Obese kids in the UK are being taken away.

[Quest4fun]

Obese children ‘may be put in care’
The Courier News

A DUNDEE couple yesterday claimed their six children will be taken from them and placed in care unless they can bring their weight under control within three months.

Social workers are understood to be ready to take action to safeguard the health of the children, three of whom are considerably overweight.

Their parents have been told to send the children, the oldest of whom is 12, to dance and football lessons to shed pounds—or risk losing them.

Causing social workers most concern is the weight of the 12-year-old child, who is more than 16 stone, and another three-year-old child who weighs four stone.

The family claim the slimming deadline was set at a meeting with child protection officers last Thursday.

They say they were warned that all six children could be taken into care unless significant improvements are seen by June.

Social workers have allegedly even labelled the 21-month-old child, who weighs 26lbs, overweight.

However, the parents are adamant that their children are only displaying puppy fat and believe it will be shed as they grow older.

Their solicitor, Kathleen Price, has also raised the spectre of another Dundee family having a child taken away because of a weight problem.

Of the six children, she said, “I believe obesity is the main driving force in this case. This family is not alone.”

A spokesman for Dundee City Council said they were not able to comment on individual child protection issues.

The city council’s social work convener, Councillor Helen Wright, was unavailable for comment yesterday.



That's right. They're starting to take the chubby kids away from their parents until they can learn how to feed 'em proper. Yeah, I know. Totally weird. Who do they think they are?

Discuss...

[FlaTinkRAMESAM]

um, weird...

but what are stones??? I understand a measure of weight, but what is the conversion rate?

[Quest4fun]

um, weird...

but what are stones??? I understand a measure of weight, but what is the conversion rate?

I'm glad you asked Rhonda. (I don't get your name so I'm calling you Rhonda.) Here is what a stone is.

A traditional British unit of weight, rarely used in the U.S. Originally the stone varied in size, both from place to place and according to the nature of the item being weighed. A stone of sugar was traditionally 8 pounds, while a stone of wool could be as much as 24 pounds. Eventually the stone was standardized at 14 pounds avoirdupois or approximately 6.350 29 kilograms -- a convenient size because it makes the stone equal to exactly 1/2 quarter or 1/8 hundredweight. Today the stone is used mostly for stating the weight of persons or animals.

[Mrs. Bee]

Well, I don't believe taking the children from their home is going to do any good. That will just traumatize them!

But a 12 year old that weighs over 200 pounds is NOT good. The parents think it's still babyfat? Um...NO! That is insane!

These children definitely need to be helped. But I don't think taking them out of their home is going to help.

[tadshome]

This happened to a child at my sons school. She was 8 years old and weighed 14 stone (almost 200 pounds) and the mum was given many many oppertunities, support groups and parenting classes but she still continued to feed the child junk food 5-6 full meals per day. Even the grandparents were trying to stop her but she would not listen. They took the little girl away from the mum for her own sake. It is very sad but they probably saved the childs life.

[BigRedDad]

Here in the US, they are about to classify obesity as a disease. Once classified as a disease, then it is the parents responsibility to prevent it. Parents allowing their kids to eat a 5-lb bag of french fries for breakfast, lunch, and dinner should have their children taken away by CPS (Child Protective Service). Everyone here can flame me for this, but obese kids are the fault of the parents. I would estimate less than 0.01% of these kids have a medical condition that caused it.

These kids sit at the computer, PS3, Xbox 360 for 16 hours a day eating Hot Pockets like it was the last food on the planet. If the parents choose not to raise and feed their children properly, then they have no right to raise them.

[offwego]

If you want to see some of the issues facing children and iet's the Jamie Oliver series on school lunches was very interesting.

I'm not sure taking kids away is the answer but I do believe that most "western" civilizations do need to pay attention to the issue of childhood diet habits and what good food habits should look like.

[Tiggerlovr9000]

And people wonder why we have anorexia. I do believe you should feed your kids healthy foods and get them outside but my daughter has always been a tad over weight. She has to live with a brother and sister that can eat anything and not gain weight. She got upset about her weight in middleschool and I told her she was beautiful and had 2 choices. Except herself the way she was or do something about it. She went to curves and looks great ( but I thought she always did).Because of her body type she will never be Twiggy, but she can still be healthy.

[MsMin]

I'm not saying that obesity is not a problem but there are FAR WORSE problems than obesity. We don't have the resources to worry about a child's future health and leave that to the child's doctor where it belongs. Not that we can't help but as far as child protective services we have far more parents who are injuring their child in other ways that can lead to future predators on society. In addition, it seems that apparently the SW has not had an impact on this family and the first course of action would be to change the worker to see if someone else could help make changes. There is something else going on when the parent doesn't respond. It could be IQ and an inability to comprehend, a long history of obesity and emotional factors that have not been addressed and on and on...
I wonder too if they just put the child(ren) in care to reduce their weight or made permanent changes in parental rights? If a parent were raised in a home where this was the norm I would expect them to struggle with diet b/c they weren't given the tools themselves. It's easy to look from the outside and judge but hard to be in their shoes.

[coolpapadave]

and there are some facts in this story that are missing. My two boys are huge for their age. They are not obese, they are just big kids. They are both a full head taller than the next biggest kids in their class. They eat healthy and are outside constantly. If I just say that my 8 year old is 90 lbs though, people would freak. 200 lbs sounds heavy for a 12 year old, but was the kid 6 foot from an early growth spurt? It also says that not all the children were obese. Wouldn't the parents tend to feed all of their children the same food. They should all be obese, not just a few of them. Are the parents obese? Children tend to emulate the habits of their parents. If the parents aren't obese, I would say it's a safe bet the kids will grow out of it. I think the childhood obesity scare is just the latest media craze. Yes, there are big kids out there that need some help, but I think we tend to go to extreme's. In my kid's school, we are no longer allowed to bring cupcakes or cake in for parties. I think we are taking this too far. Additionally, how is it a good idea to allow government agencies to decide who and who is not obese? If we as a society have a problem with obesity, why we are so willing to call on government to fix it. We have to take responsibility for our own actions and deal with our own problems. When we let others fix things for us, we will probably not be happy with the solution they come up with. Sorry for the soapbox.

[Quest4fun]

I think a large part of the problem is perception. Many programs focus on weight loss for the purpose of vanity and rarely promote a healthy lifestyle.

You don't need to be thin to be healthy. There are all different body types. I'm thin for the most part and I'm far from healthy. I know people who are of larger girth that are far healtier than I am. It shouldn't be about losing weight. It should be about eating right and getting the appropriate amount of excercise.

There's obviously something wrong with a 200lb 8 year old and he most likely needs medical help or he'll be facing a heart attack at 13.

There are different interpretations of this "epidemic" and most people equate health with being skinny. I equate health to not having diabetes or being at risk of heart attack due to weight.

[Jasper]

There is a family that attends the same church as we do and they have a child who is either 10 or 11 years old and the boy is a good three or four inches taller than I am and I am 5 foot 10 inches so I can only imagine what he weighs. My point is that as another poster mentioned we don't know the whole story.

[BelleLovesTheBeast]

I think this is becoming more and more of a problem. I worked as a manager in a childrens retail store we carried size 0 month to girls/boys 20 (girls 20 is equal to ladies 8). I'd see children that were 5 that couldn't fit into the 20...not tall. It was very sad.

I saw on TV a couple of years ago about a 2 year old that weighed over 80 lbs. I can see a child like that being taken from their home. With the amount of food his mother was feeding him - she was killing him.

[crazypoohbear]

I don't think taking the kids away is the solution.
Most overweight people are that way because they eat out of stress/suppress feelings or other emotional reasons.
Ripping a child from his family I think would constitute an emotional reaction and potentially cause life long stress eating/ or not eating,i.e. anorexia/bulimia.

