Should parents lose custody of super obese kids?

[Evo]

How can they even consider this when all sorts of child abuse/endangerment is allowed under the guise of "religious beliefs"?

Should parents of extremely obese children lose custody for not controlling their kids' weight? A provocative commentary in one of the nation's most distinguished medical journals argues yes, and its authors are joining a quiet chorus of advocates who say the government should be allowed to intervene in extreme cases.

It has happened a few times in the U.S., and the opinion piece in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association says putting children temporarily in foster care is in some cases more ethical than obesity surgery.

http://news.yahoo.com/parents-lose-custody-super-obese-kids-200342454.html

 

[russ_watters]

Could you be more specific about what is allowed? The only thing relevant to religious beliefs I know of is abstaining from medical treatment and that is not allowed for serious illnesses.

 

[Evo]

Could you be more specific about what is allowed? The only thing relevant to religious beliefs I know of is abstaining from medical treatment and that is not allowed for serious illnesses.

Basically anything that is covered by a person's "religion". What food they can eat, drugs they can use, body mutiliations (Church of body modification), remember that young girl? Refusal to have life saving medical treatment is a HUGE deal in IMO.

 

[Drakkith]

How can they even consider this when all sorts of child abuse/endangerment is allowed under the guise of "religious beliefs"?



http://news.yahoo.com/parents-lose-custody-super-obese-kids-200342454.html

How can they believe it? They probably believe that you should be able to take a kid and force them into medical care if their parents don't believe in it because of religion. I'd believe the same thing. Hell, I'd support the obesity thing in extreme cases too. (But only in extreme cases)

 

[Evo]

My point is if government intervention should be allowed for the safety of a child, *religion* should not be exempt. That's my opinion.

 

[Drakkith]

My point is if government intervention should be allowed for the safety of a child, *religion* should not be exempt. That's my opinion.

I agree. But that gets into the bigger issue of freedom of religion vs public safety. I honestly can't see how ANYONE could ignore modern medical science and how successful it is. And then I realize that those people that do that aren't logical thinkers, but religious believers. Logic and religion don't mix very well unless you don't take either one too seriously.

 

[Evo]

I agree. But that gets into the bigger issue of freedom of religion vs public safety. I honestly can't see how ANYONE could ignore modern medical science and how successful it is. And then I realize that those people that do that aren't logical thinkers, but religious believers. Logic and religion don't mix very well unless you don't take either one too seriously.

Freedom of religion has gone waaaay beyond what our founding fathers ever intended, IMO. I don't ever think it was meant to be a way to commit tax evasion, or be a way to act outside of the law, or the common good, or endager people's lives.

But, I don't want this to become a religious issue. Back to the article, should the government be allowed to intervene when a child's health is an issue?

 

[Drakkith]

Freedom of religion has gone waaaay beyond what our founding fathers ever intended, IMO. I don't ever think it was meant to be a way to commit tax evasion, or be a way to act outside of the law, or the common good, or endager people's lives.

But, I don't want this to become a religious issue. Back to the article, should the government be allowed to intervene when a child's health is an issue?

They already do if you can prove that a child is malnurished. I don't see any difference in super obese children. Both are BAD for the child.

 

[Proton Soup]

Basically anything that is covered by a person's "religion". What food they can eat, drugs they can use, body mutiliations (Church of body modification), remember that young girl? Refusal to have life saving medical treatment is a HUGE deal in IMO.

you're ignoring the redwood forest of heffalump children for a few sumacs in the undergrowth.

i'm all for removing their coke and snack machines at school. make the teachers fund their own coffee and donuts.

forget about the custody change, make them stay after school and run laps. court-mandated fat camp.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Right now is probably not the best time to propose a new govt program.

 

[Proton Soup]

Right now is probably not the best time to propose a new govt program.

a'ight. they've already got PE. laps every day for PE is as simple as it gets. no expensive equipment, either. we can even cut calories in school lunches to save even more dollars.

 

[Evo]

we can even cut calories in school lunches to save even more dollars.

