically trained staff'.

Siezure(and here's signs of a seizure; subtle it ain't): Administer X rectally. :( Call the ambulance just as a backup.

pdee: As you point out laws to protect children now put children in danger.


Britain's struggling with this after a kid ended up drowning and came up with half a dozen witnesses who were all afraid of being labled a perv.

I've actually received intervention training(get off your butt and HELP!), but that's not common yet.

In the case of the nude kid, despite being male, I'm calling 911 first, then securing the tot*, then putting at least a t-shirt(a male large shirt will cover everything) on them, getting a trustworthy female to *HELP* watch. All while still on the phone with 911. I'm not turning the kid over to anybody but medical/police/CPS at that point.

*depending on conditions: A good part of the year here a kid could be suffering from hypothermia within minutes without proper protection.

Baelz: So if I got this right, you see an 8 year old girl having a seizure you are supposed to pull her pants down, and stick a plastic syringe up her ass? And somehow avoid jail?

quod est necessarium est licitum (what is necessary is lawful)

Firethorn: pdee: How many kids wont be able to go to camp because 75k of their budget has to be diverted to pay for the nurse for 2 kids who will probably will never need the services of said nurse?

The argument is that it's a camp for disabled kids; the nurse would be there for a lot more stuff, there might even be a dedicated medical staff. Also, it wouldn't be $75k, more like $4k for a week long camp. 

Of course, I think we need to grow a spine when it comes to medically necessary drugs. Don't lock them up excessively, administer the dang things. As long as the staff are given simple, clear directions on when to give the drugs, they should be in the clear. If the instructions aren't sufficiently clear, decline while stating 'Sorry, but that's too complex for our non-medically trained staff'.

Siezure(and here's signs of a seizure; subtle it ain't): Administer X rectally. :( Call the ambulance just as a backup.

So the kid is shaking and you whip down their pants and shove the meds up her bum. Only the then denies she was having a seizure or does not remember having a seizure or another kids tell their parents you had her pants down too long or any of 1,000,000 other things and you get prison time or at least accused of being a sex offender. So you want to avoid that liability by getting a witness to your administering the kids meds then you are accused of exposing the kid's genitals to another pervert and both of you go down or you get sued because you delayed treatment too long while seeking a witness.

No matter how careful you are or what precautions you take this is liability nightmare. I wish it was not so but common sense has no place in our legal system any more.

Also while some here argue that the nurse wont cost them so much that it keeps kids out of the program I have little doubt the ADA law suit will and if it does not then the inevitable liability law suit will probably be costly enough to kill the entire program. But at least when the camps are not more then there will be no discrimination because no one will be going camp at all.

quietwalker: Con Fabulous: Fine, I'll be the first to say it. If an 8 year old is seizing in front of you and you hide behind some policy to protect your legal liability rather than give them their medication, you are scum.

On the other hand, it does show you're reasonably intelligent.

Do it wrong, do it without the proper training, do it without being the right gender, or without supervision, do it to a minor, etc: These are all things that could result in anything from destroyed life to federal prison.

My wife was chuckling about how her sister saw a naked 3 year old kid run down the middle of her street. She believed that the kid might have come from a house at the end of her block, but she wasn't sure what to do.

While ethically, the right thing to do would be to remove the kid from danger, and then find it's parents, doing so is a legally dangerous thing.

Any adult interacting with a naked child in public is in immediate legal danger, especially when they're effectively a stranger. Bringing them to your house is probably worse, especially if you're seen. Bringing them to the right house could expose you to physical or legal attacks by the parent who thinks you STOLE their child, and I don't have to tell you that the WRONG house would be pretty bad too. Hell, just keeping an eye on them from a distance could land you in jail, especially if you're male. Calling the police but doing nothing at all in the meanwhile might get you in trouble for taking no action in a situation that was potentially harmful to the child.

Attacked, sued, fined, imprisoned, losing job, relationships, families from social stigmas associated with the aforementioned penalties?

