Social workers remove new-born baby from obese mother

Social workers remove new-born baby from obese mother

www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

So here is my take on all of this. Does the government have the right to remove the children because they think that the children are at risk because of their parents being obese? Part of me says no cause who is to say if the kids will wind up growing into their weight.

Another part of me says yes, cause looking into this whole stone weight thing, at least what I looked up real quick, this family is big and that is not healthy for a young child.

Turns out several of their kids are big, and the family invited social services in to check on their kids cause they wanted help with one of the first five that had a developmental problem.

Your thoughts?

www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

3 kids and she can't even control her health?

I don't agree that they should take the kids away, but maybe she needs steralized.

Whose wellbeing are we considering in this question?

the mothers?

The children?


Personally, i think the children will be better off in a foster home where they can be taken care of and cared for.

It's very apparent that this woman has no regard for health or well being...or contraceptives.

It's a simple fact: Some people should not breed.

Should the state control that? No. Because if you allow them to weed out the idiots...it's only a matter of time before they're allowed to define what "idiot" is and come after everyone.

So it's a double edged sword for me...i think they did the right thing in this case...but i certainly don't want it to happen to me. (not that i have to worry...i don't match any of the traits of this "obese" woman)

The question is who is this sick person or persons that has the intestinal fortitude to keep knocking up a 23 stone woman. Maybe they should lock him up in the loonie bin.

reply to post by Finn1916

---

This is them.

The local council has spent over £100,000 on this family over the years, dealing with all their various "issues". £100,000 ... and that doesn't even include the costs of their social security benefits too.

God help any poor child born to that woman ... for it surely lost the lottery of life at conception.

My mother is overweight. That doesn't automatically make her a bad mother...

As a young child I was normal weight, by about 13 I was overweight and by 17 I was underweight....I lost a stone in two weeks over the January before I turned 17 (June). Now I'm about normal weight for my height, though it'll probably drop again soon.


She may be a bad mother for other reasons...but weight does not make someone a bad person...

I think people need to stop using logic that says... Is mother over weight...yes...bad parent.

Because it's utterly wrong.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by StevenDye]

"The 40-year-old mother weighed 23 stone before falling pregnant."

She didn't "fall" into pregnancy. Where is the father? Why is he not capable of caring for his children.

This is what happens when you give the state control over your health care. Those perceived as "useless eaters" (of health care dollars) start getting weeded out.

If someone came to take my child away from me for any reason at all they'd better bring a pile of body bags....so I can clean up their mess.

Just because a woman is large doesn't mean she's unfit or incapable of raising loving, healthy, well adjusted children. (I mean in general, there may be other factors HERE). And weight can be very misleading depending on one's body composition.
If I'm not mistaken, one stone is roughly equal to 14lbs....that would only make her 322lbs. While that is technically considered "obese", it's really not all that bad. There are mothers a-plenty here in the states that outweigh that by far. And all this says nothing of her lifestyle, bone structure or muscular composition.

Forgive me if I seem a little quick to defend...but as someone who is also technically considered "obese", this whole situation touches a nerve (and it's more than insulting to make a snap-judgement on one's parenting skills based on their number-weight). I'm 5' 6", I have a flat stomach, I can bench up to my own body weight (which is around 13.5-14 stone), and I only wear about a size 14. And still, current BMI charts list me as "obese". Would this make ME an unfit parent???

I think the point is that the children were possibly in bad health and as one poster pointed out, the government has already had to give them money for their health issues and they aren't fixing them.

reply to post by Finn1916

---

And as I showed by my weights vast changes.... her children may have had these problems regardless of the mothers weight. Her weight is a complete non-issue until it stops her physically being able to be a parent...and 23 stone is nowhere near that figure.

judging by the photo supplied, they are above average but not morbidly obese.
for gosh sakes offer the family some help, don't split them up...

I can't believe anyone thinks it's good and that big brother has the right to put children in the system because of weight, unless of course the children are starving.

Are the children happy, going to school? Are they dressed in rags?
Do they get all their nice shots? Otherwize they look healthy to me.

Anyone know what the risks and trama that are involved by placing a child in fostercare? I do.
Do the children get to stay together? They probably love one another.
Even octo gets to keep her kids!
There are other options.