Actually, we can't cut calories or make school lunches healthier, it was opposed by the unions. He was forced out of the schools by the union saying they (healthy food options) weren't union members and violated union only contracts.

Jamie Oliver has suffered a crushing setback in his bid to change eating habits among Americans.

His TV show Jamie Oliver Food Revolution has been temporarily axed due to poor ratings.

The hour long show will be replaced with repeats of the Dancing with the Stars reality show on ABC TV.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...olution-chopped-American-TV-blow-crusade.html

 

[russ_watters]

Basically anything that is covered by a person's "religion". What food they can eat, drugs they can use, body mutiliations (Church of body modification), remember that young girl? Refusal to have life saving medical treatment is a HUGE deal in IMO.

Forcing a kid to eat a certain food is not child abuse (unless it's DU enriched...). Refusing lifesaving medical treatment is illegal.

But, I don't want this to become a religious issue. Back to the article, should the government be allowed to intervene when a child's health is an issue?

Yes, but it needs to be a serious health issue. From the article, this sounds about right to me:

Ludwig said he starting thinking about the issue after a 90-pound 3-year-old girl came to his obesity clinic several years ago. Her parents had physical disabilities, little money and difficulty controlling her weight. Last year, at age 12, she weighed 400 pounds and had developed diabetes, cholesterol problems, high blood pressure and sleep apnea.
"Out of medical concern, the state placed this girl in foster care, where she simply received three balanced meals a day and a snack or two and moderate physical activity," he said. After a year, she lost 130 pounds. Though she is still obese, her diabetes and apnea disappeared; she remains in foster care, he said.

 

[Evo]

Forcing a kid to eat a certain food is not child abuse (unless it's DU enriched...). Refusing lifesaving medical treatment is illegal. Yes, but it needs to be a serious health issue. From the article, this sounds about right to me:

Do you think the courts would allow this child to have been taken away and treated if the parents cried "our religious rights are being violated!"? I doubt it.

 

[Drakkith]

Do you think the courts would allow this child to have been taken away and treated if the parents cried "our religious rights are being violated!"? I doubt it.

I think that was a big debate. I have absolutely NO problem with someone 18+ having the option to refuse medical treatment. I DO have a problem with someone deciding for their kids because they are not of age to make it themselves. Until you are of age no one should be able to deny you the opportunity to learn and make decisions for yourself. And dying due to lack of medical treatment doesn't allow that.

 

[rootX]

1) There need to be a valid proof that religions lead to unhealthy raising of children (on correlation basis) but I doubt there's any evidence of that
2) I agree with that "parents lose custody of super obese kids" (definition of super obese: life threatening to the child)
3) I am pessimistic about providing healthy raising to every American kid (that's just too costly)

 

[Evo]

If we're going to have laws for child protection, it should be uniform across the board, even if it means the protection is from the child's parents.

Just because you can physically give birth to a child doesn't mean you are mentally able to raise one.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you think the courts would allow this child to have been taken away and treated if the parents cried "our religious rights are being violated!"? I doubt it.

If not, then they would be violating precedent. I have more faith in the courts than that, particularly since this issue has been flogged to death in the courts and is pretty clear: lifesaving medical treatment must be provided and religious beliefs do not exempt people from that.

 

[Drakkith]

1) There need to be a valid proof that religions lead to unhealthy raising of children (on correlation basis) but I doubt there's any evidence of that
2) I agree with that "parents lose custody of super obese kids" (definition of super obese: life threatening to the child)
3) I am pessimistic about providing healthy raising to every American kid (that's just too costly)

The issue isn't about religion, it was merely the example given. If someone is refusing emergency medical service to their child, for whatever reason, it should be illegal. I am in agreement that you cannot provide the exact 100% best nutrition to everyone, if there is even such a thing. I have no problem with people feeding their kids whatever foods they want as long as it is somewhat healthy.

 

[Evo]

The issue isn't about religion, it was merely the example given. If someone is refusing emergency medical service to their child, for whatever reason, it should be illegal. I am in agreement that you cannot provide the exact 100% best nutrition to everyone, if there is even such a thing. I have no problem with people feeding their kids whatever foods they want as long as it is somewhat healthy.