There's no public phones anymore, so it'd be rough to report in anonymously - most businesses will have video cameras and memories, and when it comes to threats against children, some folks will stop at nothing to criminalize all those involved.

I thought about it for a bit, and I decided the only safe thing to do w ...

Couple things:

1) Blindly adhering to policy does not "show that you are reasonably intelligent". An intelligence person would be aware of the risks but would still need to make the moral decision of how to act.

2) Your example of "naked kid running around unsupervised" isn't a good analogy for several reasons. There were no unknowns of "who is this kid" and "what should I do" in TFA; the campers were already on file and they had informed the camp of their medical conditions, including what help they needed in the event of a seizure. There's also no urgency to the trouble... "this unsupervised child might get hurt maybe" isn't equivalent to "this kid is in the middle of a seizure this instant". It would be more akin to actually grabbing a naked kid out of the way of a car, or saving a naked drowning child.

I was just thinking about this being a kind of camp so I assume there is going to be a number of people around as a result not only are they going to be pulling the pants down of a young girl they will be doing it in front a number of people.

"Diastat AcuDial, comes in a pre-filled syringe with a plastic tip and must be administered through a person's rectum."

"most effective when administered within five minutes of the onset of the seizure"

Refusing to shove a phallic object up the ars of a convulsing minor doesn't seem like discrimination to me.

Lastly:

Does it not seem ridiculous that a camp for handicapped kids is being sued for discriminating against handicapped kids. Is really so bad the the camp cant decide that there are some kids with medical needs that they dont think they can provide?

Hot Panda Milk: It can be difficult to start an IV during a seizure.

I can't imagine delivering a suppository is a real breeze either.

authorizeduser: Hot Panda Milk: It can be difficult to start an IV during a seizure.

I can't imagine delivering a suppository is a real breeze either

Naw, just push it in with your peenar.

/hang on, someone's at the do..................

Jument: with an injectable pen?

Not as fun.

mikaloyd: Tyrosine: Baelz: So if I got this right, you see an 8 year old girl having a seizure you are supposed to pull her pants down, and stick a plastic syringe up her ass? And somehow avoid jail?

quod est necessarium est licitum (what is necessary is lawful)

Sorry judge I thought he was having a seizure. I didnt know about gangnam style.

I laughed way too hard at this.

My son has epilepsy, and uses Diastat gel, so I'm getting a kick, etc. etc.

When he was first diagnosed earlier this year, we provided his preschool with a complete guide to his seizures and their progression, when to start timing the 5 minutes, when and how to administer the medication, etc. The school then went one step further and brought in a health adviser from the county education department who held a training for every teacher and administrator who dealt with my son on any sort of regular basis on seizures and proper medication administration techniques. We've sent him to day camp over the summer, had him sleep over at friend's houses, left him with a babysitter, etc. and every time we have to hand over the medication and give whoever is in charge the whole rundown on when and how to use it. When he started public school they were more concerned that every piece of medical paperwork was signed by the same doctor, despite the fact that he sees a neurology specialist for the epilepsy and his pediatrician for his vaccines. We've never had a problem thus far, and fortunately, we've never had to administer the medication.

pdee: So the kid is shaking and you whip down their pants and shove the meds up her bum. Only the then denies she was having a seizure or does not remember having a seizure

A) Not all seizures are grand mal "shakey" seizures, that's only one fraction of all the different types of seizures. The parents should be expected to provide at least a basic explanation of how to tell if their child is having a seizure.

B) Almost no Epileptic remembers having the seizure. Your brain is going haywire with random electrical impulses, so much so that it interrupts basic level functioning like blinking, balance, etc. Little details like short term memory tend to not work so well in those cases.

C) Diastat is to be used when the seizure exceeds 5 minutes in length, most seizures only last a couple of minutes, so there shouldn't be much question of whether or not there was a seizure. Plus, the organization should be calling 911if they have to administer the medication anyway, so it's not like this is something a pedo would be able to do on the sly just to cop a feel.

abrannan: My son has epilepsy, and uses Diastat gel, so I'm getting a kick, etc. etc.