Why not just make healthy food cheaper than fast food!???

fresh Fruits and fresh veggies are so expensive but a happy meal is still under $3.00!!!
Where can you buy a salad that will fill you up as a meal for under $3.00 with a drink????
This is the real sin!:thedolls:

[Dakota Rose]

As a mother of a child who has consistently measured in the 95th percentile for weight and height, I would be really interested to know how tall these kids are and what their body fat percentage is. I did hear recently that any child over the 90th percentile in weight is considered obese in the US and that just doesn't sound right. Shouldn't it be if a kid is over the 100th percentile?

On the other hand, childhood obesity is a serious problem and it does rest in the lap of the parent. I think a bulk of the problem is that lives are so busy that meals are often eaten in the drive-thru. Or often kids are left to fend for themselves b/c mom and dad are busy.

I don't think it's right to take kids away from their parents because they're overweight. But if it's because the parents are careless or leaving the kids to fend for themselves, then that is a form of endangerment and should probably be addressed. And I suppose since the UK has gov't subsidized health care, they're only protecting their interests.

[Ian]

(dons flame retardant suit)

This is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of in my life.

Since when is raising my kids anything the government should be involved in??? What's next ... take them away from me if they don't get good grades?? Or if they score poorly on the Presidential fitness test?? If some local official doesn't like the way I'm dressing them??

I'm sorry, but the government just has no business being this involved in people's lives. Butt out.

[Mrs. Bee]

And people wonder why we have anorexia. I do believe you should feed your kids healthy foods and get them outside but my daughter has always been a tad over weight. She has to live with a brother and sister that can eat anything and not gain weight. She got upset about her weight in middleschool and I told her she was beautiful and had 2 choices. Except herself the way she was or do something about it. She went to curves and looks great ( but I thought she always did).Because of her body type she will never be Twiggy, but she can still be healthy.

Well, there is luckily a huge difference between being a tad overweight/curvy and being obese. You can be overweight and curvy and still be healthy. But if you're morbidly obese, it's just not healthy or safe.

[Cinderelley]

For those of you concerned about the children being unfairly labeled as obese due to being taller than average -

Obesity is usually diagnosed by having a BMI of 30 or over. Calculating a BMI involves using your height and weight, so it does take that into account.

For example, I'm 5'4" and weigh 130 lbs. My BMI is 22.3. If I keep my height consistent and change my weight to 100, my BMI changes to 17.2 which is considered underweight. If I keep my height at 5'4" and change my weight to 200 lbs. my BMI goes to 34.3 which is obese.

But, if I keep my weight at 130 lbs and change my height to 5', my BMI goes to 25.4 which is overweight.

[Mrs. Bee]

I think this is becoming more and more of a problem. I worked as a manager in a childrens retail store we carried size 0 month to girls/boys 20 (girls 20 is equal to ladies 8). I'd see children that were 5 that couldn't fit into the 20...not tall. It was very sad.

I saw on TV a couple of years ago about a 2 year old that weighed over 80 lbs. I can see a child like that being taken from their home. With the amount of food his mother was feeding him - she was killing him.

I saw a show like that with an extremely obese toddler. The mom was like, "well, he's hungry. he needs to eat 10 full meals a day." Or something like that. It was really, really sad.

[Mrs. Bee]

(dons flame retardant suit)

This is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of in my life.

Since when is raising my kids anything the government should be involved in??? What's next ... take them away from me if they don't get good grades?? Or if they score poorly on the Presidential fitness test?? If some local official doesn't like the way I'm dressing them??

I'm sorry, but the government just has no business being this involved in people's lives. Butt out.

But you do think it's okay for social services to step in for abuse/neglect issues, I hope.

[Ian]

But you do think it's okay for social services to step in for abuse/neglect issues, I hope.Even that's a slippery slope.

Believe me, no one's heart breaks more than mine when I see a story about child abuse, but .... looks what happens when you open the door and allow the government in in cases of abuse. Now they think letting your kid eat too much is abuse ... like I said, where's the line?

Personally, I'd like the government to stay the heck out of my personal life. The last thing I need is a completely ineffecient, ineffective, bureaucratic disaster of an organization trying to tell me how to run my things. I'll be just fine, thank you very much.

[diz_girl]

If they're planning to take away the 21 month-old that's 26 lbs, then I'm glad that I live in the US, since my 8 month old is 22 lbs. Jay has always been at the 95th percentile for both height and weight, and actually was off the charts for height from 1 month old to 6 months old. Now he's down to the 95th percentile.

That being said, the question is, are these parents putting their children in danger by overfeeding them. If that 12 year-old is more than 16 stone, and a stone is 14 lbs, then he's at least 225 lbs. Even if he were in the 97th percentile for height, he'd only be 5 1/2 ft tall. A 12 year old boy in the 97th percentile for weight would be 140 lbs, with 90lbs as the 50th percentile. So this kid is 85lbs over the 97th percentile, and would be considered morbidly obese. His weight is at the 97th percentile AND the 50th percentile, added together.

If this kid is 6' tall, then the state would be out of place, but if not, then his parents are slowly killing him. If he was beaing beaten, would you tell the state to stay out.

If it's considered abuse to underfeed a child, then maybe it's considered abuse to overfeed him/her.

[Ian]

Here's the question to ask yourself ... are these parents forcing food down these kids' throats? Or are they just letting them eat more often than they should.

To me one is abuse and isn't. What if your kid is eating when he's not around you? What if he's sneaking it? What if you've tried to get him or her to lose weight and they won't??

I wonder how many people would be so in favor of this if it was their kids the government was coming to repossess, like a car with an overdue payment.

[conorsmom2000]

I don't think taking the kids away is the solution.
Most overweight people are that way because they eat out of stress/suppress feelings or other emotional reasons.
Ripping a child from his family I think would constitute an emotional reaction and potentially cause life long stress eating/ or not eating,i.e. anorexia/bulimia.

Why not just make healthy food cheaper than fast food!???

fresh Fruits and fresh veggies are so expensive but a happy meal is still under $3.00!!!
Where can you buy a salad that will fill you up as a meal for under $3.00 with a drink????
This is the real sin!:thedolls:

Very well said!! :thumbsup:

This whole issue is a sensitive one to me, but my first reaction is why is the answer taking the children away? Why not offer support and education to the family? As crazypoohbear said, this is only going to cause emotional trauma to the child and probably set them up for life long issues with food. It may sound overly simple, but some people just may need a good understanding of what they are doing to themselves and their children before they can make life style changes.

On the flip side of this, my son came into the world at 9 lbs 11 oz and is the worlds pickiest eater. He is built just like my husband - very long and lean and he has always been below 50th percentile for weight. When he was 5 he had pneumonia and his weight dropped to 36 lbs - since that time, it's been a struggle for him to gain weight. Now, at age (almost) 8, after a recent growth spurt, if he grows another inch before putting on some weight, he will be considered underweight (which can also be unhealthy). Should the government tell me that I'm not fit because my child is too thin? No, it's my job as a parent, with the help of our pediatrician, to make sure that my son is healthy and eating properly (and trust me, this is something we are concerned about!) - and while I can hope he gains a little, bottom line is he will most likely always be skinny, just like my husband. I realize this isn't exactly the same thing, but my point is that these parents need support and guidance, not threats of losing their children.

[Hammer]

Even that's a slippery slope.

Believe me, no one's heart breaks more than mine when I see a story about child abuse, but .... looks what happens when you open the door and allow the government in in cases of abuse. Now they think letting your kid eat too much is abuse ... like I said, where's the line?

