A week or two back I wondered why, if the owners of fat dogs were prosecuted, the parents of fat children weren't.
Silly of me.
Social workers are placing obese children on the child protection register alongside victims thought to be at risk of sexual or physical abuse.
In extreme cases children have been placed in foster care because their parents have contributed to the health problems of their offspring by failing to respond to medical advice.
The intervention of social services in what was previously regarded as a private matter is likely to raise concerns about the emergence of the “fat police”.
Some doctors even advocate taking legal action against parents for illtreating their children by feeding them so much that they develop health problems.
Sunday Funnies...
48 minutes ago
23 comments:
"Some doctors even advocate taking legal action against parents for illtreating their children by feeding them so much that they develop health problems."
Good to know 'some doctors' have eradicated all other health concerns in their areas so they can afford to waste time on social engineering.
Want to bet all such 'doctors' have their lips clamped firmly round the NHS teat.....?
"In extreme cases children have been placed in foster care because their parents have contributed to the health problems of their offspring by failing to respond to medical advice."
Laban, I can see some sense in that part at least.
If so-called 'parents' are fat and lazy then it should surprise nobody when their couplings' fruit turn out to be fat and lazy as well.
But if a 10 year old is in imminent danger of developing diabetes solely because those responsible for their care will not discharge their duty to care, by ensuring that the kid eats properly and breaks a sweat a few times a week, and have been told by a doctor to do something about it then one could certainly see how the welfare principle could justify compulsory measures of care for such children.
Although we all find the idea of state intervention in family life, repulsive, our feelings don't really matter when fat 10 year olds run the risk of dying of heart attacks when they're 18.
Although we all find the idea of state intervention in family life, repulsive, our feelings don't really matter when fat 10 year olds run the risk of dying of heart attacks when they're 18.
I don't see that a fat kid increasing his risk of dying at 18 is my business.
In addition, although there are overweight children - mainly because all activities that we engaged in, like climbing trees and being out all day doing energetic things are now forbidden by the Blairistas - I don't think many of them are in danger of dying of heart attacks at 18.
The government uses the NHS to control the population and to control behaviour, and for this reason alone, it should be dynamited. Maybe some of the left over cordite could be used on the BBC on the same day.
What are the chances of a 'fat kid' hanging himself aged 14 because some fascistic social worker ripped him from his family and put him in a "care home" to be abused by some vile pederast?
Verity,
Your lack of both charity and common humanity is well-known to readers of this blog, so although quite sad your comments are not in the least surprising.
Anon,
Your comment should be preserved as a classic 'what if' kind of scaremonger; whilst not impossible, the balance of
probabilities indicates that the likelihood of such a chain of events actually coming to pass is negligible.
Laban,
I just had a thought which might be relevant to this argument. There is a group of single parents, all of them mothers abandoned by their childrens' fathers, who feed their kids a non-stop diet of junk food, and yet whose very existence we are always called upon to support.
Why do we criticise human single mothers when we're all supposed to love the giant panda?
Anonymous 7:11. Quite.
Martin, people who spew out personal abuse reveal themselves as weak, insecure individuals. You need a group position to feel strong, so you adopt all the destructive, leftist impertinences of the Blair regime without thought.
Pay attention here, as this is rather the point: How many 18 year olds do you know who have had coronaries? How many have you heard about? Young people don't have heart attacks except if they were born with a heart condition, and that would be a genetic condition and nothing to do with eating. You are spewing out socialist garbage without even thinking about what you're writing.
The NHS needs to be pried out of Britain and the national consciousness. Why it's holy baffles me. It's tenth rate compared to medical services in other countries. "Everyone has a 'right' to free healthcare". Why?
Why not a National Food Service, with free food for all for a draconian mandatory monthly contribution? Your food can be delivered to your home once a week.
We've already got a National Broadcasting Service for a mandatory fee.