When he was first diagnosed earlier this year, we provided his preschool with a complete guide to his seizures and their progression, when to start timing the 5 minutes, when and how to administer the medication, etc. The school then went one step further and brought in a health adviser from the county education department who held a training for every teacher and administrator who dealt with my son on any sort of regular basis on seizures and proper medication administration techniques. We've sent him to day camp over the summer, had him sleep over at friend's houses, left him with a babysitter, etc. and every time we have to hand over the medication and give whoever is in charge the whole rundown on when and how to use it. When he started public school they were more concerned that every piece of medical paperwork was signed by the same doctor, despite the fact that he sees a neurology specialist for the epilepsy and his pediatrician for his vaccines. We've never had a problem thus far, and fortunately, we've never had to administer the medication.

pdee: So the kid is shaking and you whip down their pants and shove the meds up her bum. Only the then denies she was having a seizure or does not remember having a seizure

A) Not all seizures are grand mal "shakey" seizures, that's only one fraction of all the different types of seizures. The parents should be expected to provide at least a basic explanation of how to tell if their child is having a seizure.

B) Almost no Epileptic remembers having the seizure. Your brain is going haywire with random electrical impulses, so much so that it interrupts basic level functioning like blinking, balance, etc. Little details like short term memory tend to not work so well in those cases.

C) Diastat is to be used when the seizure exceeds 5 minutes in length, most seizures only last a couple of minutes, so there shouldn't be much question of ...

You're well-versed in the condition, medication and associated aspects. Someone seeking a payout makes a sexual misconduct accusation and all a jury hears is "Pulled down a child's pants in public and stuck a device into the rectum." What camp counselor, who is neither a 'highly trained medical professional' nor a 'highly paid individual' is going to take the risk of a life-destroying accusation in order to administer the medication?

Rectal Diastat is so easy that a parent can learn to give it after a five minute class.

What makes these asshats think they can't, again?

BronyMedic: Rectal Diastat is so easy that a parent can learn to give it after a five minute class.

What makes these asshats think they can't, again?

If they knew how to deliver it in the pooper, maybe they wouldn't have a kid in the first place.

mikaloyd: If any of y'all think Im having a seizure just let me have the seizure, you do NOT have permission to shove drugs up my ass. No matter how much you want to help.Just move sharp objects away and thatll be enough.
Thanks in advance.

In this case, the anal drugs have been specifically prescribed to them.


pdee: o the kid is shaking and you whip down their pants and shove the meds up her bum. Only the then denies she was having a seizure or does not remember having a seizure or another kids tell their parents you had her pants down too long or any of 1,000,000 other things and you get prison time or at least accused of being a sex offender.

Only if she's a total asswipe, and most people aren't when you treat their potentially life threatening medical condition. CPR *WILL* break ribs. I'm trained to put tourniquets on.

Oh, and 'shaking' isn't a seizure, and while she won't have memory of the seizure itself, the *effects* of such an event she's going to be feeling for a while. She'll also recognize them as it's happened to her before. In my case, I'd have the used syringe in hand.

Securitywyrm: You're well-versed in the condition, medication and associated aspects. Someone seeking a payout makes a sexual misconduct accusation and all a jury hears is "Pulled down a child's pants in public and stuck a device into the rectum." What camp counselor, who is neither a 'highly trained medical professional' nor a 'highly paid individual' is going to take the risk of a life-destroying accusation in order to administer the medication?

It's not going to be 'all that a jury hears'. I'm not a defense attorney, but:
1. This would belong in *criminal* court, not civil. As a result, no payout opportunity. If it DOES go to a civil court, the question of why charges weren't pressed would be asked.
2. I'd pull in the prescribing doctor, provide the documentation that: this was prescribed for her, it's a valid treatment, and witnesses show the conditions for use of said medication in the prescribed fashion were met.
3. Typically speaking, judges and juries aren't sympathetic to people looking to get money from somebody who was only trying to help, not to mention doing what you asked them to do.

i always thought working with the handicapped immediately meant having to do disgusting stuff for them

Firethorn: mikaloyd: If any of y'all think Im having a seizure just let me have the seizure, you do NOT have permission to shove drugs up my ass. No matter how much you want to help.Just move sharp objects away and thatll be enough.
Thanks in advance.