Personally, I'd like the government to stay the heck out of my personal life. The last thing I need is a completely ineffecient, ineffective, bureaucratic disaster of an organization trying to tell me how to run my things. I'll be just fine, thank you very much.

So you think it is better to not have any regulation? While your children will be fine (and knowing your family, I know they are) there are plenty of children who need someone's help, and we aren't only speaking about poor inner-city children. As too many people turn a deaf ear (you know, the people who say "Hey, not my kid, not my concern"), there has to be some way to protect all children. Now these agencies need to have well-defined regulations which need to be strictly enforced so as to prevent abuse by the agency.

[Ian]

... my point is that these parents need support and guidance, not threats of losing their children.I agree totally ... just so long as the guidance and support comes from not-for-profit organizations, churches, and the like and not governmental entities funded with the tax dollars of private citizens.

[conorsmom2000]

In my kid's school, we are no longer allowed to bring cupcakes or cake in for parties. I think we are taking this too far.

And that's part of my problem with this whole issue too - our school district also started regulating what can be brought into school, banning sugar and birthday treats, etc. Yet, it's okay that from the 4th grade up students have, on average, a minimum of 2 hours of homework a night - therefore, making it harder for kids to play sports, do after school activities.....even just get outside and play! It really just makes me crazy - you want to tell me what I can feed my child, but in the push for top test scores, you don't care that physical activity is limited? I have a huge problem with that - if the school districts want to be part of the solution, that's great - I'm all for healthy eating. But then it needs to be across the board - I want to see an emphasis on physical fitness, and the time for it, as well.

Just my :twocents:

[Ian]

So you think it is better to not have any regulation? While your children will be fine (and knowing your family, I know they are) there are plenty of children who need someone's help, and we aren't only speaking about poor inner-city children. As too many people turn a deaf ear (you know, the people who say "Hey, not my kid, not my concern"), there has to be some way to protect all children. Now these agencies need to have well-defined regulations which need to be strictly enforced so as to prevent abuse by the agency.We have that ... they're called "laws" ... they're enforced by the police.

I don't think we need some massive governmental institution who goes around sticking their noses into other people's business.

If you abuse your child, it's against the law. You get arrested, tried in our courts, and go to jail if you're guilty. That's perfectly reasonable and as far as the government should be involved in it, as far as I'm concerned.

Look at how it is now? We have "agencies" dedicated towards this and, just like always when it's run by the government, it's inefficent, poorly run, and useless. It exists solely to waste money. Abuse isn't even remotely curtailed by it.

As far as I'm concerned, the government should be involved in as few things as possible in the world. I'd challenge anyone to name anything that the government has gotten involved with that's gotten better because of their involvement.

[Hammer]

As far as I'm concerned, the government should be involved in as few things as possible in the world. I'd challenge anyone to name anything that the government has gotten involved with that's gotten better because of their involvement.

Oh Ian, you know I wasn't going to let you get away with this challenge ;) ! Just thinking off the top of my head, I think our environment is improving thanks to government intervention. Or do you want to go back to the days when companies did not have today's regulations and dumped toxic waste all over the country? Companies were not going to stop that practice without government regulations. Of course it isn't perfect, but it is much better than it was.

I'm going to think of some more while I work out at the gym and come back to this later.

[Ian]

Well ..... that's not a bad example, although I would make the case that it was not actually governmental intervention that made the different, it was consumer pressures.

Once people discovered what these companies were doing and what a mess they were making of the environment, they sued in court and basically boycotted the offenders until they cleaned up their acts.

In fact, if you read up on cases like the Woburn case (A Civil Action), you'll find out that it was mostly civilian defense attornies that brought the issue to light through litigation. The EPA came along and helped clean up the mess.

But they did help, though. I think this is a pretty good example.

[BelleLovesTheBeast]

(dons flame retardant suit)

This is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of in my life.

Since when is raising my kids anything the government should be involved in??? What's next ... take them away from me if they don't get good grades?? Or if they score poorly on the Presidential fitness test?? If some local official doesn't like the way I'm dressing them??

I'm sorry, but the government just has no business being this involved in people's lives. Butt out.

If they child is grossly obese then the parents aren't feeding their children healthy foods. It is dangerous to their health...it can lead to diabetes, heart problem, kidney failure, etc. In this case the government should intervene. You aren't allowed to neglect or abuse your child. If your kid is 80 lbs at 2 years old....then it's abuse.

Do you not think children should be taken away from their parents if they are being abused or neglected?

[crazypoohbear]

I couldn't agree more!
IF someone spanks their kids now it a federal offense. But, if you don't spank your kid then you are letting them grow up to be brats

Not that I condone hitting kids but my parents would have been locked up and the key thrown away!
You also hear about kids calling the cops because they had been grounded and punished and the parents have to go through this incredible process to get their good name back.
then the next day you see kids who have been horribly abused continually returned to the people mutilating and hurting them.
There is NO rhyme or reason to the government justice system!







Even that's a slippery slope.

Believe me, no one's heart breaks more than mine when I see a story about child abuse, but .... looks what happens when you open the door and allow the government in in cases of abuse. Now they think letting your kid eat too much is abuse ... like I said, where's the line?

Personally, I'd like the government to stay the heck out of my personal life. The last thing I need is a completely ineffecient, ineffective, bureaucratic disaster of an organization trying to tell me how to run my things. I'll be just fine, thank you very much.

[Ian]

If they child is grossly obese then the parents aren't feeding their children healthy foods. It is dangerous to their health...it can lead to diabetes, heart problem, kidney failure, etc. In this case the government should intervene. You aren't allowed to neglect or abuse your child. If your kid is 80 lbs at 2 years old....then it's abuse.

Do you not think children should be taken away from their parents if they are being abused or neglected?Yes, I do, but I'm not sure I think letting my kid eat too much falls into that category.

What's a kid? How old? Am I supposed to monitor every single thing my 14 year old eats (not that I have a 14 year old, I'm just saying).

If I have a kid strapped down and I'm pumping food down his throat then that's clearly abuse. But if I'm not intervening and making him change his lifestyle, then no ... I don't think that's abuse.

What if the kid likes to eat?? All a parent can do is try their best to set a good example for them and teach them right from wrong. They can't force their kid to eat healthy and exercise.

[MushuMulan]

I think it's quite wrong to take the child away from their family.

The only situation I can think where this would apply is if it was clearly obvious that they were being abused by constant feeding, and that their health was in danger because of this, after all that would be child-abuse. Anything other than that though is wrong in my opinion, it's the parents responsibility to raise their children, not the governments. Let the government pay attention to the matters of the country that are truly pressing.

[Mrs. Bee]

We have that ... they're called "laws" ... they're enforced by the police.

I don't think we need some massive governmental institution who goes around sticking their noses into other people's business.

If you abuse your child, it's against the law. You get arrested, tried in our courts, and go to jail if you're guilty. That's perfectly reasonable and as far as the government should be involved in it, as far as I'm concerned.

Look at how it is now? We have "agencies" dedicated towards this and, just like always when it's run by the government, it's inefficent, poorly run, and useless. It exists solely to waste money. Abuse isn't even remotely curtailed by it.

As far as I'm concerned, the government should be involved in as few things as possible in the world. I'd challenge anyone to name anything that the government has gotten involved with that's gotten better because of their involvement.

I'm not quite sure how much you know about social work agencies. There is a LOT more to them than most people seem to think.

You can't just send the abusive parents to jail. There is a a lot more to it than that. What happens to the kids after their parents are sent to jail? Something has to be done for them.

Also social workers are needed to look in on families that have gotten help to make sure it's all up to par and things haven't gone to "heck" in a handbasket again.

