>There is no immenent danger to the child. If the child spends another 3 months in this situation he would gain another 5lbs.


Um, 200 lbs at 8 years of age is beyond "imminent" danger and has become a clear and present danger. And yeah, letting the kid gain a few more lbs is ok. He's already huge so what's 5 more pounds, right? Nice logic.

Okay... I didn't read the replies, however I will after I write this.

Obesity is a serious medical problem and puts the person (in this case a child) at risk. Morbid obesity is just that and this child could end up having heart disease, diabetes, higher risk of certain cancers, etc. I feel a parent that allows their child to become so obese is neglectful and it does border on abuse. That said... I have a totally different perspective than many of you who were not obese as children.

While not quite as big as this child I was seriously obese as a child. It wasn't until I got into backpacking (at a whopping 370+ pounds) that I learned how to balance food (fuel) and exercise and go under the 200 pound mark for the first time since the age of 12. My parents were partially to blame, after all, they were my source of meals... however, in their defense, there were extenuating circumstances. Mom turned to making all kinds of sweet and fatty things, like donuts on Saturday morning, after my brother died when I was 8. In hindsight, I think it was her way of keeping busy and feeding the rest of us... seeing us enjoy it made her happy. Mom and Dad were good parents, loving and kind, and being placed in foster care wouldn't have been the answer but some supervision could certainly have helped. They were horrible role models on what proper eating was. Sauces, gravies, deep-fried, full of sugar, was the criteria for food in our house. Roast beef, mashed taters, gravy, Yorkshire pudding, dessert was the norm for a meal. There is a part of me that feels that some intervention from authorities is necessary to ensure that families of morbidly obese children receive nutritional counselling and medical intervention as well as supervision.

Obesity is epidemic in both our countries. Because of this Type 2 diabetes rates have risen significantly. It is a serious disease. Heart disease rates are on the rise as well as many other issues related to being morbidly obese. The cost of obesity related illness is also crippling health-care systems.

In many ways, I feel that the authorities have done the right thing here. This child was 8 and 200 pounds if I remember correctly? My son is 10 and is only 80-some pounds and he's pretty average among most of his peers. We watch what he eats and keep a balance. Sure, he gets the odd bit of junk, but he's active and busy. I also model proper eating habits and the importance of exercise. I'm not a perfect parent - no one is but I do my best to ensure that he won't have some of the same battles I had. Maybe it is controlling but it sure is a heck of a lot better than the thought of my son having to inject himself with insulin 4 times a day as I had to... or being like my nephew who had a heart bypass when he was 39.

Obesity is a serious issue.

Edited by Laurie_Ann on 11/30/2011 08:16:15 MST.

Laurie--I can imagine that the poor eating habits you had growing up were difficult to change?



Many people are not able to break the habits they learn as children.

Hard is an understatement... the biggest challenge of my life. Backpacking and the passion to do it was monumental in my transformation (which is still underway). I had to change the mindset and the activity and the eating and self-esteem. When I read about this child I wanted to throw my arms around him and tell him it will be okay. The emotional part was by far the worst side of it and continued even when I was doing something about my weight. I had people tell me I had no business on the trail - and maybe I didn't because of the risk but it was the most motivational way for me to change things. I owe a lot to backpacking.

My heart breaks for this child and for his family. I'm sure that they didn't do this to be cruel - but I feel they don't have the tools/knowledge to do what he needs. Now in Canada, this would generally be a temporary removal and they'd work with the parents to help them. Family and Children's Services do not want to make kids Crown Wards (which means foster care moving toward adoption) and will do everything they can to help the family. I am hoping it is the same where this child is. It's going to be a tough road for the little guy both physically and emotionally.

Um, 200 lbs at 8 years of age is beyond "imminent" danger and has become a clear and present danger. And yeah, letting the kid gain a few more lbs is ok. He's already huge so what's 5 more pounds, right? Nice logic.

We know that pulling him out of his home and taking him away from his parents will due emotional harm. Does leaving him in the home 3 months longer while it is evaluated by an impartial judge rather than a child services employee due more harm than the emotional damage of removing him (possibly without cause)?

Well he could safely lose about a 1lb a week so in 12 weeks while you go though an official hearing we could do some good. Now if we find out as in this case that the foster family has done no better then the orignal mother at getting the kid to lose weight have we really done any good. The answer is no. To take a child away without hearing needs to meet a significant burden. In this case the incremental risk of leaving him in the home for an addtional 3 months does not outweigh the damage of removing him from the home if that is deemed to be without cause.

