Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[slyvia k]

i think it's just dreadful personally. i don't think it's the way to resolve obesity...
and, yeah, even just walking about here i do see many underfed kids. except there is no social stigma against them...

do you think that the government should have this type of control?



http://www.inewsone.com/2011/09/04/couple-to-lose-kids-for-obesity-in-scotland/73442

[lentower]

this is wrong

though i would consider the
government taking away health insurance
from the family

shame the poor family couldn't just move elsewhere

[imaginary friend]

absolutely ridiculous.

#@!

[Morpheus Laughing]

I suppose it depends on the situation. How obese is obese in this case?   

What consequences are there for parents who provide their young children with cigarettes and alcohol etc? I’m aware that some get suspended prison sentences but the penalty would surely have to escalate if they carried on creating and/or feeding the addiction to disastrous effect.

There was a local case of an extremely obese mother feeding her baby junk food. That is completely screwed up. Having a really bad habit yourself is one thing but passing it on to the next generation is totally out of order.

Parental rights need redefining to include additional duties to the children.   

[slyvia k]

I suppose it depends on the situation. How obese is obese in this case?   

What consequences are there for parents who provide their young children with cigarettes and alcohol etc? I’m aware that some get suspended prison sentences but the penalty would surely have to escalate if they carried on creating and/or feeding the addiction to disastrous effect.

There was a local case of an extremely obese mother feeding her baby junk food. That is completely screwed up. Having a really bad habit yourself is one thing but passing it on to the next generation is totally out of order.

Parental rights need redefining to include additional duties to the children.   

well according to the article, they had been ''warned'' like 2 years ago and a social worker watched ALL their meals (which must be pretty annoying, i guess)... apparently the parents say they had abolished snacks and cooked only healthy stuff but it didn't help control the weight...

[Mr. Leave Me Alone]

This nearly happened to my aunt and uncle maybe 7 years ago with my cousin. He was a little baby and they started him on solids early and it was all bad food and they did the same with my other two cousins but they inexplicably aren't particularly large (or weren't last time I saw them, which was actually a few years ago, so you never know). I recall something to do with fried chicken. Anyway, after they were warned, they started taking better care of what they were feeding him. And now they're all fine.
It was heartbreaking, though, and I remember him sitting up and not being able to reach the toys at his feet because he was so large and because he was just a baby, of course he had no concept that it wasn't good at all and it was really just something being inflicted on him by his parents.

It is really sad and I do think that the whole '‘fostered without contact’ or adopted' thing is really harsh, but this is their lives, you know. If their parents aren't taking care of them properly and doing things that could make them sick now or later in life then maybe there should be someone else taking care of them and trying to fix this. And I felt the same about whose hands the care of my cousin was in, up until they turned it around in order to stop it from happening.
I don't think it should be 'without contact' though. That is the what-the-fuck-est thing I've heard in a long time.

though i would consider the
government taking away health insurance
from the family

Pretty sure that this would just make it harder for them to get help if something happened to any of them as a result of the obesity issue.

[Morpheus Laughing]

A brief stay in a weight clinic (or "fat camp") would probably be more reasonable than permanent separation from the parents. At least there would be a chance to know for certain that genetics were not the main problem. There would definitely be good reason to have the kids fostered if the problem continued after it was known to be a lifestyle issue.

also: the “Daily mail” (source of the linked story) isn’t a newspaper I trust for accuracy. They completely screwed up the MMR vaccine situation with misinformation and seem to generally stir up all kinds of controversy. On that basis I'll wait for other sources of info before forming too much more of an opinion.

[Pope Totalfrog]

If you have kids this is a scary story.

Unless they are beating these kids, verbally abusing them or sexually abusing them, unless they are exposing them to drugs and alcohol then they should stay with their parents. They were observed for a long period of time, you would have to assume that if the parents were overfeeding them then the plug would have been pulled sooner. These kids could have a medical condition that hasn't been picked up. It will be too late if it is diagnosed after they are removed from their parents.

This whole case is weird but parents have it hard enough these days, the ones who love and care for their kids should be allowed to keep them. The welfare could mandate exercise for these children, they could force the parents to complete a full course in nutrition but they should not remove children from their parents for something like this. More damage would be done to the kids from being dragged away from their parents.

[BeaMinor]

They have just started doing this in Germany too.

I am sure that its a very extreme case, otherwise this would not have been done.  The article states that they had been given other forms of help and it obviously wasn't working.

Honestly I think it sends a message out that parents need to think about what they are feeding their kids.  So many parents feed their kids rubbish food and don't even think twice about it.  A two year old eating a whole packet of sweets or chips - that is as big as its head!

I don't think it is something that should concern average parents, as it is not happening every day by any means, but it should make them think twice.

 

[85283-071]

Unless they are beating these kids, verbally abusing them or sexually abusing them, unless they are exposing them to drugs and alcohol then they should stay with their parents.

I think the degree to which the children are jeopardized is more relevant than the nature of and source of the risk. Marijuana in the house versus needles on the living room floor... a minor spanking versus an iron cord to the back... allowing them to eat more junk food than is responsible or letting them take decades off their lives through gross overeating?

There is nothing about obesity that is intrinsically less dangerous than anything else listed there, and the power to prevent it is the parental charge. There is nothing even remotely wrong with intervention if the case is severe enough.

[85283-071]

and, yeah, even just walking about here i do see many underfed kids. except there is no social stigma against them...

Social stigma doesn't have anything to do with it. IF kids are being put at risk by underfeeding, overfeeding, cigarette exposure, alcohol... whatever, they can and should be subject to intervention from social services. This isn't fat stigma, and it offends me that "fat stigma" has come to be portrayed as such a villainous social problem that we can't even talk about saving people who are dying from obesity- especially kids.

The sentiment here is REALLY "don't protect the kids"? Am I being punked?

[The Angel Raliel]

Oh Mr numbers we have missed you.....of course you make it really boring because you always end up pointing out the reality to our lynch mobbing.....but yes abuse take many forms and often the worst is the abuse that is inflicted by kindness and stupidity..........and removing of benefits etc does nothing other than drive such families even further into the cracks of society........

[Mr. Leave Me Alone]

Thank God someone's said that. Seriously.
Yeah, it sucks that these parents might lose their kids. It really, really sucks. And I still don't agree with the whole 'without contact' deal, but having seen a similar thing first hand in my own family, I can't agree with anyone who is going 'OH NOOOO THEY SHOULD JUST LEAVE THEM ALONE OR KEEP WATCHING THEM.'

[85283-071]

Torches and pitchforks cannot occupy a space in which wisdom prevails.

I'm not sure if I'm running for president or to become a somewhat surreal fortune cookie.

[Tiervexx]

I think the degree to which the children are jeopardized is more relevant than the nature of and source of the risk. Marijuana in the house versus needles on the living room floor... a minor spanking versus an iron cord to the back... allowing them to eat more junk food than is responsible or letting them take decades off their lives through gross overeating?

There is nothing about obesity that is intrinsically less dangerous than anything else listed there, and the power to prevent it is the parental charge. There is nothing even remotely wrong with intervention if the case is severe enough.

I agree!

Torches and pitchforks cannot occupy a space in which wisdom prevails.

Not so sure I agree with this statement.  I think I can name many times and places where a relatively enlightened culture fell to lynch mobs...