Social work agencies are not just there to help abused kids either. They help people with disabilities (mental and physical.) They help people in hospitals. In schools. They help kids with behavioral issues. The list goes on and on.

I think people seem to have a very skewed vison of the social work field because of the way they are portrayed in the media.

I just don't see how anyone could say that social work agencies are "useless."

[Mrs. Bee]

I couldn't agree more!
IF someone spanks their kids now it a federal offense. But, if you don't spank your kid then you are letting them grow up to be brats

Not that I condone hitting kids but my parents would have been locked up and the key thrown away!
You also hear about kids calling the cops because they had been grounded and punished and the parents have to go through this incredible process to get their good name back.
then the next day you see kids who have been horribly abused continually returned to the people mutilating and hurting them.
There is NO rhyme or reason to the government justice system!

I know it's off topic...but there are other ways besides spanking to keep your kids from becoming brats. I know plenty of good kids that were never spanked.

[Ian]

Perhaps "useless" is a bit of a strong word, however, I would definitely say that for the money spent we don't get nearly enough back.

Another thing I thought of in regards to this ... who decides what's "obese" and what's not?? What if you don't agree with the government's definition of "obese" and they come to take your child away?

Heck, the medical community can't even come to a concensus on what is and isn't considered obese! Some people go by the BMI, some say BMI is too stringent, others have some totally different definition (like "stones" :confused: ).

My point is, everyone is so cavalier about it because it's not "their kids" ... the problem is, if you continue to let the government run every little facet of our lives, some day it could be "your kids."

I'll decide what's the right and wrong weight for my kids, thank you very much. I don't need some pencil pusher somewhere deciding for me.

[Quest4fun]

I can see that a lot of people have strong feelings for social workers and a lot of it stems from what they see on TV and read in the papers.

There is a lot more to it than taking kids away from their parents. Who helps you fill out documents at the hospital? Yup. That's a usually a social worker. Who checks in on people who are mentally disabled that live on their own. Right again. A social worker. Who helps poor parents find work and housing so they can provide for their children. Bing! Social workers step in again.

My wife (Hi Honey) has done her stint in the industry and has some pretty good insight on what these hard working individuals do to make life better for people in difficult situations. They're not the monsters they're frequently made out to be.

Now Melanie Griffith. There's a monster.

[BelleLovesTheBeast]

Yes, I do, but I'm not sure I think letting my kid eat too much falls into that category.

What's a kid? How old? Am I supposed to monitor every single thing my 14 year old eats (not that I have a 14 year old, I'm just saying).

If I have a kid strapped down and I'm pumping food down his throat then that's clearly abuse. But if I'm not intervening and making him change his lifestyle, then no ... I don't think that's abuse.

What if the kid likes to eat?? All a parent can do is try their best to set a good example for them and teach them right from wrong. They can't force their kid to eat healthy and exercise.

Do you think a kid who is 2 and weighs 80 lbs is okay? He could die?

As far as what would be considered a criminally obese would have to depend on the childs BMI...but a kid that is more than 50% fat...is extremely unhealthy.

As for parents making their kids eat healthy and exercise.....mine did! We had to play outside...we had to eat our veggies before we left the table and there weren't sweets in the house. As a parent you buy the food....a 5 year old doesn't grocery shop....so you determine what your kid eats. If you feed him fried foods, fast food and junk food - you are the reason he is unhealthy and obese.

I'm not saying that a kid who is slightly overweight the government should get involved. I'm talking about grossly obese children.

Do you see my point?

[Ian]

I know it's off topic...but there are other ways besides spanking to keep your kids from becoming brats. I know plenty of good kids that were never spanked.I'm pretty sure the poster wasn't trying to imply that not spanking your kids turned them into brats.

I think he was merely using examples to illustrate a larger point.

[Ian]

As a parent you buy the food....a 5 year old doesn't grocery shop....so you determine what your kid eats.If you feed him fried foods, fast food and junk food - you are the reason he is unhealthy and obese.Well first off, last time I checked this was America ... if my kid wants to be fat, that's his or her choice.

Now obviously a 5 year old, yeah. I can control (to some degree) what they eat. But the definition of a "kid" normally runs up to 18. So where's the cutoff? Is it okay for your kid to be fat after 12, but not before??

And why should I accept your definition of obese for my children??

Honestly, I'm going to say that I am completely and totally floored that anyone thinks this is not only acceptable, but a good idea. George Orwell is rolling over in his grave somewhere.

Some folks need to look up the phrase "slippery slope" in the dictionary.

[Jeff G]

I saw a special on the BBC regarding another case where the British government stepped in and took a child into social services (I'm not sure what they term it is exactly) for being overweight.

When I first saw the headline of the special I thought no way should the government be stepping in on these cases. After watching the special though I agree 100% with the move based on the case that was covered. The child that was shown was extremly overwieght and the parents were allowing the kid to just keep eating. At age 7 he ate 6-7 meals every day and the portions would have had me full for an entire day. The goverment gave the family warnings which were not heeded and eventually they stepped in.


I guess this is a growing problem in the UK with obesse kids. The obesity is causing harm to the kids health with problems including diabetes, liver probelms and other medical complications. Abuse & neglect are both reasons for social services to get involved. This may not be physical abuse but if a child is allowed to cotinually over eat and cause harm to themselves it seems like abuse/neglect to me.

[Ian]

One last thing I'll add to this before I leave, because I've already gotten way too involved here ...

I may agree that it's more appropriate in the UK than it is here, because they have socialized medicine and individual health impacts the overall national well-being more than it does in the U.S.

That's it ... signing off now!

[Mrs. Bee]

Perhaps "useless" is a bit of a strong word, however, I would definitely say that for the money spent we don't get nearly enough back.

Another thing I thought of in regards to this ... who decides what's "obese" and what's not?? What if you don't agree with the government's definition of "obese" and they come to take your child away?

Heck, the medical community can't even come to a concensus on what is and isn't considered obese! Some people go by the BMI, some say BMI is too stringent, others have some totally different definition (like "stones" :confused: ).

My point is, everyone is so cavalier about it because it's not "their kids" ... the problem is, if you continue to let the government run every little facet of our lives, some day it could be "your kids."

I'll decide what's the right and wrong weight for my kids, thank you very much. I don't need some pencil pusher somewhere deciding for me.


Wow. You seem to have some strong feelings about social workers. I guess I just take it a little personally when someone essentially rips apart my field of study. Calls it useless and refers to us as "pencil pushers." But hey...that's just me. I choose to believe that social work is a very valid field. Also a very underappreciated and underpaid field.


I can see that a lot of people have strong feelings for social workers and a lot of it stems from what they see on TV and read in the papers.

There is a lot more to it than taking kids away from their parents. Who helps you fill out documents at the hospital? Yup. That's a usually a social worker. Who checks in on people who are mentally disabled that live on their own. Right again. A social worker. Who helps poor parents find work and housing so they can provide for their children. Bing! Social workers step in again.

My wife (Hi Honey) has done her stint in the industry and has some pretty good insight on what these hard working individuals do to make life better for people in difficult situations. They're not the monsters they're frequently made out to be.

Now Melanie Griffith. There's a monster.

Thanks, Graham! At least my hubby doesn't think my field is useless.

[Hammer]

In fact, if you read up on cases like the Woburn case (A Civil Action), you'll find out that it was mostly civilian defense attornies that brought the issue to light through litigation. The EPA came along and helped clean up the mess.

But they did help, though. I think this is a pretty good example.

Yeah me :bow::curtsy::cheer: ;) !

I did think of a few more when I was beating up my body on the elliptical machine (and Cheryl thought of the USDA grading of meat and produce), but as I also think this discussion has gotten a little out of hand, I'll refrain from posting them.