We had "British Restaurants" during WW2. The civil service were going to call them "Communal Feeding Centres" until Churchill overrode them, saying 'everyone associates the word restaurant with a good meal, and they may as well have the name if they can't have anything else' !
"British Restaurants"
Now there's an oxymoron!
Laban - What an interesting fact!
BTW, Juliam's post was interesting. So, doctors employed by the NHS have pretty much cleared up the detritus of cancer, cirrohsis of the liver, kidney disease, brain tumours? I hadn't realised we were in such a happy position!
Verity,
The NHS qua NHS has no greater critic than me. I'm on record as saying that every British government since 1948 has been socialist (bordering on fascist) for continuing to persist with it.
No, Verity, your throwaway crack that "I don't see that a fat kid increasing his risk of dying at 18 is my business" reeks of your trademark pitilessness - Google the words 'The Last Conservative Value' should you be in any doubt as to what I mean.
And if you want to make yourself really unpopular, try being a former solicitor who advocates the abolition of the Legal Aid subsidy.
"How many 18 year olds do you know who have had coronaries? How many have you heard about? Young people don't have heart attacks except if they were born with a heart condition, and that would be a genetic condition and nothing to do with eating."
Up to this point, NOW, yes, absolutely - but what the original article indicates is that the state of some childrens' persistent obesity ALLIED TO THEIR PARENTS' PERSISTENT AND WILFUL FAILURE TO ATTEND TO THEIR CHILDRENS' HEALTH has resulted in some medics forming a PROFESSIONAL OPINION (ie doing the job they're paid to do) that NO MEASURES OTHER THAN COMPULSORY MEASURES OF CARE ARE APPROPRIATE.
"...what the original article indicates is that the state of some childrens' persistent obesity ...has resulted in some medics forming a PROFESSIONAL OPINION (ie doing the job they're paid to do) that NO MEASURES OTHER THAN COMPULSORY MEASURES OF CARE ARE APPROPRIATE."
Really..? The article states:"When parents fail to act in their child’s best interests with regard to their weight — for example, if they are enrolled on a behav-ioural treatment session and only get to two out of 10 sessions or if they miss medical appointments — then the obesity becomes a child protection concern."
So the 'persistent and wilful failure' can be something as simple as missing medical appointments? Well, obviously, their kids should be snatched from them!
Another quote from that article states the opinion of Dr Tom Solomon, a neurologist:"If the parents say there is nothing they can do because their child only likes to eat chips and biscuits then perhaps it might be worth the state intervening."
Personally, I believe that the 'PROFESSIONAL OPINION' of a neurologist, to use Martin's form of wording, might best be confined to, er, neurology.
Leave the social engineering to the social workers...as long as they've 'learned the lessons' of all those Victoria Climbies, etc, etc.....
When the medical profession declares itself against the execution of 180000 sub-humans every year then Ill start to believe they might have the interests of children at heart and are not just social engineers - of whom we have have quite enough in politics. *breathes*
Martin:
"Although we all find the idea of state intervention in family life, repulsive, our feelings don't really matter when fat 10 year olds run the risk of dying of heart attacks when they're 18."
Uh, it's not our feelings that are important here, it's our principles.
Fat children are sad, but none of our business. And absolutely none of the State's business.
In Sweden the socialists had taken to removing children from apparently normal families because the parents were showing "an unusually high degree of affection towards their children". Apparently mostly middle-class parents were worst affected. A vivid Orwellian description of Swedish socialism and child-care here:-
http://www.christian-parents.net/Children/C125_Folly_of_Sweden_Outlaw_Spanking.htm
martin I think your claim that pitilessness is The Last Conservative Value is absurd.
It is conservatives that believe in family values and a moral structure to society. It is liberals who 'promote' abortion, release criminals early who then go on to kill and maim real victims. WW2 the Cold war and the Iraq war were all wars of the left. Nazis were socialists, Neocons are Liberal Hawks who believe in big government globalist power games.