---->How about a little personal accountability. If your kid is fat and there is no medical reason for being overweight, then it is your fault.

I agree with you in terms of personal accountability, that is the whole point. Which is why the state should get out of the way in this case. At most the state should provide eduication to the parent on proper nutrition.

Beyond that the state undermines personal accountability with subsidies. Just getting rid of the corn subsidy would make high fructose corn syrup more expensive and help make junk food more expensive. If the government is in the food subsidizing buisness it should at least be in the healthy food subsidizing buisness.

Food also shouldn't be allowed to make any health claims on its packaging. No 'low in fat', no sugar, heart healthy. It is blatently false advertising.

The government does an amazing number of things to make it more difficult for people to be personally accountable.

>I agree with you in terms of personal accountability, that is the whole point. Which is why the state should get out of the way in this case.

Greg, in this case, things have already gotten bad enough. At least at this point in time, the parent has not shown accountability, which is why the state got involved. There are simply people in this world that are not responsible enough to have children. I'm not saying that this parent in particular is automatically lumped in this category at this point, but letting your 8 year old get that heavy looks pretty bad.

>The government does an amazing number of things to make it more difficult for people to be personally accountable.

This I agree with. We must be more accountable, and the government must be more consistent in holding people accountable. However, staying out of the way completely and letting people harm their own lives, or the lives of others by gross negligence does not make the public more accountable. It just makes them more prone to screwing up. To be more accountable, we, as a society, must raise our standards and honor those standards. Along with accountability comes consequences.

"At most the state should provide eduication to the parent on proper nutrition."

Why should the State (taxpayers) provide this?

From a cost benefit view, it could save taxpayers money on healthcare expenses. I pay a lot extra in taxes, insurance and medical care right now to cover the 1 out of 4 people who don't pay their med bills. Someone severely overweight will have a lot of extra med bills in the future. Statistically I could be paying toward 1/4 of this child's med expenses.

From a moral perspective, justice for the "least of these". Children are not capable of
competing in a laissez faire system.

"I pay a lot extra in taxes, insurance and medical care right now to cover the 1 out of 4 people who don't pay their med bills."

:(

I don't care what the government subsidizes. I don't buy into the idea that people cannot find healthy alternatives. Use some brain cells and find items that are healthy. It boils down to laziness to me. I don't want the governmental involvement either, but 200 lbs. at 8, give me a break. That has been an obvious problem for awhile. Someone needs to give that kid a fighting chance and his parents sure aren't. To me it is like saying that if the government subsidized methamphetamines would be making excuses for parents who now have drug addict kids because it is a cheap treat for their kids and they struggle with finding other alternatives. I know that is overly dramatic, but you get my point.

It's a growing problem in the western world, and about the only common sense solution is to charge overweight people more on their medical insurance (I saw an article on a US business news website where US businesses are doing that). Other western societies probably need to do that through their VAT systems. Speaking of the kid, 200 lbs is too much but has anyone here ever tried to pry an American teen off a cinnamon bun, energy drink, or "sugar-fat-coffee-cino"? That's like trying to pull a grizzly bear off a honey coated fresh kill. What's the state going to do? Load him up with cafeteria-style sausage pizza which now counts as a vegetable (the U.S. House of Representatives just passed that on behalf of our food companies for all the non-U.S. citizens out there)?

Other than charge a tax on 'unhealthy' foods (which the food and restaurant industries will fight tooth and nail - and win), I do not see anyway around this besides what more U.S businesses are doing (see above).

One of those things where we know it's a problem but the only solution is really individual gumption and "trial-n-error" on the part of individuals. Just the basic science (who is right - the late Dr. Atkins or Dr. Ornish remedial diet approach?), muddied by the food industry and their hired guns makes any gov't sponsored food pyramid suspect. What's a healthy weight? One can use the 1957 Met Life tables but didn't most people smoke in the 50's? Perplexing problem.

Edited by hknewman on 11/30/2011 11:11:12 MST.

"At most the state should provide eduication to the parent on proper nutrition."

Why should the State (taxpayers) provide this?


Because there is a positive return on investment. Reduction in health care costs. Improvement in productivity and happiness. Fulfilling the constitutional purpose of government.