All I am saying that like most things in life there are positives and negatives to every situation. I do not believe that any government agency (local, state or federal) should make inflexible, blanket rules but should investigate complaints (home visits and the like). In the case of this story we do not know all the facts, only what the writer of the article wanted to present to support his/her viewpoint.

[BelleLovesTheBeast]

Well first off, last time I checked this was America ... if my kid wants to be fat, that's his or her choice.

Now obviously a 5 year old, yeah. I can control (to some degree) what they eat. But the definition of a "kid" normally runs up to 18. So where's the cutoff? Is it okay for your kid to be fat after 12, but not before??

And why should I accept your definition of obese for my children??

Honestly, I'm going to say that I am completely and totally floored that anyone thinks this is not only acceptable, but a good idea. George Orwell is rolling over in his grave somewhere.

Some folks need to look up the phrase "slippery slope" in the dictionary.

I'm not saying MY definition of fat....I'm saying the MEDICAL PROFESSION'S definition of obese.

I guess you do think people should be allowed to abuse their children too.

This is about a child's health....don't you think children have the right to be healthy? A parent shouldn't have the right to harm their children. I'm all for children getting to live a healthy and happy life! That's what this is all about.

So I guess you don't see my point!

[crazypoohbear]

I'm pretty sure the poster wasn't trying to imply that not spanking your kids turned them into brats.

I think he was merely using examples to illustrate a larger point.

Thanks Ian, my point was that when the government gets involved in personal family issues it becomes a mess!
"too many cooks spoil the soup"

But.... I'm a SHE :blush:... Now calling me he is a sexist comment and gender biased and now I'll have to get the government involved to solve this issue :D

[tinkmommy]

It is a parents duty and obligation to feed their children. This does not mean allowing them to eat themselves to death.

For arguements sake let us assume that these children are overweight/morbidly obese primarily due to the food they ingest at home, and not because they are "big" for their age.

IMHO, these parents are abusing their children. They may not have black and blue bruises on their skin, but they are abused none the less. Children need to be protected from dangerous situations and these parents are placing these children in just such a situation. The evidence of this abuse is just a different type of scar. These cases are no different from the parents that slowly starve their children and claim they have eating disorders, only to gain weight once removed from their current evironment. This is just a more "acceptable" extreme.

[Dakota Rose]

No one has taken into account that in order for the social worker to get involved, someone would have had to report this family. That someone (a teacher, doctor, family member, etc) obviously has a concern for these kids. So maybe they truly are obese because of parental neglect.

I don't think we can call this abuse because that implies the parents are purposefully harming their children. But it's probably a case of neglect as the parents are either absent for much of the day allowing the kids to eat whatever/whenever, too busy to prepare healthy meals, too lax on eating habits or naive about diet and exercise.

Ian has good points though. Where do we draw the line? Child-rearing and diet are probably two of the most controversial issues in the world. There are so many differing opinions, guidelines, etc for each. Essentially, someone is always in the wrong.

In our school district, they're clamping down on what kind of snacks we can send to school with our kids. But the cafeteria is still serving popcorn chicken and fries (hello saturated fat). And the snack machines on campuses are still full of junk. It kind of feels like the district/gov't is saying "you parents don't know how to feed your kids, but we do."

[Mrs. Bee]

No one has taken into account that in order for the social worker to get involved, someone would have had to report this family. That someone (a teacher, doctor, family member, etc) obviously has a concern for these kids. So maybe they truly are obese because of parental neglect.

I don't think we can call this abuse because that implies the parents are purposefully harming their children. But it's probably a case of neglect as the parents are either absent for much of the day allowing the kids to eat whatever/whenever, too busy to prepare healthy meals, too lax on eating habits or naive about diet and exercise.

Ian has good points though. Where do we draw the line? Child-rearing and diet are probably two of the most controversial issues in the world. There are so many differing opinions, guidelines, etc for each. Essentially, someone is always in the wrong.

In our school district, they're clamping down on what kind of snacks we can send to school with our kids. But the cafeteria is still serving popcorn chicken and fries (hello saturated fat). And the snack machines on campuses are still full of junk. It kind of feels like the district/gov't is saying "you parents don't know how to feed your kids, but we do."

At least you can send a lunch to school with your kids. I never ate the school lunches growing up (yuck!)

[PirateLover]

This is such a sticky issue... I've seen cases like this on TV where the parents keep buying the horribly unhealthy food, preparing 10 meals a day etc and not thinking that anything is wrong...it's actually pretty scary, but in the end I don't think the solution is removing the child from the home.

As far as the social worker thing goes... I will say that yes I personally believe there is a valid need for this line of work BUT it needs to be reigned in a bit and I think it is too easy to blame media for painting a bad picture of social workers. I' heard a few first hand stories and was involved in one myself.

When I was 12, I did something very stupid. I made myself a cup of boiling hot soup. I placed the soup down on the computer table. I went to grab my headphones and the wire got caught up with the soup cup, knocking it over and giving me 2nd degree burns on both of my inner thighs. After I was released from the hospital, I had a follow up with a doctor 2 days later. After my check up, he made my parents leave the room and he brought in a social worker. For the next 20 minutes or so, I was made to repeat my story countless times as they intently listened for any loopholes. They were basically trying to get me to "admit" that my parents burned me on purpose and that I was abused. I was repeatedly asked if I had every been hit, tortured in anyway etc. The social worker even started to raise her voice to me at one point, insinuating that they could tell I was lying and reducing me to tears because I didn't understand what the heck was going on and why they didn't believe me. When they finally let me leave I was so afraid that I said something wrong and they would come after my parents because to me they still seemed very suspicious at the end of it all. Thankfully nothing else happened, but it was very scary for me.

For brevity's sake I won't go into details of other incidents, but I know someone who was removed from her grandparents' care and placed into foster care simply because a neighbor whom they were feuding with kept calling DHS on false reports, and a grown woman who had to fight a case of elderly abuse in courts because a social worker visited her father sick with cancer on a day when he soiled himself in his sleep and she hadn't had the chance to change him yet.

I know these are isolated incidents and they don't speak for all social workers/cases but it is from these experiences, not the media, that I've personally developed my somewhat distrusting opinion of social workers. I think this is one of those lines of work where it only takes a few bad incidents to mar the entire profession, my apologies to Mrs. Bee.

[Mrs. Bee]

This is such a sticky issue... I've seen cases like this on TV where the parents keep buying the horribly unhealthy food, preparing 10 meals a day etc and not thinking that anything is wrong...it's actually pretty scary, but in the end I don't think the solution is removing the child from the home.

As far as the social worker thing goes... I will say that yes I personally believe there is a valid need for this line of work BUT it needs to be reigned in a bit and I think it is too easy to blame media for painting a bad picture of social workers. I' heard a few first hand stories and was involved in one myself.

When I was 12, I did something very stupid. I made myself a cup of boiling hot soup. I placed the soup down on the computer table. I went to grab my headphones and the wire got caught up with the soup cup, knocking it over and giving me 2nd degree burns on both of my inner thighs. After I was released from the hospital, I had a follow up with a doctor 2 days later. After my check up, he made my parents leave the room and he brought in a social worker. For the next 20 minutes or so, I was made to repeat my story countless times as they intently listened for any loopholes. They were basically trying to get me to "admit" that my parents burned me on purpose and that I was abused. I was repeatedly asked if I had every been hit, tortured in anyway etc. The social worker even started to raise her voice to me at one point, insinuating that they could tell I was lying and reducing me to tears because I didn't understand what the heck was going on and why they didn't believe me. When they finally let me leave I was so afraid that I said something wrong and they would come after my parents because to me they still seemed very suspicious at the end of it all. Thankfully nothing else happened, but it was very scary for me.

