The Buckingham

Scientist have recently been talking about ways to create a better haven for morbidly obese children. Talks have been taking place on whether or not children should be taken out of their homes due to them being obese calling it Child Abuse. This new discovery is creating an indescribable amount of turbulence within the society.

There is a kind of fence wedged between the population. One side of the fence discusses why morbidly obese children should be taken out of their homes and put into a “better environment” same instances where physically abused children are taken out. One of the most important reason on why children who are morbidly obese should be “rescued” is for the simple fact lives are at stake. When a child has a poor diet and is “taught” by the family on what to eat thats all they will know and will act on it.

But there is a small percent of severely obese children who are going to die soon if there’s no state intervention. The goal of state action is not to fix obesity — it’s to prevent death in cases that are the worst of the worst, children who as best we can tell aren’t going to make it to adulthood.

But this is a small stick in the puddle due to removing the children due to nutritional neglect:

Removing children for nutritional neglect is fairly common, but the form of nutritional neglect is usually under-nutrition — children who are starving — not over-nutrition. Morbid obesity is just another form of malnutrition. It doesn’t require new legislation or a change in the criteria for state intervention.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence stands by educating families with obese children on how to improve the health of their small ones and ways to make it fun to get fit. Most individuals also believe there are a few problems with the state intervention technique by doing what is asked in the first point “we” are punishing the parents for their responsibilities. Many say there are genetic factors, environmental factors, and poverty issues that come into play with this issue.

What strikes me as odd about this proposal is that the proponents want to take the child out temporarily and return the child once they feel it’s safe. Well, the only way they are going to make it safe is to work with the family and teach good practices, and since they are going to have to do that anyway, why take the child out? We are not taking about an abuse situation where the child could be killed at any moment. Obesity is a long-term problem, so there’s no real urgency to take the kid out.

Which makes a lot of sense, how is one suppose to be taken out of the home just to be placed right back into the poor environment of which they left. Doesn’t make any sense to me.

To be honest I believe there is not a right answer to this issue. Families just need to learn what is good nutrition and what is bad nutrition, what is a healthy environment and what is not. When this is solved I believe this issue will not have to be discussed but families depending on social class will experience different problems due to social status.