Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Should parents lose custody of super obese kids?

Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:01 PM EDT
health, us, kids, med, custody, obese
Lindsey Tanner, AP Medical Writer
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 7 photos
<p>In a July 11, 2011 photo, Stormy Bradley, left, and her daughter Maya, 14, are seen, in Atlanta. Maya, who is 5'4" tall and weighs about 200 lbs., is part of an anti-obesity ad campaign in Georgia. A provocative article in a prominent medical journal argues that parents of extremely obese children should lose custody because they can't control their kids' weight. (AP Photo/Erik S. Lesser)</p>

In a July 11, 2011 photo, Stormy Bradley, left, and her daughter Maya, 14, are seen, in Atlanta. Maya, who is 5'4" tall and weighs about 200 lbs., is part of an anti-obesity ad campaign in Georgia. A provocative article in a prominent medical journal argues that parents of extremely obese children should lose custody because they can't control their kids' weight. (AP Photo/Erik S. Lesser)

Advertise | AdChoices

CHICAGO — Should parents of extremely obese children lose custody for not controlling their kids' weight? A provocative commentary in one of the nation's most distinguished medical journals argues yes, and its authors are joining a quiet chorus of advocates who say the government should be allowed to intervene in extreme cases.

It has happened a few times in the U.S., and the opinion piece in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association says putting children temporarily in foster care is in some cases more ethical than obesity surgery.

Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity specialist at Harvard-affiliated Children's Hospital Boston, said the point isn't to blame parents, but rather to act in children's best interest and get them help that for whatever reason their parents can't provide.

State intervention "ideally will support not just the child but the whole family, with the goal of reuniting child and family as soon as possible. That may require instruction on parenting," said Ludwig, who wrote the article with Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and a researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health.

"Despite the discomfort posed by state intervention, it may sometimes be necessary to protect a child," Murtagh said.

But University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Art Caplan said he worries that the debate risks putting too much blame on parents. Obese children are victims of advertising, marketing, peer pressure and bullying — things a parent can't control, he said.

"If you're going to change a child's weight, you're going to have to change all of them," Caplan said.

Roughly 2 million U.S. children are extremely obese. Most are not in imminent danger, Ludwig said. But some have obesity-related conditions such as Type 2 diabetes, breathing difficulties and liver problems that could kill them by age 30. It is these kids for whom state intervention, including education, parent training, and temporary protective custody in the most extreme cases, should be considered, Ludwig said.

While some doctors promote weight-loss surgery for severely obese teens, Ludwig said it hasn't been used for very long in adolescents and can have serious, sometimes life-threatening complications.

"We don't know the long-term safety and effectiveness of these procedures done at an early age," he said.

Ludwig said he starting thinking about the issue after a 90-pound 3-year-old girl came to his obesity clinic several years ago. Her parents had physical disabilities, little money and difficulty controlling her weight. Last year, at age 12, she weighed 400 pounds and had developed diabetes, cholesterol problems, high blood pressure and sleep apnea.

"Out of medical concern, the state placed this girl in foster care, where she simply received three balanced meals a day and a snack or two and moderate physical activity," he said. After a year, she lost 130 pounds. Though she is still obese, her diabetes and apnea disappeared; she remains in foster care, he said.

In a commentary in the medical journal BMJ last year, London pediatrician Dr. Russell Viner and colleagues said obesity was a factor in several child protection cases in Britain. They argued that child protection services should be considered if parents are neglectful or actively reject efforts to control an extremely obese child's weight.

A 2009 opinion article in Pediatrics made similar arguments. Its authors said temporary removal from the home would be warranted "when all reasonable alternative options have been exhausted."

That piece discussed a 440-pound 16-year-old girl who developed breathing problems from excess weight and nearly died at a University of Wisconsin hospital. Doctors discussed whether to report her family for neglect. But they didn't need to, because her medical crisis "was a wake-up call" for her family, and the girl ended up losing about 100 pounds, said co-author Dr. Norman Fost, a medical ethicist at the university's Madison campus.

State intervention in obesity "doesn't necessarily involve new legal requirements," Ludwig said. Health care providers are required to report children who are at immediate risk, and that can be for a variety of reasons, including neglect, abuse and what doctors call "failure to thrive." That's when children are severely underweight.

Jerri Gray, a Greenville, S.C., single mother who lost custody of her 555-pound 14-year-old son two years ago, said authorities don't understand the challenges families may face in trying to control their kids' weight.

"I was always working two jobs so we wouldn't end up living in ghettos," Gray said. She said she often didn't have time to cook, so she would buy her son fast food. She said she asked doctors for help for her son's big appetite but was accused of neglect.

Her sister has custody of the boy, now 16. The sister has the money to help him with a special diet and exercise, and the boy has lost more than 200 pounds, Gray said.

"Even though good has come out of this as far as him losing weight, he told me just last week, `Mommy, I want to be back with you so bad.' They've done damage by pulling us apart," Gray said.

Stormy Bradley, an Atlanta mother whose overweight 14-year-old daughter is participating in a Georgia advocacy group's "Stop Childhood Obesity" campaign, said she sympathizes with families facing legal action because of their kids' weight.