For brevity's sake I won't go into details of other incidents, but I know someone who was removed from her grandparents' care and placed into foster care simply because a neighbor whom they were feuding with kept calling DHS on false reports, and a grown woman who had to fight a case of elderly abuse in courts because a social worker visited her father sick with cancer on a day when he soiled himself in his sleep and she hadn't had the chance to change him yet.

I know these are isolated incidents and they don't speak for all social workers/cases but it is from these experiences, not the media, that I've personally developed my somewhat distrusting opinion of social workers. I think this is one of those lines of work where it only takes a few bad incidents to mar the entire profession, my apologies to Mrs. Bee.

As you said...those were isolated incidents.

People really shouldn't base their opinions of an entire profession on a few incidents. I mean...if that were the case, people should hate pretty much ALL professions because bad things happen in all of them.

I'm sorry that you've had bad experiences. But there are countless others that have benefitted from the help of social workers.

[Carol]

MODERATOR ALERT

Hey all. If you want to banter back and forth with one another - please use the private message feature the site offers. That's why they are there.

This thread has gotten off topic many times throughout.

Let's move along ........

[Ian]

But.... I'm a SHE :blush:... Now calling me he is a sexist comment and gender biased and now I'll have to get the government involved to solve this issue :DWould you believe my "S" key is broken? :blush:

[Jenemmy]

I just think that anytime something like this pops up, we all have to take a step back and realize that we do not know everything that goes on in someone else's home. We don't have the whole story, we have a judgement call. We can't presume to know everything about a child or a parent with a glance.

I may be overly sensitive about this, because I have a non verbal child with autism. Believe me when I tell you that I have been on the receiving end of scrutiny and judgement on more than one occassion from people that just have NO idea, and from professionals who have decided that they know my child better than I do. When your entire life and love and soul is wrapped around your sweet kiddo, it is excruciatingly painful to bear the criticism of folks who don't live it and don't get it.

All I am saying is that we should defer to the old notion of not knowing someone until you walk a mile in their shoes.

[crazypoohbear]

Would you believe my "S" key is broken? :blush:

Okay, I'll buy that!

Now back on topic....
If the government takes away all the obese children how long before they come for the obese adults?? And, after they take away all the obese people how long before they come to take away the underweight people because being anorexic/bulimic causes health problems also. These health problems are just as costly as being obese.
Then after we get rid of the obese/underweight people and make the world better
Then...
it's time to come after the drinkers who are putting their health at risk, who decides how much is too much to drink?? Let's get them out of their homes as well.
Then
The people who over medicate themselves are causing more health problems as well!

All I remember is hearing the story
(I"M PARAPHRASING)
When they came for one groupI did not stand up because it was not me,Then they came and took away another group, I did nothing because it was not me, They came and took another group and I did nothing because it was not me.
By the time they came for me there was no one left to stand up for me!"

IS this really where we want this world to go...
AGAIN???

[alphamommy]

Someone commented on not knowing the size of the parents, so I did a little research on this (thanks, Google!), and discovered that the mom weighs 23 stone (23 X 14 = 322 lbs.), and the dad weighs 18 stone (18 X 14 = 252 lbs.).

The article where I found this (from the Mirror website) also states, "The Dundee family came to the attention of social services when they asked for help in caring for the kids, including the girl, three, who has developmental problems."

I have a hard time with this whole issue. I've seen parents on TV talk shows talking about how denying their child's wants would be like abusing them (so they feed them 3-4 Big Macs at a time), and I just don't get that. On the other hand, I was chubby for a long time, starting as a teenager, and I wouldn't blame my parents for it. I didn't like healthy food, and I didn't eat it when I could get away with it.

My own DD8 is on the thin side, and I swear I have been fighting to feed her since the day she was born. Sometimes, she eats like crazy, and others, I don't see how she can survive on how little she eats. Her doc says she's doing fine (50th percentile on weight, 75th on height).

I just hope things work out for all involved.

Tammy

[Jeri]

I think it is very scary to think that they would take your child away for being too fat. Will they also take them for too thin.

My 4 1/2 yr old is in the 50% for height but fell off the charts for weight a long time ago. When he was weighed last month he was only 31 pounds. He eats very healthy, and constantly all day long. We have been to GI doctors to make sure he was OK and he basically said he is very healthy, but he is so active we can not get more calories in then he burns daily. We have been told to feed him a diet high in fat,and calories along with all the good food to. He would eat fruit and raw veggies all day long if we let him.He has never had a PBJ sandwhich or any for that matter. He has never had bread because he refuses it.

So the thought of the goverment being able to take my child away because he isn't the right weight acording to there guidelines is terrible. I don't under feed my child or make him go without food.

[Disney Doll]

Okay, I'll buy that!
All I remember is hearing the story
(I"M PARAPHRASING)
When they came for one groupI did not stand up because it was not me,Then they came and took away another group, I did nothing because it was not me, They came and took another group and I did nothing because it was not me.
By the time they came for me there was no one left to stand up for me!"

IS this really where we want this world to go...
AGAIN???

The book is Terrible Things by Eve Bunting- a fabulous book for kids.

I have to chime in with my 2 cents- while I am not a social worker I was a foster parent. I can assure all of you who are up in arms over the government interfering that they really do not interfere as much as they probably should. Taking a child from their family (at least in the DHS system I worked with) really was a very last resort. These families are given every opportunity to improve the situation, too many opportunities if you ask me. I do not think the current child welfare system is the best, but I am definitely NOT in favor of scraping the whole system. Here's my general theory on government and why I support social services of any kind. I may be perfectly capable of raising my family and making good choices on my own accord as are many of you, BUT (and this is a very big but) many people in the world are too stupid to make good decisions for themselves- thus the government steps in. No it is not a good idea to feed your newborn watered down coke if you are out of formula, but that sadly is a real example. Every child has the right to health and safety. If the parent is not willing to take that responsibility seriously then yes remove the child even for obesity.

[DisneyDudet]

I am going to chime in on the BMI...

It has been touched on here, but the BMI does not take into consideration muscle mass. Now, take a a body builder, or wrestler. Say, they are about 5'11" or 6 foot tall. The quarterback in my high school was this tall, and 200 lbs. If we use those figures, the BMI of this person is around 27, which is considered Overweight. Now, when you see this wrestler or quarterback, you don't see overweight, do you? Most likely not. As what every trainer will tell you... "Muscle weighs more than fat." My BMI is slightly less at around 26, and I might be considered "average" by most people when you look at me, but I'm pretty short, and have some padding or fluff on me, but I do have some muscular legs. You would really need to measure your fat, not just numbers on the BMI. It does not take into consideration gender, and women WILL have more fat that men, but thats basic anatomy. There is a conversion for children and teens, which I'm not familiar with, but that does exist, and might be a little more accurate, since children tend to have less muscle mass, especially prior to puberty.

On that, I can say that I do not believe the BMI, and not just because it says I'm overweight, but because there are so many loopholes in it, I do not find it accurate.

With giving the title of the parents in the situation as "abusers," it depends on how they are treating their children. Are they FORCING them to eat fattening foods? Are they keeping them from being active? I mean, if someone doesn't want to play sports because they like piano, thats ok right? I guess not, but if you MADE your child play sports, you would be on the same end of the "abuser" title. If these parents are just not eating healthy all around, I think it would be a better situation if the whole family went to nutrition counseling and joined a gym or get-fit program. I just don't see that the story we were given gives us enough information to make an informed decision as to if this is an appropriate action to be taken.

