Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Should parents lose custody of super obese kids?

  1. Jul 12, 2011 #1

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 12, 2011 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  4. Jul 12, 2011 #3

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2011
  5. Jul 12, 2011 #4

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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)
     
  6. Jul 12, 2011 #5

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    My point is if government intervention should be allowed for the safety of a child, *religion* should not be exempt. That's my opinion.
     
  7. Jul 12, 2011 #6

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  8. Jul 12, 2011 #7

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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?
     
  9. Jul 12, 2011 #8

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  10. Jul 12, 2011 #9
    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.
     
  11. Jul 12, 2011 #10
    Right now is probably not the best time to propose a new govt program.
     
  12. Jul 12, 2011 #11
    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.
     
  13. Jul 12, 2011 #12

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...olution-chopped-American-TV-blow-crusade.html
     
  14. Jul 12, 2011 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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:
     
  15. Jul 12, 2011 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  16. Jul 12, 2011 #15

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  17. Jul 12, 2011 #16
    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)
     
  18. Jul 12, 2011 #17

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  19. Jul 12, 2011 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  20. Jul 12, 2011 #19

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  21. Jul 12, 2011 #20

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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?
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2011
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Should parents lose custody of super obese kids?
  1. Parents and their kids (Replies: 4)

  2. Cashing in on obesity (Replies: 7)

  3. The obesity epidemic (Replies: 184)

Loading...