Should parents lose custody of super obese kids?

  • Thread starter Evo
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Kids
In summary, the article argues that the government should be allowed to intervene in cases of extreme obesity, as it is more ethical than surgery to place children temporarily in foster care.
  • #36
A food scientist's thoughts on the actual paper

The authors weren't writing about removing kids in homes with excessive junk food and XBOXs, and a few pounds that some chart or physician might suggest they ought to lose. The authors were writing about "severe pediatric obesity", which they defined as a BMI beyond the 99th percentile, and where interventions designed to help those kids' parents failed to help their children

The authors argue that extreme pediatric obesity can be life threatening, that it can cause immediate and potentially irreversible medical complications, and that it can markedly shorten life expectancy. Surprisingly, not mentioned by the authors is the psychosocial impact of severe obesity on children, where studies have documented terrible bullying and stigmatization which in turn impact on a child's mental health and education.

According to American federal laws child abuse and neglect are defined as,

"any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm ... or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm"
The authors estimate that for a child to be in the 99th or higher percentile for weight that they are likely consuming a minimum of 1,000 more calories per day. Put in some perspective, that would be the equivalent of 2-3 additional meals worth of calories daily.

Link to full post: http://www.weightymatters.ca/2011/07/can-childhood-obesity-warrant-child.html"

Nobody is arguing kids that are a bit pudgy be taken away, only severely obese children whose health is clearly at risk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Ivan Seeking said:
Indeed. And what about other dangerous activities? One of the most dangerous things kids are subjected to is the automobile. Next is water.
http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_Kids.html

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

As Smiles302 points out the idea refers to the extremes. To use the alcohol analogy it would be advisable to take away the kids of parents who give kids excessive amounts to alcohol to drink whenever they want, or let them drive at young ages.

Nobody is talking about banning activities, it's about preventing parents damaging their child's health with extremely bad diets.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top