Childhood Obesity, problem or just part of society?

[Dweedle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrVJeHmHVEE

 

Some of the more shocking cases of Childhood obesity.

 

currently watching these video's for this episode but.. its scary, some parents care but they dont do anything to stop and one of these women thinks its OK.

 

How can society tackle this issue? banning soft drinks etc didnt work out..

 

Yes, I know parents are primarily responsible but most just do NOT care.

[Ghogiel]

first world problems

[kvnchrist]

Too much emphasis on instant gratification. Quick easy food, games that keep the kid anchored to a floor instead of a playground and parents the use all of this as a baby setter so they can have their own life and call themselves parents instead of being one.

[mythicdawnmaster]

This is just one of those issues that is incredibly hard to try and "Fix". If parents of these Obese children aren't willing to do something about the horrifying weight of their child/children, then what can be done? I know if it was my child in a situation like that (not that i'd let it get to that point) I would seek medical help, and put them on some kind of diet. Admittedly some problems can be genetic and all that, but the attitude of those who see it as 'Okay' for their kids to be in such a state, usually are the ones who have to call up Supernanny for parental help. Anything for an easy life in some cases.

 

It's not like the government can intervene and start taking away obese children to try and make them slim, so unless the parents and the child can be moved enough to actually help themselves, then i think that nothing can be done about it. :ermm:

[WarRatsG]

 

Too much emphasis on instant gratification.

I don't remember the source, but research has shown that those who cannot delay gratification tend to do worse in school, have less emotional stability and later on develop drug problems. They are more easily addicted - both physiologically and psychologically - not only to drugs but many kinds of pleasure. They just can't say "no" to themselves, probably because their parents never did.

Edited March 15, 2013 by WarRatsG

[kvnchrist]

The one thing that gets me is that these kids are going to be a drain on the system no matter how you look at it.

 

Could someone who is under a national healthcare system tell me how your country deals with high risk or high maintenance individuals like smokers or obese people like this. I mean if education doesn't work, will intervention be next.?

 

Could children be placed on a low caloric diet at school or have child protective services monitor the situation or would there be a premium placed on obese people, paid by the individual for healthcare?

[Tidus44]

Obesity in Canada is almost as epidemic as it is in the US. It is not unheard of (and its a growing list) for doctors to refuse to treat patients or to keep placing them lower on a waiting list for surgery until they lose weight, stop smoking or start to take better care of them self. It is also not uncommon for hospitals and Doctors to refuse to treat drug addicts - other than in emergency situations.

 

In 2006 a Dr. in Hamilton Ontario refused to treat morbidly obese, smokers or diabetics who did not take care of them self. He was sued under a Human Rights claim by some of the patients. The Human Rights Tribunal said the Dr. was within his rights to not waste his time treating patients who did not look after them self and who interfered with treatment by not following the advice of the Dr. Basically the Tribunal said; "By refusing to accept advice related to major issues with the patient's health, the patient is saying to the doctor, I don't believe you, I can't trust you, I can't accept you and is basically saying I can't work with you." The Dr is not obligated to make the patient take treatment. The patient is obligated to follow the treatment and not waste the Doctors time and resources.

That HR ruling has held up since and any Dr. can refuse to treat a patient who fails to follow the advice or treatment the Dr. prescribes. It is a medical fact that smokers and the obese present a significantly higher risk in surgery and take a longer time (up to 5 times longer) to heal. In a system already taxed by a doctor shortage and high costs, its no wonder Doctors are refusing patients who are not looking after them self. More should be doing the same thing.

 

Both the Canadian and American Medical Associations state; "Both patients and physicians should be able to exercise freedom in whom to enter into a patient-physician relationship ... physicians do not give up their freedom of association by merely becoming professionals."

Kind of coincidental but, I happened to run across today's Battalion Chief at the grocery store as he was going home. We had 15 - 22 cm of wet heavy snow fall today from about 4am to just after noon. By 4pm they had responded to 9 heart attacks, not one of them over 35 years old and all fat and out of shape. Used to be if a heart attack call came in it was rare, and it involved an older person and usually someone with a congenital condition. Kind of a sad commentary on our society.

[Vagrant0]

A few points...

 

A). You have to be doing criminally wrong to raise your child like that if it's true. Especially when the incidence of food-related allergies is so high and usually directly related to the amount of additives in such foods.

B). It's a talk show, so of course they find the most ridiculous case they can find (or fabricate) for the sake of entertainment... Especially talk shows of that era.

C). A high fat/starch diet will make just about anyone bloat up when consumed till full (repeatedly). 3000 calories a day isn't just some sort of random guideline.

D). If not any of the above cases, then genetics really did a number on that kid.

 

 

Ultimately though, this is why people should go through training and education before they're allowed to have children. And why doctors should be able to refuse treatment to patients or even employ euthanization/sterilization on those who end up subsisting on government assistance (tax payer dollars), for an almost permanent basis. Or... "getting rid of the useless people and stop them from having even more useless children while we pay them to contribute nothing" plan. Stuff like this is just as disgraceful as people who have 7 and 8 children just so that they can continue collecting aid and don't have to work, while their children live in poverty, and overwhelm the school systems.

[Ghogiel]

allowed to have children.

In 10 years it'll be mandatory gene screening.

[WarRatsG]

doctors should be able to refuse treatment to patients or even employ euthanization/sterilization on those who end up subsisting on government assistance (tax payer dollars)

 

The only problem with any euthanasia involving quality of life, but not involving terminal illness, is where to draw the line. Euthanising the "useless" people is a slippery slope towards elitist fascism, since at what point do people become useless? That proverbial line can move in either direction, and since many western governments are now in debt it is likely to be pushed towards less leniency. In medical terms, it would be like saying "oh no, little Jimmy has asthma, his life isn't worth living."

That's an extreme, but it wouldn't be the first time that a leader instigated a cull of the disabled in an attempt to create a "master race". I guess that since the USA's Homeland Security has bought 1.6 billion bullets over last year (compared to the 70 million used in Afghanistan each year) and spent $34bn on retrofitting tanks and drones loaded with guns (non-lethal ammo, for now) for the police force, you would not get much of a say in where the line goes.

 

I remember being told that years ago, before even Obama, drug addicts and certain criminals would receive a one time payment to be sterilised. I cannot verify this though. I would definitely understand if this was made compulsory.

 

Maybe another little incentive to get off certain benefits would be to taper them off over time. Maybe reduce it by 10% each year. This would mean that after 5 years, you would get just under 60% of what you originally got. I can only justify this for certain benefits though, and I guess ones that were permanent would be the ones that were exploited.