I might be extreme here, but if letting your child over-eat is abuse, then is an adult eating to the point of morbid obesity self-mutilation, or something worse? I don't know.

And let's not forget, that there are some medical problems and genetics linked to obesity. The most common is Cushing's, which is an over production and excretion of cortisol.

OK, off my :soapbox:

[Gooftroop5]

I do not think it is right for the kids to be taken away. I think instead of spending the money on caring for them in the system should be spent getting the help the parents & children need. Dieticians, trainer, proper food & parent training. Do I agree with the childrens weight & the parents handling of it no I don't.

As for the social workers I don't think of them as bad. A lot of the time their hands are tied & they are doing what they are suppose to do, not what they necessarily agree with. Someone determined this was the case. England isn't the only place this has happened. It has happened in the US too. In New Mexico a 3yo that weighed 120lbs was taken away from her home.

I have to agree with the others though If healthy food was more affordable then the junk food there wouldn't be quite as big obesity problem. When it is cheaper to buy high fat & high salt food cheaper then a healthy meal what do you think is going to win?

Children do get it from other places. We are constantly battling to keep my dd8 from the food. I pack her lunch & she doesn't get money to buy "extras" However she can get them. They have a tray in the cafeteria for food that you don't want can go there & anyone can help themselves. She also gets food when she is seeing the counselor at school. She has already had lunch but the only time the counselor has time is during the counselors lunchtime. She doesn't want to eat in front of dd so she shares her lunch with her. Of course dd thinks this is great so all the effort that we think we are making in changing her eating habits are going out the window. Its even worse if she sees her grandparents. BTW dd is in the 95th percentile for height. She is overweight her doctor says as long as she is happy & she is following her curve then let her be. Same with ds#1. This is what they say to our face. I got a copy of ds#1's last well child visit and it wasn't nicely stated as what they say to us. It makes it sound like we are ignoring everything they tell us & offer us, not that what they say to me. The only time they even mentioned they were concerned was ds#1 all of a sudden jumped then the dr was concerned because of the weight issues that run in the family for generations - not just dh & I. Yet all he said was just watch it. He use to be a kid that was underweight.

To sum it all up they need to look into more why instead of just taking the kids out & causing more emotional problems. The parents didn't think it was an issue because they were overweight plus who knows what the doctors & other people have been telling them. As long as they are happy there is no concern as my dr says. :confused: Trust me we believed this for years.

[thrillme]

I think there's always another side.

Are you abusing your child if the child is overweight? Not necessarily. BUT...there are some parents who just can't see the forest for the trees. An 80-100 lb toddler is not just "baby fat". A 2 year old is not going to down 2 large pizzas in a single sitting. There are conditions in which the brain just doesn't register "FULL" and this child may need medical intervention. Is it abuse if a parent doesn't get a child NECESSARY medical care for a potentially life threatening illness? There's a BIG difference from being a bit "husky" as a child and being so painfully overweight that you have to buy extra LARGE adult clothing and have someone shorten them when you're only 7 or 8 years old. Now shy of any diseases...this severely overweight child brings about another question. Quite often children and adults tend to over eat for comfort or because of bordom. Is the child getting enough attention? Somebody HAS to be buying this child the Pizzas. Are they feeding them to quiet them instead of hugging them?

I am personally sick of the government telling me how to raise my child and the school system telling me what I can and cannot do and how to dress them. BUT...apparently there have been enough parents out there that just either don't care or just have no concept of control or have abused freedoms given to such a point that it also punishes us.

When you hear about a child being starved to death, beaten or any number of other atrocities...people scream WHY DIDN'T SOMEONE INTERVENE SOONER? When they DO intervene then they're in an area they have no business in because there's perhaps no REAL danger. Then also there's always those that are a bit overzealous and push their authority.

I think there are two sides to every story but we often only hear the one side that's most likely to raise our blood pressure.

[merlinmagic4]

Yet, it's okay that from the 4th grade up students have, on average, a minimum of 2 hours of homework a night - therefore, making it harder for kids to play sports, do after school activities.....even just get outside and play! It really just makes me crazy - you want to tell me what I can feed my child, but in the push for top test scores, you don't care that physical activity is limited? I have a huge problem with that - if the school districts want to be part of the solution, that's great - I'm all for healthy eating. But then it needs to be across the board - I want to see an emphasis on physical fitness, and the time for it, as well.

Just my :twocents:

I agree with that 100%! I am not a fan of homework and research shows it has NO effect until high school. Let the kids go out and play - that's what I did!

[Mrs. Bee]

I think using only one method - like actual weight in pounds or BMI - is not a good way to measure the health of a person.

Age
Weight
Height
BMI
Percentage of fat
Percentage of muscle
(And then of course there are other health things to look into like cholesterol and all that stuff.)

Those are some of the things that need to be looked at. You can't just look at weight. You can't just look at BMI. It really needs to be a combination of everything.

[Dakota Rose]

Here, here! These last 4 comments are terrific! I wish I would have thought saying these things!

[alphamommy]

I don't watch "Supernanny" very often, but there was an episode a few weeks ago with a single dad with two boys. The oldest one was around 12, and was obsessed with video games. He was thin, but, because of his poor diet, his cholesterol was somewhere around 270!

One of the things the Super Nanny lady did was get one of the neighbors to teach the dad how to cook!

Like several others have said, weight isn't the only factor...

[Ed]

MODERATOR ALERT

Hey all. If you want to banter back and forth with one another - please use the private message feature the site offers. That's why they are there.

This thread has gotten off topic many times throughout.

Let's move along ........


:ditto:

I recognize that this is a topic that is bound to stir up a lot of emotional response, but let's please keep it reasonable and refrain from attacking other posters' opinions.

[Mrs. Bee]

I don't watch "Supernanny" very often, but there was an episode a few weeks ago with a single dad with two boys. The oldest one was around 12, and was obsessed with video games. He was thin, but, because of his poor diet, his cholesterol was somewhere around 270!

One of the things the Super Nanny lady did was get one of the neighbors to teach the dad how to cook!

Like several others have said, weight isn't the only factor...

I saw that episode (LOVE that show!) It was pretty sad. All those kids wanted to eat was fried food beacuse it's all dad knew how to make. I couldn't believe how high that kids cholesterol was!

[MsMin]

I think using only one method - like actual weight in pounds or BMI - is not a good way to measure the health of a person.

Age
Weight
Height
BMI
Percentage of fat
Percentage of muscle
(And then of course there are other health things to look into like cholesterol and all that stuff.)

Those are some of the things that need to be looked at. You can't just look at weight. You can't just look at BMI. It really needs to be a combination of everything.
BMI can be very tricky but if you are using the right scale which for children is hard to find and changes... then it's a good measure.
The thing that worries me is that we have far worse problems that go on in some homes. It's hard to prove it in many cases and difficult to try in court b/c many CPI (child protection investigators) don't have the skills. Unfortunately here you don't need a degree in SW to be called a Social worker and many ppl who are trained are so burned out with the lack of efficacy in the system. {I'm not criticizing the SW'ers just saying its a difficult job}. But if we start looking at obesity it's easier to measure and validate the problems I'm afraid it will become a focus and pull focus from the more difficult cases. If anyone wants to PM me I'd be glad to tell you the abuse I've seen that is difficult to prosecute. :( I'm not looking at kids that have been slapped.. I wish that were the problem.
I think the weight issues should be left in the hands of the medical staff. WE have programs here that aid families to keep them intact.. it would be far more helpful than to remove the child. Maybe there are some IQ issues here too. Somewhere the message isn't getting through. Either the SW won't pass on the case, the people can't comprehend the seriousness of the problem or something else. Possibly this family has eaten this way for generations... in some families food is love. True not healthy but not intentional.

