Erik S. Lesser / APWe're all aware that childhood obesity has become an epidemic in the United States. But how far should we go to make sure that children are making the right lifestyle choices? A controversial piece in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggested that extremely obese children be put into temporary foster care. The rationale is that -- especially for families that do not have the resources to meet their children's health needs -- taking the child into the state's custody is the best way to ethically protect him or her. Morbidly obese children have a much higher risk of developing an array of conditions including heart disease and hypertension, Type 2 diabetes and respiratory problems.
The author of the original piece, Dr. David Ludwig of Children's Hospital Boston (which is tied to Harvard University) sees foster care as a last resort for children who are desperately in need of help from health care professionals. He also views it as an alternative to risky surgical procedures.
So does Dr. Ludwig's suggestion sound like something our government should seriously pursue? Would it constitute the government greatly overstepping its boundaries? Or would it be the morally just thing to do -- especially in cases where the parents don't have the resources to help their children?
We asked our readers, and here's what some of them had to say:
Kim R.
If parents have the resources to buy junk food continuously, as well as provide the entertainment systems that create sedentary lifestyles, they have the resources to buy fresh fruits and vegetables and a bike for their kids.
Erin R.
If you're going to intervene, find out WHY the kids are fat, parents are fat and fix the whole family. Everyone that you can keep off medications and keep productive and healthy is a victory, no matter the age. Teach 'em all.
Ken S.
Not taking care of your children's obesity could be considered child abuse.
Mari L.
I think it's a mind set the whole family must follow. If the parent has no resource other than "McDonalds is faster and cheaper" it may mean that they're not educated on fast, cheap, healthy meals for the whole family. We fail the parents as much as the child. Take the child away from their parent and they grow up self-conscious, with low self-esteem and emotional problems. We don't need the government taking children away. They need to have resources readily available in my community that will help my entire family in maintaining a healthy lifestyle.
Angelica G.
The government doesn't do a good enough job removing kids who are victims of domestic abuse, so I can't see them being efficient at handling childhood obesity as well. Give parents the tools to deal with the situation and then make them truly responsible for the outcome. Removing a child from their home is a traumatic experience and could possibly make the situation worse.
Amy J.
I don't think so. I think it would be better to provide them with some classes on nutrition than to throw the kids into a system that is already failing.
Lori D.
Bad idea all around. Like some others have already said, provide resources and useful info for parents -- don't try to be the morality police. Not all parents know right off the bat how to be "perfect" parents, so who are they to judge? Some may just need some help not be penalized by losing their kids.
Carol R.
Taking the children away is wrong, illegal and immoral.
The Fitness World
I think it's more about trying to educate parents better on the dangers of obesity in kids rather than losing custody straight away, I don't think enough parents are really fully aware of the future consequences of inactive children and junk food. There should be more advertisements on the dangers in children rather than focusing just on obese adults.
No comments:
Post a Comment