Their only crime is being fat?

The question should be are they good parents.

I didn't know you could take away children for this reason, People still have this strange view of those who are over weight,

I think we have to think of life styles, but also food additives and other factors,

for example,





www.scienceblog.com...

Or this,




memsaab.com...

Venus of Willendorf

witcombe.sbc.edu...


www.goddessgift.com...

This is a slippery slope. Anything is potentially a health problem, a parent who smokes, too much fast food, perhaps a child's psychological health could be threatened by a parent who believes in conspiracy theories or the possibility that the government might not be knocking on the door to "Help Them."

Over weight can be because of health issues like thyroid. My girl friend fought being over weight all through grammer and high school and did not find out it was a under active thyroid until she was in her twenties.

At least here in the USA the GOVERNMENT is the CAUSE of obesity.




If the only problem is obesity the government should not be taking her baby. Given that the official "food pyramid" makes you look like a pyramid it is very likely the "government advice" only made the family more obesity.

Personally i just think people should be sterilized for there benefit.

What is the definition of an unsafe living environment? Is it strictly mental and physical abuse that obviously inflicts pain on the child?

Playing devil's advocate here -

Obesity is wrong, and a bad lifestyle choice. Doing drugs is also wrong, and a bad lifestyle choice. Alcoholism, prostitution, all bad lifestyle choices and if children are involved in the matter, the children are affected and taken away from the poor living environment.

Are we basing all this on a direct negative impact on the children? I think we still have pretty narrow views on what is harmful to children (isn't that surprising considering all the safety regulations we have). Even when I read the article at first I was like, "ooh, wrong!"

But is it? I thought about it and decided it may not be such a bad decision.

Clearly this woman is unable to take care of herself. She is overweight, and being overweight puts you at risk for more health problems than if you were at a healthy, manageable weight. Kids are very impressionable, and while they may possibly grow and learn about better lifestyle habits, for the first part of their lives, they'll be taking after mom.

Mom eats junk food, presumably doesn't cook healthy meals, may or may not exercise meaning the kids may not get enough play time. This may not seem like a bad thing, just how everyone else lives, right? It's wrong, though. It's wrong because children need to learn proper nutrition or they are at risk for all the same diseases their parents are.

The kids will take after these poor habits and assume they are"okay" because mom does it. They may revolt after awhile. They'll be made fun of, their mom will be picked on in public, they won't like it, it's embarrassing, so maybe they change. Or maybe they don't.

The point is, the children are at risk because they are completely reliant on their mother. They will be learning unhealthy habits and putting their own lives at risk too. Is the job of a social worker to take a child in an unhealthy environment, and put them in a healthy one? If that's the case, I agree with the decision to take her children away. Until she can prove she is capable of teaching her children healthy living habits, raising a child seems far fetched.

Take a step back for a minute. Forget she's obese. Think of this as an issue of child safety (because essentially, it is), not a woman who is fat getting her children taken away. This is way deeper than that.

Morbid obesity is a health problem, but this woman is not morbidly obese. I am leaning twords the idea that this whole "obesity problem" buildup is just a scam to make money. Just yesterday in my local paper( The Arizona Republic) they had a story about how local ambulances are going to start charging more to transport an obese patient. In the same paper they had a story about three new obesity drugs being available to overweight patients. Last summer I ran into a woman who was traveling the country in a hideous vehicle plastered with cigarrete info and painted up to look like some darn hippy-mobile. Being the outgoing fellow that I am I walked up and introduced myself( with my wife's consent, of course) and asked her what in the blazes led her to do what she is doing. She gave me some pamphlets and explained that all the smoking ban referendums on all the state ballots were at least partially being funded by drug companies that held the patents for the most popular drugs that helped people quit smoking, and she then said that it won't end at smoking...they have many obesity drugs they want to market, and that was their next target for legislation. I thought she was a kook at the time, but I am now rethinking that assessment.

reply to post by Finn1916

---

Holy #, What are we coming to in this world, G.B some of you had a fit when the BBC allowed the BNP party to come on the telly. But you are actually advocating the government to take children away from a mother who is to fat, or to sterilize her.... Some of you need a good smack in the face with common sense followed up by a kick in the head for being just plain stupid.