19
   

"Step away from the candy and come with me, kid"

 
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2011 03:42 pm
@manored,
Seems worth thinking about, although I can project it would be complicated.
There was a chinese boy, months or years ago.. I'm not remembering the details, but sometimes either pathology or abuse can need intervention. I'm careful re jumping to that - I've seen twisted intervention - but think this merits discussion.
Plus, there may be laws already in place that I am not aware of, making this all more pr than legal. (I don't know.)
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2011 04:31 pm
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:
Could be a slippery slope, but I think the JAMA report makes it clear that it would only apply to 'severe' cases....and cases where it was clear there wasn't an 'underlying genetic condition'...just parental neglect.

There could be as many as 2.7 million morbidly obese children in America (2007 figures). Are those "severe cases?" Could our foster care system handle all of them?
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2011 04:54 pm
@joefromchicago,
Probably not, but 'state intervention' (brought about by a charge of child-abuse) might not automatically mean placing the child in foster care.

Quote:
Child protective services typically provide intermediate options such as in-home social supports, parenting training, counseling, and financial assistance, that may address underlying problems without resorting to removal.


Most parents, I think, faced with the threat of losing their children would probably cooperate with those trying to help. A severe case (the one I mentioned above about the 550 pound teen) would probably involve parent/guardians who weren't willing to cooperate and, as your report points out, there's a point-of-no-return with some of these kids where disease resulting from obesity is irreversible.

There's also always the risk of a few CPS types who will over-step. No perfect solution.
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2011 05:07 pm
@joefromchicago,
4% of all children is too much, if I were the responsible for solving this problem I would be already slamming the metaphoric panic button =)
Irishk
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2011 05:36 pm
@manored,
Michelle Obama is doing a great job of bringing the issue to the forefront with suggestions on everything from food choices to fitness plans for kids.

Her blog is at letsmove.gov...it's a great effort.

0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2011 09:20 pm
@joefromchicago,
Just because natural parents suck at maintaining a healthy weight for their children, that doesn't mean foster care will improve things. What is the rate of childhood obesity in foster homes? Are there any solid numbers on that?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2011 09:54 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

boomerang wrote:
But then I asked myself how I would feel about it if a parent were starving their kid. That's pretty darn abusive. Is this maybe just the flip side of that?

Good point.

It's a very good point. How does the law approach parents who don't treat their children's anorexia, or who don't vaccinate their children, or inflict comparable health risks upon them?
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2011 10:40 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Just because natural parents suck at maintaining a healthy weight for their children, that doesn't mean foster care will improve things. What is the rate of childhood obesity in foster homes? Are there any solid numbers on that?

I haven't seen any. Presumably, the authors of the JAMA article would also advocate that foster care parents be trained to provide healthy, nutritious diets to their charges. No doubt they wouldn't support transferring kids from their "I feed 'em fried chicken for breakfast because I love 'em" parents to "I just do this for the monthly check" foster parents.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2011 06:49 am
@Thomas,
There was a case several years back in Ohio (long enough ago that a few years ago i couldn't find an archived newspaper article for it) in which two vegan parents were successfully prosecuted for child endangerment because of the condition of their children. I do remember that one of them was a five-year-old girl who stood about as tall as a two-year-old and weighed less.

EDIT: Here's a page about vegans prosecuted from a site in the UK.

There was also an article on a similar case in the Washington Post from about 2002, i believe, but they no longer have it available on their web site.

Here's a CNN online article about a woman charged with child abuse for feeding her child a vegan diet.
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2011 07:20 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
Just because natural parents suck at maintaining a healthy weight for their children, that doesn't mean foster care will improve things. What is the rate of childhood obesity in foster homes? Are there any solid numbers on that?


Children with life threatening issues are placed in medical foster care homes where the parents are trained in dealing with the specific issues.

Quote:
How does the law approach parents who don't treat their children's anorexia, or who don't vaccinate their children, or inflict comparable health risks upon them?


Oregon just passed a law to get rid of the religious exemption for not seeking medical care so they could effectively deal with members of a certain cult whose children were dying from treatable conditions.

In the most recent case a child was placed in foster care until the condition was treated. She's now living with her parents but the state has retained custody and oversees her medical care.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2011 08:36 am
@OmSigDAVID,
quote wrote:
Government was never granted power to interfere
with the citizens as u advocate.

That's simply not true. Government is instituted among people to protect their inalienable rights, including the right to life. Obviously this entails the power to interfere with citizens who would prematurely end someone's life. Some citizens prematurely end people's lives by negligently running their cars into them. Other citizens prematurely end their children's lives by negligently over-feeding them to the point of a teenage heart attack. Why can government interfere with the first kind of citizen but not with the other?
manored
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2011 12:26 pm
@Setanta,
Eh, vegans...

I hate em. Thats all =)
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2011 12:30 pm
@manored,
manored wrote:
Eh, vegans...

I hate em. Thats all =)
During the course of my life,
when I have discovered that a new girlfriend is a vegitarian,
I 've come to know that there is trouble heading down the road in our direction.





David
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2011 12:31 pm
@manored,
Vegans are the MOST EVIL OF ALL! A vegan->Evil or Very Mad <-a vegan!
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2011 12:44 pm
@Thomas,
David wrote:
Government was never granted power to interfere
with the citizens as u advocate.
Thomas wrote:
That's simply not true.
Government is instituted among people to protect their inalienable rights, including the right to life.
Including the right to eat food that u own.



Thomas wrote:
Obviously this entails the power to interfere with citizens who would prematurely end someone's life.
Homicide is NOT a federal offense,
(except under narrowly limited circumstances).



Thomas wrote:
Some citizens prematurely end people's lives by negligently running their cars into them. Other citizens prematurely end their children's lives by negligently over-feeding them to the point of a teenage heart attack. Why can government interfere with the first kind of citizen but not with the other?
Your representations r inconsistent with known historical and jurisprudential fact.
The American Revolution was a libertarian revolution
promoted by the Sons of Liberty. The Founders woud be aghast
at the notion that the OP sets forth.

REGARDLESS of motivation, such pernicious authoritarian interference
is negated by both the 9th and the 10th Amendments.

What the citizens consume is none of government 's damned business.




David
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2011 01:10 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
"What the citizens consume is none of government 's damned business."

what about marijuana...?

or tobacco?
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2011 01:15 pm
@Rockhead,
Mmmmm...brownies Smile
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2011 01:16 pm
@Rockhead,
Or candy-corn flavored crack cocaine? Confused Peppermint flavored puppy tails? Neutral Or chocolate-covered human baby hearts? Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2011 01:23 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:
Vegans are the MOST EVIL OF ALL! A vegan->Evil or Very Mad <-a vegan!
How do you feel about fruitarians? They mostly only eat fruit that's already dropped from the tree (no pain) and avoid veggies altogether Smile
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2011 01:38 pm
@Irishk,
They are the Voldemorts of the Vegan world. Those-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named! Mad
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/19/2021 at 09:53:32