Parental responsibility in childhood obesity?

Likely nothing, but his parents do, and he can always yell at them or thank them later on...again, if he is actually happy with his life, why should taxpayers intervene? Because we feel he *shouldn't* be happy? (and so, damn it, we are going to make him miserable for his own good?)

Again, as I said above, if he's in emotional distress that is one thing, but I don't know if that is the case. Being fat is unsafe, but so are many other things--are we now suspending parental rights when they offend our personal preferences? As I suggested, I think the reason we feel justified is that fat people are ugly, and we feel our emotional repulsion justifies intervention.

Suppose they took their child hunting at age 8? Let him play outside in thunderstorms? Suppose they took him mountain-climbing every weekend? Or allowed him to smoke cigarettes? All of these things are dangerous, yet I doubt people would feel the same level of compulsion to be such busybodies. How many girls are anorexic or are "cutters"? Are we sending in child services to remove them from their parents?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well the only thing i will say about this is that obesity IS a serious health risk. there are many ailments associated with obesity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

child obesity

In every child there is always parents can guide them. But for most of all the children obesity is the biggest issue now. Reducing kid obesity may have a lot to do with building up junk food regulations and school regulations. A study published Monday in the journal Pediatrics notes that there appears to be a strong connection between having more stringent junk food laws and having fewer children stricken with obesity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The entire school approach to overweight children is irrational. The approach is a treat everyone like they are fat including children who are thin and capable of eating a wider range of food, including junk food. An analogy to this approach is one child in the class breaks his leg, so we put all the students in casts. You place all the students in the cast, including the healthy, so cause and effect breaks down; I am thin why do I need this? All the healthy students with the cast will become atrophied in that good leg, adding a new problem down the road.

A more rational approach, would form two food lines, with a scale determining which line you go in. The goal is cause and effect, which is to teach fat students how to control eating. But it also shows what happens to those who succeed. They don't need the nanny and all option are now open, because they have it under control. The dumb down uses the assumption we can't profile and target those who need help, since this is what a rational scientists would do. Instead we need to take a dumb down approach that puts everyone in a cast until we create a new round of problems for healthy kids.

 

An interesting question I have, concerns childhood hunger. Say a child is 100 pounds overweight, and likes to eat enough for three people, but only has food for two people, so he is always hungry. Does this qualify under childhood hunger programs?

The reason I ask this is with so many over weight children, why do you still hear of childhood hunger. These seem mutually exclusive unless all the fat kids eat what should go to the skinny kids? Or are all the fat kids eating less that they want? Government programs don't care either way as long as this is an excuse to grow the program and waste resources to make people dependent; justifies themselves.