Archive for NEEPS North East Eco-friendly People's Site
 


       NEEPS Forum Index -> Green Parenting
Ina

Playing the dietary blame game

Joanna Blythman on obesity

THE UNTHINKABLE HAS HAPPENED. A boy has been taken into care in Lothian because he is obese. In Dundee, another family has been warned that its six children will face the same treatment unless they slim down.


http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/...laying_the_dietary_blame_game.php
monkey nuts

I struggle with this one.

My first reaction is that there is no way a child should be taken from their family home just because of severe weight issues, surely it would be better (and more financially efficient) to educate the family about healthy eating and exercise.

That said, I was involved in a case years ago where a  child of 7 was taken into care initially because of weight issues (he weighed around 14 stone at the time). The case became more viable (in my mind at least) once he was in place with us. This was not a case of passive neglect but a mental health issue on the parents part. He was unable to use the toilet himself, feed himself or physically enjoy being a child. His excessive weight caused him major health issues too. This child went on to live a happy and healthy life because Social Work intervened.
I do not condone children being placed in care just because of weight issues but sometimes there are other factors that need to be taken into account.
zombiecazz

I agree MN.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have someone come in and teach them how to cook heathily especially for the big family. I'm sure re-education would be much more cost effective.
baldowrie

What report doesn't tell you is that the 12 year old boy weights a massive 12 stones.

They were warned a couple of months ago, clearly not weight loss or attempt has taken place.

All the children are morbidly obese, the parents weren't

I don't know if I agree or not
Fia

Although I felt the article was scare mongering it did bring up what I consider a very important issue:

Quote:
Bad food is woven into the structure of daily life. Going for a swim? Or a workout? That's good for your health, isn't it?
Well, yes - as long as you ignore the vending machine loaded with fizzy drinks and sweets. Want to read a newspaper and keep abreast of national and world events like a decent, participating citizen? Then you'll be walking into a shop with a wall of confectionery, crisps and garish liquids misleadingly called "juice". Step into a supermarket, and you enter super-sized Three-For-Two land.


Firstly adequate exercise can be freely and easily achieved by walking, cycling, running, playing outside etc. Secondly, parental power managed to get fizzy drinks machines (but sadly still not snacks) removed from Aboyne Academy, and replaced with water fountains, after research showed that many poor performing pupils were dehydrated. It CAN be done.

Although I guess there were probably other extenuating circumstances for the removal of this child from his family, the answer to me is clear:
Education, education and, oh yes, education. Not just of the children, but the parents too. If proper home economics (or whatever it's called now) classes concentrated on cooking good food from scratch the trickle down effect would mean that the majority of parents understood the issues. Sadly many are confused by conflicting messages from fast food retailers and government advice eg 5 a day.
baldowrie

the local report on these children was that the parents didn't want the extreme outbursts when the children didn't get their own way.  So they just gave in and gave them what they wanted.

There is probably more to it, however making all your children mobidly obese is a form of abuse.
PurpleDragon

First off, I don't actually know the family or their circumstances, so I couldn't possibly comment on whether or not the parents were abusing their childdren. There is always more to the story than the media deign to tell us! Whatever sells the best story.

As a parent, yes, sometimes it is easier to just let them have something to shut them up. If I'm tired, if I have PMT, blah blah. No one is perfect, and there is nothing wrong with letting go the reins once in a while. It does everyone some good, sometimes. However, the easiest route of all is to not take them shopping with you and dn't buy the crap. For example, I don't let anything with aspartame thru my front door. End of.

In our primary school, they have water on their desks and are allowed to drink as much, as often, as they like. They are also allowed frequent toilet breaks. We also have numerous water fountains to top up their water. The school does not sell fizzy juice. It sells bottled water if they want something with a little flavour in it. They have aa 'healthy tuck shop' where they sell snacks at breaktime and lunchtime - apples, bananas and so on. We also have frequent notes home in the monthly newsletter asking us to be more responsible and not fill up packed lunch boxes and play pieces with crisps, chocolate and so on.

Unforuntately, the minute they hit Academy they will be allowed to wander the town at will, and buy whatever the hell junk they fancy.

In our favour, my kids do dance classes, swimming, gymnastics and they are outside every minute if I let them (they have to eat sometime!).

I also have to agree with Fia about home-ec classes. They really should reintroduce these. I think that parents today are unable to provide decent meals for their kids because they didn't do home ec at school and just dont have the skills to knock up something half decent.
Julie

baldowrie wrote:

There is probably more to it, however making all your children mobidly obese is a form of abuse.


I have to agree on this one and also believe that doing the same to ones pets is abusive.
IainC

baldowrie wrote:
the local report on these children was that the parents didn't want the extreme outbursts when the children didn't get their own way.  So they just gave in and gave them what they wanted.