That's exactly the point. Should the courts be able to take children away from parents because of their diet?

What if the parents are serving nutritious meals but the kids are sneaking extra food? Do you arrest kids for eating? Do you arrest the parents? Isn't this more severe than drug control laws?

The point I'm trying to make is that while this sounds great in theory, can we really lock people up for the food they choose to eat?

 

[Drakkith]

That's exactly the point. Should the courts be able to take children away from parents because of their diet?

What if the parents are serving nutricious meals but the kids are sneaking extra food? Do you arrest kids for eating? Do you arrest the parents? Isn't this more severe than drug control laws?

The point I'm trying to make is that while this sounds great in theory, can we really lock people up for the food they choose to eat?

Only in the most extreme cases. Sneaking food will NOT result in hugely obese kids. At the very least a parent should notice the increase in weight well before it gets to that point.

 

[Evo]

Only in the most extreme cases. Sneaking food will NOT result in hugely obese kids. At the very least a parent should notice the increase in weight well before it gets to that point.

Good point, but don't parents also note drug addiction? What about anorexia?

I'm just trying to see how this could be realistically enforced. Are fat people being targeted?

To be clear, I think there should be intervention any time it becomes apparent a child's health (mental or physical) is endangered. I'm just wondering how realistic this is, and if it could ever be legally enforced just aqainst fat kids.

 

[rootX]

The issue isn't about religion, it was merely the example given. If someone is refusing emergency medical service to their child, for whatever reason, it should be illegal. I am in agreement that you cannot provide the exact 100% best nutrition to everyone, if there is even such a thing. I have no problem with people feeding their kids whatever foods they want as long as it is somewhat healthy.

Yes, I understood the point and addressed it in my point 2 where I also defined what I consider illegal. But I pointed out difficulties of enforcing in my point # 3.

 

[Drakkith]

Good point, but don't parents also note drug addiction? What about anorexia?

I'm just trying to see how this could be realistically enforced. Are fat people being targeted?

To be clear, I think there should be intervention any time it becomes apparent a child's health (mental or physical) is endangered. I'm just wondering how realistic this is, and if it could ever be legally enforced just aqainst fat kids.

In my opinion it is much easier to notice a huge weight gain just for the simply fact that you can get to several times your normal weight before it becomes immediately life threatening. If you lose half your normal weight it is usually life threatening. Plus you can't hide fatness like you can anorexia and drug use, they don't always have obvious signs that you can't hide.

Yes, I understood the point and addressed it in my point 2 where I also defined what I consider illegal. But I pointed out difficulties of enforcing in my point # 3.

Umm, ok. I didn't see it that way, as it was just 3 statements. But I understand you now.

 

[Evo]

In my opinion it is much easier to notice a huge weight gain just for the simply fact that you can get to several times your normal weight before it becomes immediately life threatening.

I think that is where the breakdown is. Parents are refusing to admit their kids have a *problem*. "oh, it's just baby fat", they'll grow out of it", he's just big boned", "he's a big boy, not a sissy", "he's going to be a football player".

 

[Drakkith]

I think that is where the breakdown is. Parents are refusing to admit their kids have a *problem*. "oh, it's just baby fat", they'll grow out of it", he's just big boned", "he's a big boy, not a sissy", "he's going to be a football player".

Yep. Which is why you would be FORCED to take some children away from their parents. They don't understand that there is a problem.

 

[Evo]

It's part of the American mentality, fat kids are healthy kids.

 

[Drakkith]

It's part of the American mentality, fat kids are healthy kids.

I can't see the image from here at work, but yeah, its pretty much proven that fat children are unhealthy. (To my knowledge at least)

 

[Proton Soup]

That's exactly the point. Should the courts be able to take children away from parents because of their diet?

What if the parents are serving nutritious meals but the kids are sneaking extra food? Do you arrest kids for eating? Do you arrest the parents? Isn't this more severe than drug control laws?

The point I'm trying to make is that while this sounds great in theory, can we really lock people up for the food they choose to eat?

this happens from time to time with children of vegan parents. although usually the damage is irreversible or fatal by the time authorities are alerted.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's a tough one. I would say yes, any activity which endangers a child's health (regardless of the reason) should be referred to child services.

