Threat to the Family: The Doctor said what?

Found this interesting article: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=42101

[quote]KNOXVILLE, TN (Catholic Online) - We are witnessing more instances where an out of control civil government is interfering with our families. Now, the American Medical Association has published an article in its prestigious journal (JAMA) which advocates that some parents should lose custody of their obese children. The authors of the article are Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity expert at Children’s Hospital in Boston and an associate professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, and Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and researcher.

According to ABC News, Ludwig and Murtagh say, “In severe instances of childhood obesity, removal from the home may be justifiable, from a legal standpoint, because of imminent health risks and the parents’ chronic failure to address medical problems.” They are also quoted in the online edition of Time as saying, “State intervention may serve the best interests of many children with life-threatening obesity, comprising the only realistic way to control harmful behaviors.”

There are many problems with Ludwig and Murtagh’s comments. For instance, they say that severely obese children are at “imminent risk.” This is an exaggeration. While it is true that obesity constitutes a health risk, no fair minded person would call the risk imminent. They also accuse the parents of obese children of “chronic failure.” This is pure speculation. It is obvious that there could be other possible reasons. Furthermore, they say that they want to “control harmful behaviors,” which is a red flag.

What we have here is a lot of word games, reckless accusations, and, finally, an admission of truth–that certain “anointed” professionals know what is best for others and that by virtue of their expertise they have the right to control others. Many of them certainly know a lot and deserve our respect. They can offer us invaluable help, but they do not have the right to control our behavior, nor are they qualified. We are not guinea pigs subject to experimentation. Besides, such arrogance can cause serious harm.

Time also spoke to Vivek Sankaran, a law professor at the University of Michigan who directs the Detroit Center for Family Advocacy. Sankaran said that in Michigan, the advocacy center is trying to get an obese 2-year-old freed from foster care. Sankaran said, “What we’ve seen in this case is that the actual removal causes irreparable damage to the child - emotional problems, behavioral problems - and it’s the type of thing that can’t be remedied.”

This happened to a family in Albuquerque, NM about 10 years ago. When Anamarie Regino was 3-years-old, government officials took her from her parents and placed her in foster care because she weighed 90 pounds. However, Anamarie didn’t improve and was returned to her parents. She was later diagnosed with a genetic predisposition. Adela Martinez, Anamarie’s mother, told ABC News, “They say it’s for the well-being of the child but it did more damage [than] any money or therapy could ever do to fix it.” She called it “two months of hell.” Anamarie, now 14, agreed. She believes Dr. Ludwig is wrong. She said, “. . . to get better you need to be with your family, instead of being surrounded by doctors.”

This is one of the more public attempts by healthcare professionals to intrude upon the family. It is it is certainly not the first example of improper intervention. The American Academy of Pediatrics has encouraged its members to ask parents and children intrusive questions under the rubric of “well-child visits.” For instance, they might ask if children wear helmets when they are riding bicycles or if they wear seat belts in the car. They may inquire if there is a pool or guns where they live. If there are guns at the house, doctors are encouraged to talk about how the guns and ammunition are stored.

Although such questioning goes beyond the purview of a doctor’s expertise, some states may require that doctors obtain this information. In some states, doctors may even be required to speak with children in private without their parents. Information from the California Family Health Council says that when children reach 12 years old it is a normal policy at some clinics for doctors to ask parents to step out of the room so the doctor can talk with the child in private. The council says that “All young people have the right to get some services confidentially.” And they tell parents that this helps keep their child “safe and healthy.” What nonsense!

These intrusions into our families are not merely meddlesome; in many instances they are supported by government at some level. As such, …[/quote]

What are your thoughts on taking a child away from parents because they are obese?

Extreme morbid obesity in prepubsecent children requires almost without exception a fairly high degree of negligence on behalf of the parents. An 8 year old child weighing over 200 lbs demonstrates the same parental lack of concern for the child’s well being as an 8 year old child being starved and underfed. This isn’t a matter of children being a little chubby. This is a matter of children under the age of 10 with BMI’s that exceed those of many obese adults.

Being that the medical care of children often falls as a burden to the taxpayer, the taxpayer should have some say in basic acceptable standard for children receiving said health care. Children of that age are unable to properly provide for themselves, so if you legitimately care for the well being of children (which would be a condition of your stance on abortion), then you cannot rationally through “maxims applied universally without exception” deny the need for subsidized health care for children.

Through “maxims applied universally without exception”, affirmation of a parent’s right to destroy the life and health of their child through facilitated morbid obesity also affirms the right of parents to kill and abuse their birthed children as well as the right to abort a pregnancy.

I would say it’s OK if the parents are on-board with it, obviously.

Funny, they used to say the same thing about childhood asthma/eczema/allergies.
That ‘something’ in the household was causing it…either substance, emotions, conflicts, enabling, etc. If the child was removed and taught to propery care for themselves, the condition would fall away. I had an otherwise healthy cousin who was put into the hospital for 3 weeks, just to prove this theory. He did get about 80% better and eventually outgrew it.

IMO it may serve as an indicator that further investigation is needed. Alone, I’m not sure if it should be grounds for removal.

I think few would argue with the above.

And yet…
[There are many problems with Ludwig and Murtagh’s comments. For instance, they say that severely obese children are at “imminent risk.” This is an exaggeration. While it is true that obesity constitutes a health risk, no fair minded person would call the risk imminent. They also accuse the parents of obese children of “chronic failure.” This is pure speculation. It is obvious that there could be other possible reasons. Furthermore, they say that they want to “control harmful behaviors,” which is a red flag. [/quote]

“No fair minded person, huh?” Does he have a medical degree such that his opinion on extreme childhood obesity should be taken seriously? If not, why didn’t he use other professionals.

“Chronic failure” as “pure speculation”? The child abuse investigators and social workers I’ve spoken to have spoken of frequent house visits.

Child abuse and/or neglect should not be taken lightly.

The creation of a new law or empowerment to take legal action on a new premise is a fucking pandoras box of interpretation and application, which in my opinion, virtually always leads to abuse.

Stuff like this is the type of creepy and pervasive intercession into personal rights and freedom that makes people hate government. ((IMHO)hehe, haven’t used that one in a while)

Maybe social workers should just get more involved with such a family. Target and harrass the parents more, some kind of obligatory camp for one or two weeks could possibly be acceptable, maybe they should take the whole family to a wildernes camp and let them huff and puff there for a while (just fantasizing).

Taking the child away from the parents by law seldom produces good results, it produces overly eager bureaucrats. Maybe there could be a meter of some kind. If the child is unable to wobble say 50 yards then he is taken away for while to get the weight on accepptable lewel.
I wish stupidity could be made illegal.

yes, let’s break families. Let’s punish consumers… as long as you do not contest the sacred rights of suppliers.

[quote]kamui wrote:
yes, let’s break families. Let’s punish consumers… as long as you do not contest the sacred rights of suppliers.

[/quote]

So you’re totally ok with letting parents willfully neglect their children? We aren’t talking about chubby kids here, we’re talking about 200 lb third graders. This is very real and it is happening. Physicians can no longer refer to type-2 diabetes as “adult onset diabetes” due to the enormous number of pre-adolescent children who are developing the disease.

It depends on if we are talking about a chubby kid or a 140 pound toddler…

Some kids should be removed.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It depends on if we are talking about a chubby kid or a 140 pound toddler…

Some kids should be removed.[/quote]

Agreed. CPS takes kids from their parents in other cases of physical abuse or gross neglect; why should this be any different?

What do you want to bet the fatty parents are on the dole for some fatty disability?