19
   

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

 
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 08:36 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I deny your allegations.

As well you should. They were semi-facetious. But that doesn't make your argument about the "libertarian" founding fathers any better. They knew very well that Blacks were feeling, thinking, human beings. To declare them chattel was an act of supreme suppression, not liberty. Contrast this with the British: They had already freed the slaves in Britain, and were happy to free Black slaves in the South. In this regard, the British loyalists were more libertarian than the colonial rebels, not less.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 08:57 am
@Thomas,
It must be that oft forgotten libertarian view that persons are actually livestock.

Quote:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 09:24 am
We cqan talk about all the complications of individual metabolism and whatnot, but the fact of the matter, the answer must lie in how our food and activity levels have changed over the past few decades. It's not like our little pocket of the species has made some sort of radical genetic shift during that time.

We're sedentary, we eat ****, and we eat a lot of it. RapRap's already touched on one of my peeves in this regard -- kids don't go outside and play. There are no kids out on my street, no kids on the basketball or tennis courts nearby. Nothing.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 09:36 am
As to the idea of taking kids away from their parents for obesity has got to be at least a half-joke.
Irishk
 
  3  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 09:42 am
@patiodog,
JAMA is, to my knowledge, a fairly serious publication, so I think their examination of the relatively small percentage of minor children becoming at risk for irreversible disease as a result of obesity -- and how to resolve it -- is worth looking at.

It could be that some jurisdictions find it practically impossible to remove an at-risk child without some type of criminal charge against the parent/guardian.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 09:47 am
@Thomas,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I deny your allegations.
Thomas wrote:
As well you should. They were semi-facetious.
I thawt u were serious.



Thomas wrote:
But that doesn't make your argument about the "libertarian" founding fathers any better.
They knew very well that Blacks were feeling, thinking, human beings.
I don't believe that is accurate.
That was not the extant sense of the situation,
nor the spirit of the times. It is unreasonable
to retro-project 21st Century standards onto the folks of the 1700s. Thay had no duty to copy us.
We have no duty to copy the people of the 25th Century,
to emulate their values, whichever way thay may turn.





Thomas wrote:
To declare them chattel was an act of supreme suppression, not liberty.
I don 't believe anyone coud deny THAT, Thomas.




Thomas wrote:
Contrast this with the British: They had already freed the slaves in Britain,
and were happy to free Black slaves in the South.
Thay burned their farms, too; thay were trying
to be destructive and vindictive. That was their military purpose.





Thomas wrote:
In this regard, the British loyalists were more libertarian than the colonial rebels, not less.
Are u alleging that American Tory loyalists gave away their slaves ????





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 09:49 am
@patiodog,
patiodog wrote:
As to the idea of taking kids away from their parents for obesity has got to be at least a half-joke.
WHICH half of the kids will thay TAKE ??
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 11:00 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Contrast this with the British: They had already freed the slaves in Britain,


The slaves were not freed in Britain, because there were no slaves in Britain. Slavery was not made illegal in Britain until very recently, during the Blair premiership. This was because of child slaves being brought from Africa for domestic service. Most people were amazed to find out that slavery wasn't illegal.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 11:28 am
@izzythepush,

Thomas wrote:
Contrast this with the British: They had already freed the slaves in Britain,
izzythepush wrote:
The slaves were not freed in Britain, because there were no slaves in Britain. Slavery was not made illegal in Britain until very recently, during the Blair premiership. This was because of child slaves being brought from Africa for domestic service. Most people were amazed to find out that slavery wasn't illegal.
Well, I took Thomas's word for it, at face value.





David
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 11:37 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Like I said in my post, most people over here thought slavery was illegal. The slave trade, and slavery in the colonies was illegal. Slavery just didn't exist over here, so there was no need for domestic legislation.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 11:42 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
The slave trade, and slavery in the colonies was illegal.
WHEN ?????
patiodog
 
  4  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 11:59 am
@Irishk,
Wow, didn't realize the thread was so long when I posted -- I lost all the page links under that long list of "related threads." And as it was, I replied hastily.

However, I do read the JAMA article as advocating consideration of foster care as a last resort, and not as a blanket solution for all at-risk children. By definition, they are talking about 1% of children -- by identifying as those most at risk as the 99th-and-above percentile of kids. My initial response based on reading the first page and having as yet only glanced at the JAMA article was based on the erroneous assumption (shared, I suspect, by others) that the idea was to consider state intervention simply for children who fit the definition of obese -- which is to say, nearly a third of US children, according to the statistics here.

If that were the case, we'd clearly be talking about a problem of epidemiology -- one far outside the scope of the state to address on an individual basis, and one that the article states does not warrant state intervention.

So, my bad for not doing my homework and realizing what the proposed scope of proposed intervention is, as it is stated in the linked article but not in the original post (or anywhere else in the body of the thread that I have seen).

Still, even for the limited number of children under consideration, as the article itself states:

Quote:
[S]tate intervention would clearly not be desirable or practical, and probably not be legally justifiable, for most of the approximately 2 million children in the United States with a BMI at or beyond the 99th percentile.9‚Äč Moreover, the quality of foster care varies greatly; removal from the home does not guarantee improved physical health, and substantial psychosocial morbidity may ensue. Thus, the decision to pursue this option must be guided by carefully defined criteria such as those proposed by Varness et al,10 with less intrusive methods used whenever possible.


