Sever allergic reaction to hairdye

arcon5

Nicolafine wrote: »

I would definitely sue.

on what grounds?

BlueAngelCV

caramacgirl wrote: »

Sorry, no disrespect to the OP, I've not seen your photos, but I have used hair dyes for years and I know what it says about doing a 48 hour test first, I know I've never done it, I've spoken to about 10 women since I saw your post and they don't do that either. We may have been lucky, but I would seek legal advice if I were you xxx

Are you suggesting that the OP should sue because lots of people don't follow the instructions on the hair dye? They tell you to do a test and you choose not to do it. It doesn't matter if other women you have spoken to don't do it. Those are the instructions and if you don't follow them it's your lookout if something goes wrong.

fluffnutter

I doubt suing would be successful. It's known that, for a small number of people, hair dyes can cause allergic reactions. This is also known about many, many other every day items, for example, peanuts. Until an adverse reaction happens, no one can ever know for sure if they'll react badly to a product or not. You can't make manufacturers or retailers responsible for selling such products. Provided the information about possible allergic reactions is in the public domain and companies don't try to hide it, they can't be liable for an individual's specific response to their product.

However, the company needs to know and might well offer something in the way of financial compensation (free hair dye perhaps? )

willing2learn_3

BlueAngelCV wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the OP should sue because lots of people don't follow the instructions on the hair dye? They tell you to do a test and you choose not to do it. It doesn't matter if other women you have spoken to don't do it. Those are the instructions and if you don't follow them it's your lookout if something goes wrong.

I think the problem with the patch testing is that if someone is violently allergic even the patch test could cause a problem.....so i personally don't see the logic there and think it's a suggestion that is put there just to cover the companies in the event of something awful happening.

willing2learn_3

arcon5 wrote: »

on what grounds?

I thought this at first.....

At the moment the consensus is that it is a rare minority that are allergic to these dyes and hence if they have a reaction it's not really the fault of the dye.

However I can see there being potential problems in future if the rate of allergic reactions increases (some suggestion that it is) and if it also gets linked to breast cancers.....which are at much hgher levels now than in the past.

willing2learn_3

Here's a link to another product that doesn't contain PPD that i've found:

http://www.aubreyorganics.co.uk/prod-54-colour-me-natural-hair-dye-dark-brown.html

rustyboy21

willing2learn wrote: »

I think the problem with the patch testing is that if someone is violently allergic even the patch test could cause a problem.....so i personally don't see the logic there and think it's a suggestion that is put there just to cover the companies in the event of something awful happening.

There is a difference in doing a patch test on a small area of skin and covering your whole head in it ! It's like drowning in an egg cup, or drowning in a bath. What is more dangerous?

It has been known for years that incidences like this can happen, it is well documented. If people want to ignore the advice, so be it, but don't try and blame others for your impatience.

willing2learn_3

rustyboy21 wrote: »

There is a difference in doing a patch test on a small area of skin and covering your whole head in it ! It's like drowning in an egg cup, or drowning in a bath. What is more dangerous?

It has been known for years that incidences like this can happen, it is well documented. If people want to ignore the advice, so be it, but don't try and blame others for your impatience.

What are you talking about re impatience? Where have i written that i'm impatient or that i cannot wait for a patch test? tell me where?

As for the safety of a patch test, if someone is violently allergic they will react to a very tiny amount. With allergies it's not about quantity....otherwise no one would die on one peanut (as is well known with peanut allergies)

rustyboy21

willing2learn wrote: »

What are you talking about re impatience? Where have i written that i'm impatient or that i cannot wait for a patch test? tell me where?

As for the safety of a patch test, if someone is violently allergic they will react to a very tiny amount. With allergies it's not about quantity....otherwise no one would die on one peanut (as is well known with peanut allergies)

I didn't say you were impatient.

Other people on here have said they skip the testing and other people they have spoken too also skip it.

As I said there is a difference in a patch test and doing the whole head. It is the quantity used. If you have an allergic reaction, there would be more chance of halting it if you have only used a small amount ( ie patch test) than if you have totally overwhelmed your body with doing your whole head.

That is all I was saying

GemJar_2

I recently switched to semi-periminant because I was worried about having a bad reaction (I got ecezma that seemed to appear out of nowhere, never had it in my life and after 2 years I realised that it was probably the dye) anyway I used a brand called Rusk in red, did a very nice job, the bottle cost £8 but i've used less than a 5th on my shoulder length hair. Website http://www.rusk1.com/ if anybody is interested