Should Parents Lose Custody Of Super Obese Kids?

[Feuer Frei!]

Should parents of extremely obese children lose custody for not controlling their kids' weight? A provocative commentary in one of the nation's most distinguished medical journals argues yes, and its authors are joining a quiet chorus of advocates who say the government should be allowed to intervene in extreme cases.
It has happened a few times in the U.S., and the opinion piece in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association says putting children temporarily in foster care is in some cases more ethical than obesity surgery.
Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity specialist at Harvard-affiliated Children's Hospital Boston, said the point isn't to blame parents, but rather to act in children's best interest and get them help that for whatever reason their parents can't provide.
State intervention "ideally will support not just the child but the whole family, with the goal of reuniting child and family as soon as possible. That may require instruction on parenting," said Ludwig, who wrote the article with Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and a researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health.
"Despite the discomfort posed by state intervention, it may sometimes be necessary to protect a child," Murtagh said.
But University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Art Caplan said he worries that the debate risks putting too much blame on parents. Obese children are victims of advertising, marketing, peer pressure and bullying — things a parent can't control, he said.
"If you're going to change a child's weight, you're going to have to change all of them," Caplan said.


Roughly 2 million U.S. children are extremely obese. Most are not in imminent danger, Ludwig said. But some have obesity-related conditions such as Type 2 diabetes, breathing difficulties and liver problems that could kill them by age 30. It is these kids for whom state intervention, including education, parent training, and temporary protective custody in the most extreme cases, should be considered, Ludwig said.
While some doctors promote weight-loss surgery for severely obese teens, Ludwig said it hasn't been used for very long in adolescents and can have serious, sometimes life-threatening complications.
"We don't know the long-term safety and effectiveness of these procedures done at an early age," he said.
Ludwig said he starting thinking about the issue after a 90-pound 3-year-old girl came to his obesity clinic several years ago. Her parents had physical disabilities, little money and difficulty controlling her weight. Last year, at age 12, she weighed 400 pounds and had developed diabetes, cholesterol problems, high blood pressure and sleep apnea.
"Out of medical concern, the state placed this girl in foster care, where she simply received three balanced meals a day and a snack or two and moderate physical activity," he said. After a year, she lost 130 pounds. Though she is still obese, her diabetes and apnea disappeared; she remains in foster care, he said.


In a commentary in the medical journal BMJ last year, London pediatrician Dr. Russell Viner and colleagues said obesity was a factor in several child protection cases in Britain. They argued that child protection services should be considered if parents are neglectful or actively reject efforts to control an extremely obese child's weight.
A 2009 opinion article in Pediatrics made similar arguments. Its authors said temporary removal from the home would be warranted "when all reasonable alternative options have been exhausted."
That piece discussed a 440-pound 16-year-old girl who developed breathing problems from excess weight and nearly died at a University of Wisconsin hospital. Doctors discussed whether to report her family for neglect. But they didn't need to, because her medical crisis "was a wake-up call" for her family, and the girl ended up losing about 100 pounds, said co-author Dr. Norman Fost, a medical ethicist at the university's Madison campus.
State intervention in obesity "doesn't necessarily involve new legal requirements," Ludwig said. Health care providers are required to report children who are at immediate risk, and that can be for a variety of reasons, including neglect, abuse and what doctors call "failure to thrive." That's when children are severely underweight.
Jerri Gray, a Greenville, S.C., single mother who lost custody of her 555-pound 14-year-old son two years ago, said authorities don't understand the challenges families may face in trying to control their kids' weight.


SOURCE

That's an awful lot of Freedom for all people to surrender to the State, because there are a few bad instances.

Incrementalism "only" takes a little piece of one"s Freedom at a time until, eventualy, it's all gone.
People need better control of their governments, not the other way around.

[Armistead]

State intervention "ideally will support not just the child but the whole family, with the goal of reuniting child and family as soon as possible. That may require instruction on parenting," said Ludwig, who wrote the article with Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and a researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health."

That's what scares me, states are broke, now we add more debt. In the end it may be cheaper than medicare. First, they should make the parents pay all cost if they have the money, if they can buy all that food they should.

Why severe cases are a problem, 40% of youth today are generally overweight. They say this will cause a huge problem for medicare as they will be a diseased generation in their 30's.

In the end it won't amount to much. I see big lawsuits going all the way to the supreme court if any law passes, millions in lawyer fees, government studies, red tape, etc...Like most things it will be a big waste.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

That's an awful lot of Freedom for all people to surrender to the State, because there are a few bad instances.

Incrementalism "only" takes a little piece of one"s Freedom at a time until, eventualy, it's all gone.
People need better control of their governments, not the other way around.

You have a point there, but neither does "2 million"="a few"

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

You have a point there, but neither does "2 million"="a few"

2 million of 300 million = few.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

2 million of 300.000 million = few.

Are you trying to inflate the number with that dot?

Besides, we are only counting the kids here, and so it is not 300 million, it is closer to 60 million. That's like 1 in 30. Few?

Parents are there to ensure their child's well-being and future opportunity. There are many routes to Rome and we shouldn't force parents to take one of them, but one route that definitely doesn't lead to Rome is allowing your kid to become a 300lb+ blimp!

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Are you trying to inflate the number with that dot?

Besides, we are only counting the kids here, and so it is not 300 million, it is closer to 60 million. That's like 1 in 30. Few?

Parents are there to ensure their child's well-being and future opportunity. There are many routes to Rome and we shouldn't force parents to take one of them, but one route that definitely doesn't lead to Rome is allowing your kid to become a 300lb+ blimp!

We agree Obesity Road does not lead to Rome.
Sorry about the unintensionaly misplaced dot. I'll corect it.
It would seem USA, as a whole, is getting a bit "ckunky", but to replace the famoly unit with a government control unit is not the answer.

The citizens should be monitoring THEIR government, not the other way around.

[Anthony W.]

Originally Posted by Armistead

That's what scares me, states are broke, now we add more debt. In the end it may be cheaper than medicare. First, they should make the parents pay all cost if they have the money, if they can buy all that food they should.

Nope - my state isn't. We have an over 1 billion dollar surplus.


I do think it's horrible when kids get that fat. No bones about it, it's just plain wrong. It hurts their mental and physical health.

I have friends that are - well - pretty damn big. They take flak for it all the time. Hell, I've taken flak for being football lineman sized - which isn't even legitimately fat. I'm working my ass off (literally) to get back in shape.

Do I think the states should have the right to take kids away? Hell no. That's a lot like a book I read, where kids are raised by the government.

I do think that at school, what they eat for lunch should be limited (I can get as many trays of food as I can afford at my school). Also, it doesn't make any sense to say that anything like that would be putting them in the spotlight. Their size puts them in the spotlight already.

Something should be done - but with this subject, the line between regulation and outright control is nearly invisible.