The proposal by Varness et al is stated as follows:
Quote:
Cases of severe childhood obesity have prompted the following question: does childhood obesity ever constitute medical neglect? In our opinion, removal of a child from the home is justified when all 3 of the following conditions are present: (1) a high likelihood that serious imminent harm will occur; (2) a reasonable likelihood that coercive state intervention will result in effective treatment; and (3) the absence of alternative options for addressing the problem. It is not the mere presence or degree of obesity but rather the presence of comorbid conditions that is critical for the determination of serious imminent harm. All 3 criteria are met in very limited cases, that is, the subset of obese children who have serious comorbid conditions and for whom all alternative options have been exhausted.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/399.abstract?ijkey=baea021892fa5c75fd41865ec279b02a525d1cbb&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

From same:
Quote:
Like other conditions with a spectrum of severity (eg, substance abuse), it is difficult to determine when a sufficiently high likelihood of serious imminent harm is present. Another variable to be considered is the potential for reversing or reducing the risk of harm. Several conditions associated with obesity (eg, impaired glucose tolerance) are serious but not imminent, and the risk can be reduced when the child becomes an adult. However, some conditions (eg, advanced hepatic fibrosis) lead to harm that cannot be reversed when the child becomes an adult and can make autonomous decisions. In these cases, a stronger argument for removal from the home can be made, even if the harm is not technically imminent.


The same article goes on to state that it is the comorbidity factors, and not the severity of obesity itself, that are likely to be deteriminant in the future risk of the child.

How, then, to screen for these risk factors? Or is it simply a fact of requiring physicians to report any children with x number of y risk factors to the state so that CPS can get involved? If so, I think the notion that children are obese becomes secondary to the fact that they have been identified as medically at-risk, which I suspect affects such a small proportion of the population as to become a largely impractical philosophical argument.

However, what I read the original article as really pushing for -- in a roundabout way, because it is not structurally the article's primary focus -- is for the state to engage in population-level intervention.

The thread's original question, which triggered my own knee-jerk response, was...
Quote:
Severe obesity in children -- is that a form of child abuse? Should the state step in and save these kids from their parents?

... to which my answer was and would remain an emphatic, "No," on the face of it.

If the question is amended to, "Should obsese children identified by a physician as displaying a well-defined syndrome of obesity-associated illness and a very high likelihood of developing severe irreversible metabolic disease but for whom intervention might conceivably still reduce that risk be subjected to state intervention, possibly to include placement in foster care?" I don't have much of an opinion, and I suspect canvassing wouldn't result in much in the way of consensus.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 12:21 pm
@patiodog,
Quote:
I don't have much of an opinion, and I suspect canvassing wouldn't result in much in the way of consensus.
The American Government now does a lot of things for which there is no consensus ( the stimulus spending is one recent example), which is a big driver of its recent loss of legitimacy, which is a big driver of the perception that Washington is broken and needs to be depowered.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 12:30 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Slave trade abolished 1807. Slavery abolished 1833.
patiodog
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 12:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
Well, hawk, the interrogative wasn't "does" or "will," but "should" -- not that one mustn't follow the other.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 12:56 pm
@patiodog,
patiodog wrote:

Well, hawk, the interrogative wasn't "does" or "will," but "should" -- not that one mustn't follow the other.
What has that to do with my assertion that history proves that lack of consensus would not prevent the state from removing children from parents on the basis of obesity, which is a claim by the state of abuse even if the state does not say so directly? With my further assertion that the state doing such a thing would further delegitimize it and would strengthen calls to remove power from government? The big government law and order advocates need to get their heads around the fact that they are rapidly loosing the people, that at this point they need to be looking for places to cut government power so as to keep others that they want more, rather than continuing the push to expand government power wholesale. There are increasing numbers of people like me who are ready to burn it all down, and start fresh, further cutting into parental rights and freedom of choice over food intake is taking the fast lane to revolution.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 01:30 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Contrast this with the British: They had already freed the slaves in Britain,

The slaves were not freed in Britain, because there were no slaves in Britain. Slavery was not made illegal in Britain until very recently, during the Blair premiership.

Slavery was declared unlawful in England in the Sommerset case, a 1772 parallel to the Dred Scott case in America. According to Wikipedia, "The decision by Lord Mansfield led directly to the emancipation of thousands of slaves within the United Kingdom." I admit I didn't check Wikipedia's sources about that number, but its account matches what I learned about the issue in high school. There definitely were slaves in 18th-century Britain, just not as many as in her colonies.

So much for the allegation that 18th century Englishmen were incapable of seeing the injustice of slavery.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 01:36 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Slave trade abolished 1807. Slavery abolished 1833.
I thought u were referring to England's former Colonies
in AMERICA, before thay became Independent in 1776.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 01:40 pm
@Thomas,
Ok, there was the odd slave, but more of a rich man's affectation than plantation worker. It was the work of pamphleteers and parliamentarians that changed attitudes as opposed to direct experience. This was the industrial revolution, most workers had a pretty rough time anyway.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 01:42 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
So much for the allegation that 18th century Englishmen were incapable of seeing the injustice of slavery.
In the 17OOs and the 18OOs, both sides of the issue were debated with passion.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/12/2021 at 06:52:36