Healthier food often costs more, and trying to monitor kids' weight can be difficult, especially when they reach their teens and shun parental control, Bradley said. But taking youngsters away from their parents "definitely seems too extreme," she said.

Dr. Lainie Ross, a medical ethicist at the University of Chicago, said: "There's a stigma with state intervention. We just have to do it with caution and humility and make sure we really can say that our interventions are going to do more good than harm."

___

Online:

JAMA: http://jama.ama-assn.org

Pediatrics: http://www.pediatrics.org

___

AP Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/LindseyTanner

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Lindsey Tanner's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Chicago
  • Public Discussion (26)
RebootIt

No. Foster care 9 times out of 10 is no better than the childs original home.

  • 6 votes
Reply#1 - Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:55 PM EDT
PowerIsKnowledge

So true Rebootit, foster homes can often be worse then the home they are in. Besides, removing the kids will be an added burden on the taxpayers. I'd rather the taxpayers money go to opening co-op groceries in communities. Wouldn't it be better to cut out the middle man and drive prices down and make all foods affordable to those who want to eat healthy rather than going to the extreme?

  • 1 vote
#1.1 - Mon Dec 5, 2011 8:30 AM EST
Reply
Ed777

We have a system already overloaded with children taken from parents for various reasons and people are pushing for the US Government to step in and tell families how to eat. The US Government has enough on its plate and does not need to invade people's lives anymore than they currently do.

  • 4 votes
Reply#2 - Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:25 PM EDT
Meddoc

There is no doubt that feeding children "unhealthy" foods can be considered a type of abuse but does the cost of pulling a child away from the parent really in the long run do more harm or good to the child? In the short run yes the child may lose weight but the mental health impact could be far more detrimental.

  • 2 votes
Reply#3 - Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:44 PM EDT
PowerIsKnowledge

Not only would the cost of removing a child be significant, what about the child's emotional and mental health? Is it worth the cost to screw them up emotional and mentally?

    #3.1 - Mon Dec 5, 2011 8:24 AM EST
    Reply
    2Black2BeABirther

    this problem will only get worse

    because the average republican parent doesnt believe in healhy food

    and thinks any notion to feed their kids anything but BBQ ribs for breakfast is Government Intrusion

    • 2 votes
    Reply#4 - Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:55 PM EDT
    tony1234

    because the average republican parent doesnt believe in healhy food

    I knew that somehow, someone will blame the republicans for obesity. LOL

    • 2 votes
    #4.1 - Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:34 PM EST
    NYPeach

    this problem will only get worse

    because the average republican parent doesnt believe in healhy food

    and thinks any notion to feed their kids anything but BBQ ribs for breakfast is Government Intrusion

    Do you have any proof to back this up?

    • 2 votes
    #4.2 - Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:39 PM EST
    NYPeach

    2Black2BeABirther,

    Here are some facts for you to chew on. Something tells me these people are NOT a Republican majority.

    • African American women have the highest rates of being overweight or obese compared to other groups in the U.S. About four out of five African American women are overweight or obese.1
    • In 2009, African Americans were 1.5 times as likely to be obese as Non- Hispanic Whites.
    • In 2009, African American women were 60% more likely to be obese than Non-Hispanic White women.
    • In 2007-2008, African American children were 30% as likely to be overweight than Non-Hispanic Whites.

    http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=6456

    • 2 votes
    #4.3 - Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:37 PM EST
    PowerIsKnowledge

    If it's not a medical condition it's a choice to be over weight. The next time you eat at a restaurant that serves buffet, watch the amount of food that the over weight put on their plates and how often they go back. Then watch how many times they visit the relish and fruit bar. The over weight tend to stay away from the healthy food.

    • 1 vote
    #4.4 - Mon Dec 5, 2011 8:22 AM EST
    Reply
    The Quest

    Should dumb arse writer's have their computer taken away for publishing such garbage. I believe so.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#5 - Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:55 PM EDT
    Megidolaon

    I'm of two thoughts about this.

    I believe that feeding your child nothing but junk food and discouraging exercise is child abuse. The problem with this is that there are a lot of people who can eat tons of crap food, never exercise, and are still as skinny as a rail. These people won't be evident to officials. We have the idea in this country that thin automatically means healthy. It's not true. There are plenty of thin people who aren't healthy. In this sense, it's discriminatory against the obese.

    Also, in the case of obese children, you would need to confirm that their weight is the result of poor feeding habits. There are physical disorders (such as Prader-Willi Syndrome) and medications (such as steroids) that can blow you up no matter what you eat.