There is probably more to it, however making all your children mobidly obese is a form of abuse.


IMO then what the social should have done *before* removing the kid(s) is to ensure that the kids are made to follow some kind of active form of exersize. ie come in and make sure that the kid does so many pushups, runs so far, etc.

Try and educate it out of the child rather than ripping them away from their family.

That said, some kids try too hard to get their own way and a lot of people who maybe don't have as much time as they'd like, just let them get their own way.
Ina

It doesn't actually say anywhere what the parents thought about it, does it? Maybe they were quite glad to be taken care off... Maybe they felt the constant demands of their children were more than they could cope with.

Difficult one, not knowing all the circumstances.
baldowrie

this story was actually aired on the radio and in local papers some weeks back.  The parents were given exercise and diet sheets and encouraged to get the children on these.  They have obviously done nothing to wards it.  

I got the weight wrong of the 12 year....16 stone!

Only 2 out of 6 children we not morbidly obese...note morbidly, not clinically.  The difference is morbidly is enough to kill clinically bordering on that

It was also reported that this had been going on for a year or two with constant help from SS to get the children's weights done to a SAFE level.  Instead the children's weight ballooned

Mums answer to it all was 'I don't even own and deep fat fryer so how can they get obese'
misteralz

I still believe stupid people and anyone on long-term benefit should be spayed. Fairer on everyone that way.
baldowrie

misteralz wrote:
I still believe stupid people and anyone on long-term benefit should be spayed. Fairer on everyone that way.


thanks for that!
Julie

misteralz wrote:
I still believe stupid people and anyone on long-term benefit should be spayed. Fairer on everyone that way.


Would you extend that belief to everyone on benefit then??
How about OAP's whose pension falls below the poverty line entitling them to income support? What about disabled people who are unemployable whether they want to be or not? What about people who work hard in low paid jobs and qualify for tax credits?
I believe that some folk don't have their mouths connected to their brains but it would be rude to say so on a public forum wouldn't it?
They might qualify as stupid and then have to get themselves spayed.....oh dear............did someone just score an 'own goal'?
misteralz

Pretty much, although there's no point spaying OAPs as they're too old to breed.
Me, own goal? Nah, I'm not the one who used an apostrophe for pluralisation.
Julie

You just keep digging your hole deeper dear, everyone else can make up their own minds for themselves.
IainC

Julie wrote:
misteralz wrote:
I still believe stupid people and anyone on long-term benefit should be spayed. Fairer on everyone that way.


Would you extend that belief to everyone on benefit then??
How about OAP's whose pension falls below the poverty line entitling them to income support? What about disabled people who are unemployable whether they want to be or not? What about people who work hard in low paid jobs and qualify for tax credits?
I believe that some folk don't have their mouths connected to their brains but it would be rude to say so on a public forum wouldn't it?
They might qualify as stupid and then have to get themselves spayed.....oh dear............did someone just score an 'own goal'?


At the same time there does appear to be a large amount of people who are on the dole/disability who are more than fit enough to work, it's just that they don't want to. They also know how to work the system and seem to manage to live quite a nice life where everything is paid for them. I'd imagine that's more who he was on about when he said "long term benefit".
Julie

Moot point - he's already confirmed that he meant all of them if you read his response.

I agree though Iain, there are a great many who are fit to work and they give a bad rep to the genuine claimants. The trouble is, things like depression and some back pain are difficult to disprove. I think there is a case for employing a heap of snoops to catch the cheats who are working on the side, anyone who is genuine would have nothing to fear.
It isn't fair to the tax payers to be cheated but neither is it fair to stigmatise people whose circumstances give them no option but benefit.
Ina

It is a shame nothing can be discussed here without highly offensive remarks spoiling the discussion for a large number of people.
monkey nuts

Maybe some members of the human race should be spayed but alas, we don't have the power to enforce such a law. That said, only some of those people would come under your criteria misteralz.
There is a saying that "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". None of us can see into our futures therefore we won't know about accidents and illnessess that may cause us to have to claim long term benefits.
Julie

Plus it took the discussion right off subject, so we should bring it back.


Playing the dietary blame game wasn't it?
How could social services effectively redress a situation once it had got to the stage of morbid obesity? Things like this need nipping in the bud.
Perhaps the health visitors that call on mothers during the early years could be trained to recognise problems early on and get the parents onto a healthy eating programme for the whole family to stick with? As they usually build up a good relationship with the mothers in their care, it would not feel so intrusive as a later intervention by social services.
monkey nuts

I think that there is a definite roll here for more help for families to ensure that the child/children are able to stay with their own families. Now if I were to start up an agency offering such a service I may be on to a winner
       NEEPS Forum Index -> Green Parenting
Page 1 of 1