[pink]

Wow, I've never heard anything like that before. I thought it was kind of rediculous when I first read it but it makes sense. Children don't understand how unhealthy being overweight really is so I guess it's just in the best interest of the children. I hope everything work out for them.:(



:mickey:

[Cinderelley]

Let the government pay attention to the matters of the country that are truly pressing.

This is a matter that needs attention before it becomes truly pressing. The healthcare system is already under stress trying to deal with aging baby boomers. What do you think is going to happen when these obese children grow up and have multiple chronic illnesses from their obesity? And that's not just a day dream. We've had patients in their 30s who are already having bypass surgery weighing 300+ lbs, and they're not 6'5" football players either. To top that off, because they are so big, it's very hard to get them up & moving, so they're more likely to develop pneumonia during their hospital stay.

In this particular case, I don't feel I have enough information to make a decision. It sounds like this comes after other attempts were made, but it never says what those other attempts were. But, it's not as frivolous a subject as some make it out to be. For those screaming about too much government intervention, I would like to hear your opinion on whether or not the government should supply healthcare/welfare for them when their chronic health conditions keep them from working.

[MushuMulan]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that it was a problem that shouldn't be worried about, rather, what I meant was that the government shouldn't work with something that is clearly out of their hands (in my opinion).

Sure, they can tell people to eat healthy, and exercise regularly, and this might motivate some people. But the truth is, a lot of people will simply ignore the government because they don't want it interfering with their lifestyle.

Simply put, there's all these problems that obesity causes, and while many people want the government to play a role in curing it, I don't think they reliaze how impossible that is (at least in a capitalist society).

You can't just force a person to change their way of life in our country, you can only give them advice, and hope they listen.

If we were to let the government play a more deciding role in our health (ex. forcing us to exercise daily, and regulating what we eat), then we'd be moving towards being a socialist society (although I wouldn't be suprised to see it in the future due to other things the government has done).

It just goes to show that living in a capitalist society has its pros and cons :(.

[Cinderelley]

I agree with your point that people won't listen, but I don't think I should have my tax dollars spent to pay for their care when their decisions led them to their poor health. Just like I don't think I should have to pay for smoker's treatment for lung cancer or copd. Yes, we live in a free society where everyone can do as they please, but don't expect me to pay for someone else's stupidity.

Before everyone starts talking about the "medical issues" that can cause obesity, I'm not referring to those with thyroid problems, etc. I'm talking about the people who do things that they know are bad for them and continue to do it anyway.

[RAIDER]

Well the story broke out in the UK with mixed reactions just like this thread ....in the UK

What i do know is this the family concerned do all have overweight kids .....However the authorities in question havent passed out the full facts so speculation is rife ....

For my thoughts

If the authorities have been heavily involved with this family and the kids are getting worse over a period of time ..Then my answer is YES they should do something ...

If they havent and gone in gun ho style ..Then NO the family involved should have been counciled whatever direction is needed and the council are wrong

As for the question of obecity certainly in the UK ....

Well there are many factors ...

When i was kid many moons ago you went out to parks and got excercise without supervision ...In this day and age Parents dont encourage this anymore as the world has changed ...
PE in the UK has been cut down by half from my day


Food additives and foods claiming they are healthy when infact they are not .....

Playstation / TV is on the up for kids thus encouraging the coach potatoe state

Also the factor of fast food is all an easy fix these days as real prepared food is rarely done in a household when both adults are working .

Again the factor of cheap foods that not well off households can only afford as such fried foods etc

There has been a turn in the world concerning fatty / junk foods as you only have to look at the change in WDW menus these days i mean who would have thought we would be paying for bottled water 10 years ago rather than a coke . ( which i may add is a good thing ) ...But everything in life is about moderation and thats the key thing in my humble view

The bottom line is that the parents are responsible and there is a fine line in my view councilling and being a nanny state ....

The UK in my view is heading towards the nanny state unfortunately :(

[Gooftroop5]

When i was kid many moons ago you went out to parks and got excercise without supervision ...In this day and age Parents dont encourage this anymore as the world has changed ...

As kids we would disappear for hours riding our bikes, playing etc. My mom never worried. I lived in the country. My friend would ride her bike from town by herself to come visit when we were teenagers. Our biggest worry was falling off our bikes when we sped down the hill as fast as we could on the dirt road, hit the loose stones & went flying. My many moons was less than 30 years ago.

You are right the world has changed . We no longer have to worry about our kids making trouble. Its what someone else might do to them. Unfortunately this day & age we can't just let our kids go play unsupervised. I live in a very small community & I still can't let my children outside without me being there so we put up a 6 ft privacy fence to keep people out so my children can play & I don't have to be right there all the time. Which gives them some freedom & me piece of mind. i can cook dinner, do chores, even go to the bathroom without dragging them in with me . They have their own personal playground we built for them.

There has been numerous letters home from school where even kids walking with other kids are almost abducted on their way to school. My dd lives close enough to ride her bike to school but rides the bus because I can't let her ride by herself & with 2 more small ones @ home I can't always get there to come home with her. Until we got the fence up it was easier to just let them watch tv or play games on the computer/video because at least I knew where they were & no one was messing with them. Is it right no but at least they aren't being kidnapped, raped, killed.

I am lucky to be home & when the weather is nice they are sent outside to play but with 2 parents having to work most of the time there isn't anyone to encourage them to go turn off the tv/computer/video gamesto go outside plus we go back to the other, at least they are inside safe from people.

Its a sad commentary on life anymore.:(

[MushuMulan]

I agree with your point that people won't listen, but I don't think I should have my tax dollars spent to pay for their care when their decisions led them to their poor health. Just like I don't think I should have to pay for smoker's treatment for lung cancer or copd. Yes, we live in a free society where everyone can do as they please, but don't expect me to pay for someone else's stupidity.


While it's true that it's not exactly fair, I'm sure most of the people that need this care pay the same taxes, if not then, at another time in their life, so I think that they do deserve the care that they paid for in their previous taxes.

[Cinderelley]

they do deserve the care that they paid for in their previous taxes.


I will agree with that, but, unfortunately, it costs more than people pay.

"Koop's remarks were sparked by a study released earlier this year in Obesity Research, which attributed nearly 6 percent of the nation's healthcare expenditures, or almost $100 billion, to obesity."

"Joanne Wojcik of Business Insurance reports on two studies linking obesity to increased employer costs for health care and workers compensation. One, conducted by the Medstat Group Inc. showed that moderate and severe obesity were linked to annual health care cost increases of 21% and 75%, respectively"

"" ...the study found that obese workers averaged 11.65 workers compensation claims per 100 workers, while non-obese employees filed an average of 5.8 claims per 100 workers. As a result, obese employees had medical costs seven times higher, for an average of $51,019 per 100 employees"

"The Surgeon General reports that more than 9 percent of the nation's health care expenditures are directly related to obesity and physical inactivity. They calculate that to cost out at about $117 billion annually and relate to 300,000 deaths per year.
UnumProvident, a provider of disability income protection insurance, reports a tenfold increase over the past decade in short-term disability claims attributed to obesity, based on research using their disability database."

"Officials at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina knew that 55 percent of the health plan's 3 million members were overweight and getting heavier, pounds that weighed down the plan's bottom line as much as the physicians' scales.

Still, they hadn't isolated the precise dollars involved until 2003, when they scrutinized medical costs and claims data for one-third of the members. What they discovered was a mindblower. Treating obese members cost at least 30 percent more than normal-weight members; the price difference for overweight members was 18 percent. For 2003 alone, those excess dollars reached $83 million."

This is all money that is passed on to you and me one way or another.