In this case, the anal drugs have been specifically prescribed to them.


pdee: o the kid is shaking and you whip down their pants and shove the meds up her bum. Only the then denies she was having a seizure or does not remember having a seizure or another kids tell their parents you had her pants down too long or any of 1,000,000 other things and you get prison time or at least accused of being a sex offender.

Only if she's a total asswipe, and most people aren't when you treat their potentially life threatening medical condition. CPR *WILL* break ribs. I'm trained to put tourniquets on.

Oh, and 'shaking' isn't a seizure, and while she won't have memory of the seizure itself, the *effects* of such an event she's going to be feeling for a while. She'll also recognize them as it's happened to her before. In my case, I'd have the used syringe in hand.

Securitywyrm: You're well-versed in the condition, medication and associated aspects. Someone seeking a payout makes a sexual misconduct accusation and all a jury hears is "Pulled down a child's pants in public and stuck a device into the rectum." What camp counselor, who is neither a 'highly trained medical professional' nor a 'highly paid individual' is going to take the risk of a life-destroying accusation in order to administer the medication?

It's not going to be 'all that a jury hears'. I'm not a defense attorney, but:
1. This would belong in *criminal* court, not civil. As a result, no payout opportunity. If it DOES go to a civil court, the question of why charges weren't pressed would be asked.
2. I'd pull in the prescribing doctor, provide the documentation that: this was prescribed for her, it's a valid treatment, and witnesses show the conditions for use of sa ...

The criminal accusation is just to stir up publicity, then you make the civil claim. Insurance company settles rather than let it risk going to court due to it already being tried in the 'court of public opinion.' Easy payout.

Con Fabulous: Fine, I'll be the first to say it. If an 8 year old is seizing in front of you and you hide behind some policy to protect your legal liability rather than give them their medication, you are scum.

If you don't know how to administer rectal medications, there are things that you can do to seriously fark it up. Pressing the vagus nerve, for one.You have to be specifically trained to administer medication to a specific person.

octopied: Con Fabulous: Fine, I'll be the first to say it. If an 8 year old is seizing in front of you and you hide behind some policy to protect your legal liability rather than give them their medication, you are scum.

If you don't know how to administer rectal medications, there are things that you can do to seriously fark it up. Pressing the vagus nerve, for one.You have to be specifically trained to administer medication to a specific person.

No you don't. If you were drawing up the valium dose in a 3cc syrenge, and shoving the barrel, or a 3.0ETT tip in to administer it in a worse case, no IV/IO scenario, then yes. You'd have a point.

Diastat was specifically designed to be used by untrained people.The families get a five minute class on how to do it, what signs to look for (Seizure > 5 minutes, airway compromise, what to expect after, etc.), and the kids are sent home with it.



The box it comes in even has pictoral directions to use in an emergency.



Do you see that? That's what happens at the Pharmacy - the dose is predialed in. All you have to do is lube the tip, shove it in, and press the plunger down.

These are the pictoral instructions.



/people who don't know what they are talking about and are afraid to be sued, while someone lies dying from a status seizure.

Sorry. Meant to post what happens at the pharmacy.

Government files discrimination lawsuit against recreation association after they refuse to give medicine to epileptics. Fark: Rectally

Isn't that sort of thing what got a lot of Catholic priests in trouble a while back? And now the government wants to make it mandatory?

octopied: If you don't know how to administer rectal medications, there are things that you can do to seriously fark it up. Pressing the vagus nerve, for one.You have to be specifically trained to administer medication to a specific person

We didn't - we got ressuciannie's arse to practice on