    This idea, while nice in concept, simply won't work in the real world. There are too many variables.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#6 - Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:07 AM EDT
    Jeffrey7500

    This is absolutely the most disgusting thing I have ever heard of. The AMA needs to take care of their own business first. You can hardly find a doctor nowadays that will put down his Lexus brochure long enough to see you and listen, I mean REALLY listen, to what you have to say. The medical profession in America is nothing short of repugnant.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#7 - Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:11 AM EDT
    mike P-3743261

    This is just crazy to allow big government to take children from their homes just because they are obese. We allow this then we may as well give up our freedoms as we are allowing big government to dictate what we can not do. I agree we have an obese problem among children in this country but taking children from there home will not solve this problem. I see it as creating bigger problems for the children and their families. Foster care is not the answer. I would prefer for such extreme cases that we help those families in need and or mandate they seek the help needed. Again taking children from families will only cause additional problems for the children and believe it could have negative impact on their future. The person who thought of having children taken away from their families obviously does not have children or care about such ramifications of such actions. This really makes me sick that anyone would suggest big Government to remove children from their homes.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#8 - Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:47 PM EDT
    GrandmaPatti

    I think they should stay in the home but the home needs to work with officials and given a chance to lose . Children do not buy groceries . Children do not buy clothes ( pants showing underwear ) . Till the age of approximately 16 they aren't working to earn an income to buy foods that aren't good for them. As a parent you buck up and learn to eat things that you know are good for your children to try out things you normally might not like but know letting them try something new is important. You know how many stagnant children sit around watch TV , use the computer and do nothing of exercise even in school or out. For health issues they might have is all the more reason you feed them things that are good in their diets. Offer choices less sugar and fat for options. Maybe classes for parents and possibly the child separate or together to learn about these things. Even very young can learn about exercise and how to make fun things to eat. Being a parent isn't about being selfish it's about going out of our norm to do all we can to bring them up to healthy , happy adults. This story wasn't about over weight but overly obese which is different.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#9 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:54 PM EDT
    tony1234

    I think they should mind their own business. Goverment has no place to tell people how fat they may be. If these underworked social worker have nothing else to do they should sit down and keep reading Cosmopolitan.

    • 2 votes
    #9.1 - Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:41 PM EST
    PowerIsKnowledge

    I agree tony1234. It's not the government's responsibility to watch peoples weight.

    • 1 vote
    #9.2 - Mon Dec 5, 2011 8:15 AM EST
    Reply
    English Oak

    yes they should

    • 1 vote
    Reply#10 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 7:29 AM EDT
    Linda-3523748

    When living in a time, where if you tell your kid to shut up and sit down it is considered verbal abuse? rofl. You are killing your kid by letting them slowly eat their way to an early grave. I think it is child abuse in the highest sense of the word. While spanking a wayward child might hurt its pride, allowing them to live this lifestyle is murder and at the very least abuse imo.

    Should they lose their children? Well now that is a little harsh, but someone better start educating the fast food restauraunt and video game generation as to what is and is not acceptable when it comes to parenting. I honestly think some really do not understand it! So no to taking the kids and yes to educating all.

      Reply#11 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:41 AM EDT
      PowerIsKnowledge

      Isn't this what the Nazi government did?

      • 3 votes
      #11.1 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:57 PM EDT
      Linda-3523748

      So we put em all on statins at an early age and pray? I am so glad mine are grown and gone and have families of their own. I sure would not want to be raising kids right now.

        #11.2 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 7:36 PM EDT
        Reply
        0pinion8ed

        No.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#12 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:00 PM EDT
        DV-966373

        Unless they can prove that the parents are holding a gun to the kid's head and pouring Crisco down his throat, no. Obesity doesn't happen overnight. It is the result of poor food choices by people who don't know any better or can't afford any better. Parents don't purposefully make their children fat, therefore it is not abuse. It is ignorance. Ignorance can only be cured with education, not with taking a child from his home and putting him in what is most likely an even worse situation. The kid will just get depressed and stuff even more junk into his face. The cost of freedom is that sometimes people don't make responsible decisions. That doesn't make it right to take their freedom to choose.

        • 3 votes
        Reply#13 - Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:11 PM EST
        PowerIsKnowledge

        DV, you're absolutely correct. I didn't read any comment about removing children kids from schools that serve unhealthy foods.

        • 2 votes
        #13.1 - Mon Dec 5, 2011 8:11 AM EST
        DV-966373

        I don't let my kids eat school breakfasts or lunches. They are so unhealthy. But they are "free", so that is the choice that many parents will make, mistakenly thinking that because it is offered at school it must therefore be healthy. Those "free" school meals will cost all of us in the long run, though, when you factor in the medical costs these unhealthy choices will cause.

        • 1 vote
        #13.2 - Mon Dec 5, 2011 9:38 AM EST
        PowerIsKnowledge

        You're right but the point I was trying to make was if you want to take obese children from parents then remove these same obese children from schools that serve food that contribute to making those same kids obese.

        • 1 vote
        #13.3 - Tue Dec 6, 2011 6:20 AM EST
        Reply
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
        Newsvine Privacy Statement
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        FUN STUFF:
        • Leaderboard |
        • E-Mail Alerts |
        • Top of the Vine |
        • Newsvine Live |
        • Newsvine Archives |
        • The Greenhouse
        COMPANY STUFF:
        • Code of Honor |
        • Company Info |
        • Contact Us |
        • Jobs |
        • User Agreement |
        • Privacy Policy |
        • About our ads
        LEGAL STUFF:
        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com