It's sickening how unions and the like can oppose healthy food for school meals. Healthy food doesn't even cost that much, there is no good argument for not supplying it.

 

[Smiles302]

That Jamie Oliver TV show was frightening. We don't have school lunches here (Ireland). I could not imagine eating the weird packaged food he showed...

I think a lot of it is the mentality. I can't imagine considering the junk that comes in "just-add-water" boxes to be food. I was horrified when my American house-mate got a care-package full of boxes of random "dinners".

Pasta with a cheese sauce thing that you just put in a pot, add water and call it dinner. It looked so disgusting.

Personally I think America would do well from "healthy" and "Not-healthy" stickers on everything that wasn't fresh food.
You be pedantic and argue that defining "healthy" is impossible but you would do well to simply consider x amount of salt to be excessive and unhealthy, x amount of (bad, processed veg etc) fat to be unhealthy for one meal and x amount of sugar to be insane.

The people who need the help are the people who appear to think it's fine to feed their kids Mcdonalds twice a week and random convenience food every other day.
It's not easy to fatten the kids that I know, it's hard enough to kept them fed. The parents of super obese children must be doing something terribly wrong.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Personally I think America would do well from "healthy" and "Not-healthy" stickers on everything that wasn't fresh food.
You be pedantic and argue that defining "healthy" is impossible but you would do well to simply consider x amount of salt to be excessive and unhealthy, x amount of (bad, processed veg etc) fat to be unhealthy for one meal and x amount of sugar to be insane.

I think that should be true of all countries. Here in England (don't know if you get it in Ireland?) we have nutrition ring stickers. It shoes you the amount of salt, sugar, fat etc in both number and colour code (green for ok, yellow for not good, red for very bad).

I think explicit warnings on food along the lines of cigarette packages should be required by law.

 

[thegreenlaser]

One issue that I could see arising from a law like this is more kids ending up with anorexia and other eating disorders. If parents are obsessed with keeping their kids from getting fat because they don't want to lose their kid, I don't see it as a stretch for the kid to take the "I need to stay skinny" message to the other extreme. It already happens quite a bit as it is.

I think that we really have to be careful in limiting laws like this to the absolutely extreme cases where a child is in imminent danger. If parents start thinking that if their kids don't turn out perfectly, they'll be seen as bad parents and have their kids taken away from them, they're naturally going to be more cautious. Kids can sense that and they often either get obsessive about making money or getting high grades or staying skinny to a point where it hurts them, or they get very rebellious. (Anyone seen a helicopter parent in action? It's usually not pretty) Even though the law itself might be reasonable, I think it's very easy for parents to be scared of losing their children and over-reacting.

 

[Drakkith]

Greenlaser I think that everyone agrees that on both ends of the scale, whether too skinny or too fat, that we need to intervene only when it is at a dangerous level. I don't agree that this would cause much of an issue with anorexia and such, nor with parents worrying about losing their kids. And it isn't like the parents wouldn't get a warning, especially with obesity. Unlike being too skinny, obesity doesn't kill you in days once you get in the danger zone.

Note that being too skinny to the point of danger IS starvation. Being obese is not, so it can be a little difficult to compare the two. A person who is in danger of dying because of starvation needs IMMEDIATE medical care, while an obese person does not.

Because of this many people don't see obesity as a harmful issue. Just because something doesn't kill you quickly doesn't mean you should ignore it!

I do agree with you about people over reacting, but I think that relatively few would react in such a way as to starve their kids. I think the biggest issue would be whether the law is legal or not.

I myself am torn between safety of the kids and further laws imposed on society. As I have asked before, when does safety need to stop in the name of freedom?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Indeed. And what about other dangerous activities? One of the most dangerous things kids are subjected to is the automobile. Next is water.
http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_Kids.html

Half of all car accidents involve alcohol. So by default this puts alcohol at the top of the list as a child killer. By the nanny logic, shouldn't alcohol just be banned? Is a drink really worth the life of a child?