Julia,
If a parent has been told that their child needs 10 appointments but only takes them to two, doesn't that indicate to you that the parent might not be interested in the child's welfare?
A child only eats chips and biscuits because the parent either lacks sufficient willpower or commitment to parenting to ensure that the child eats properly.
What, you mean you all live in households of Little Emperors who tell you what they will and won't do?
Aggainistthewall,
As red herrings go, equating these measures with abortion is redder and fishier than most.
I think you know damn fine that the same doctor could take a stand against the abortion of an unborn child and be sufficiently concerned over a child's obesity to consider state intervention in the household worthwhile.
What you suggest is the philosophiocal equivalent of saying that because not all doctors oppose abortion (FTR I do, vehemently at all times and under all circumstances), all doctors should refuse to treat piles.
Come on.
Anonymous,
"Uh, it's not our feelings that are important here, it's our principles.
Fat children are sad, but none of our business. And absolutely none of the State's business."
While I'm sure your comment was intentioned, it doesn't leave much scope for thinking in terms of 'community'. To believe That the power of the monolithic State should be curbed to the greatest possible degree does not really give one the Levite's option of passing on the other side of the road when you see someone, like a neglected fat kid, whose life is on the slide.
Otherwise we're all just a nation of selfish globalised sods.
Dave, Dave, Dave...
Perhaps we define 'conservatism' in different ways, I don't know; but your argument would carry greater intellectual (and moral) force had ANY Conservative PM since 1967 made the reapeal of the Abortion Act 1967 an item of Tory policy.
"If a parent has been told that their child needs 10 appointments but only takes them to two, doesn't that indicate to you that the parent might not be interested in the child's welfare?"
It doesn't indicate any such thing. It might indicate that they feel that the State has no business interfering in this way. Or might indicate they have busy lives & can't drop everything to suit a doctor's schedule...
"What, you mean you all live in households of Little Emperors who tell you what they will and won't do?"
And you'd like to swap the 'little Emperor' for the big one, the State, instead...?
No thank you.
Martin, this will be another intrusion into private life cooked up by the world's most successful trades union, the BMA. Like all groups, they seek ever-increasing power, and the existence of the NHS encourages them to believe they are in an elevated position.
If a greedy 18-year old has a heart attack (unlikely), he has a heart attack. So? If he can't make sensible decisions by the time he's 18, that means he's been dependent on the state telling him what to do for way, way too long.
Julia M, Thanks for both your well-argued posts.
We're dripping pitilessness, here, ladies...
You really need to dump the NHS. Even the French system, which is excellent, highly intelligently organised and efficiently run, should go. It gives governments too much power over the individual.
For the amount of money you people are contributing by fiat, you could have first class private medical insurance.
Having a health system run by a government gives the government much too much power over the individual. Too much power to dictate private behaviour. It's monstrous.
Perhaps Julia M and I have a more acute sense of the affront afforded by government ministers dictating private behaviour. I cannot speak for Julia M, obviously, but I elevate personal responsibility over government paternalism.
The thought that louche characters like Tony Blair and Patricia Hewitt have the affrontery to dictate the private behaviour of other adults is outrageous. I must confess I would feel the same sense of outrage even if the government were run by people with greater moral clarity. Paternalism leeches away the individual's responsibility.
"I cannot speak for Julia M, obviously, but I elevate personal responsibility over government paternalism."
So do I!
"We're dripping pitilessness, here, ladies..."
Pity..? Find a more useful emotion. Then we'll talk...
Martin - Pity isn't a human right. I don't pity people who are the engines of their own misfortune.
And if this notional feckless 18-year old fatty is so stupid that he is dependent on the advice forced on him by the slithy toves in the cabinet, again, I don't see that this merits pity. I won't have my personal behaviour dictated by the socialists and I won't have my emotions dictated by them either - nor what I think.
Post a Comment