It's not that obvious what's healthy. The food companies put in cheap, subsidized high fructose corn syrup, which makes the food more addictive, so people eat too much coupled with sophisticated advertising with cartoon characters or whatever.

I think the government should regulate, like with tobacco.

What is my return on investment? We can never reduce health care costs if everyone does not pay into it. And at my age, why do I pay more for insurance than a young family who all are obese? How does this make those who pay more happier?

No it is not obvious what is healthy, but most poor people have televisions and there are plenty of programs they can watch, it is up to them to do so. They can go to free libraries and borrow books on nutrition. They should be able to read, we provide free education. We do need to STOP all subsidies to people and businesses, period.

More regulation is going to cost everyone more and it will not necessarily force people with bad habits or poor nutrition to change. Why should I have to pay a regulated inflated price on an occasional ice cream cone or candy bar?

"No it is not obvious what is healthy, but most poor people have televisions and there are plenty of programs they can watch, it is up to them to do so. They can go to free libraries and borrow books on nutrition. They should be able to read, we provide free education. We do need to STOP all subsidies to people and businesses, period.
"

I don't know about where you live, but in my (red)neck of the woods, the information parents are getting on their own keeps them from vaccinating their kids. We had a whooping cough outbreak! Polio was supposed to be eradicated, but now is spreading out of Pakistan
to China. We will have it here again, what with over 25% of kids not being inoculated
against it.

Just finding out about health stuff randomly? Meh.

Edited by oware on 11/30/2011 14:15:37 MST.

"...Why should I have to pay a regulated inflated price on an occasional ice cream cone or candy bar?"

Once again, Nick, you're missing the big picture

It's not about you, a healthy person having to pay more for a cone, it's that government taxes, and then policies, can make the entire country better off economically and happier

David,

Yes this is very complicated. In California, the following vaccines are required to enter into public and private elementary and secondary schools:
- Polio
- Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis
- Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR)
- Hepatitis B
- Varicella
- Tdap Booster

Parents can get an exemption based on personal beliefs or special medical exemptions. Schools need to maintain a list of exempted students, so they can be removed them from school if an outbreak occurs. So this would fall under the "general welfare" clause of the constitution, I suppose -- as long as tax payers do not foot the bill for vaccines; and this way parents are aware of what they need to do to protect their children. Much better than Rick Perry's universal mandatory vaccinations of all 12 year old girls for cervical cancer, which would have been funded by tax dollars.

IMHO, poverty=ignorance=abuse=neglect. The cycle continues. We aren't talking about a kid being a little chubby--- this kid is over three times his normal weight. Averages are misleading, but an average 8 year old would be 55-60 pounds. Take the same ratio and use a 5'10' male "norm" at 180 pounds, he would be 600 pounds if he was as overweight as the child. If you took any other disease that threatened the child's life as much as being 300% overweight and the parent didn't address it, I doubt there would be much debate.


As far as helping others, IMHO, the kingdom is no better than its meanest subject. Some biblical scholars have pointed out that Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed because of perversion, but because they didn't care for the poor and sick.

Seeing that the season is approaching, remember Mr. Scrooge's attitude towards helping the poor:

First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
Ebenezer: Why?
First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?
Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!
Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.
First Collector: Many can't go there.
Second Collector: And some would rather die.

"At most the state should provide eduication to the parent on proper nutrition."

They already are doing this in the schools but apparently but no one is listening.

Dale,

No doubt the child is dangerously overweight. The question is where (or at all) does the government intervene. And it always seems that government gains more control whenever they are allowed to intervene. Could we extrapolate it out in a couple centuries that parents are not allowed to raise their kids at all... they would just be turned over to the government at birth? I know that is ridiculous. How about discipline? Many opinions here. How about what games they can play? Should we outlaw "cowboys and Indians?" Don't even know if those toys can be purchased or if kids play it anymore. But more than likely we can find 99% of the parents who do not raise their kids properly, based on someone else's belief. Gets scary.

I know of a case where Social Services removed two teen-aged girls because they told SS their mother was abusing them. Actually they were mad because their mother would not let them go to a dance, where supervision was in question. The mother told SS to keep the kids and refused to take them back for a while. When SS asked the mom to bring down some clothes, she said, "You want the kids, you go buy their clothes I am going to throw them away." Great ending... the kids learned their lesson and gained considerable respect for their mother. SS was was reorganized and some people were fired. But most moms would not be tough like that.