# County places obese child in foster care.



## crayola box (Nov 27, 2011)

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/11/obese_cleveland_heights_child.html

This is the first of the removal stories I've read that actually scared me. This story, to me, seems closer to that slippery slope that's been mentioned and dismissed in the past. I only know what is in this article but it sounds like the mom was trying, and far from unfit. The child was enrolled in a medically supervised program, was happy, an honor student...idk it just didn't sound like the facts presented merit neglect. I'd like to think there must be something else here that's been left out or the doctors wouldn't have called protective services to begin with but it's unclear. Given the purposes and state of foster care programs I think social services were completely overzealous in removing him.


----------



## Zoom (Nov 27, 2011)

The problem is, you take the kid to the hospital with breathing problems, the medicos are going to get you to buy into the whole FAT=BAD thing because it's what they believe.

No amount of believing something else is going to get them to change their policies of considering what counts as "medical neglect". The gears were set in motion when the mother didn't protest.

Meanwhile, the kidnappings and torture will continue.


----------



## Lamia (Nov 28, 2011)

Absolutely ridiculus. It's only a matter of time before we're all loaded into wagons and forced into weight loss programs.


----------



## Your Plump Princess (Nov 28, 2011)

So um....what happens if this kid, now that he's been taken away, gains _more_ weight while in foster care? 

Such flawed bullshit, then again I've heard obscure things about CPS for a while, now...

Either way, they should have offered that family some type of help before just coming in and destroying a family like that. The trial's on his birthday? Jeebus Pryce, poor kid. =/ How to give a child an eating disorder in 3 easy steps.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Nov 28, 2011)

They did offer the kid help. The article states that child services has been working with them for a year.

This is an eight year old with sleep apnea. That's a problem.

I honestly believe children can, and should be left out of discussions of size acceptance. A third grader doesn't need the burden of waving the SA flag.


----------



## KHayes666 (Nov 28, 2011)

LoveBHMS said:


> They did offer the kid help. The article states that child services has been working with them for a year.
> 
> This is an eight year old with sleep apnea. That's a problem.
> 
> I honestly believe children can, and should be left out of discussions of size acceptance. A third grader doesn't need the burden of waving the SA flag.




I'm with you on that one. If a child is morbidly obese and is still as such a YEAR after the parents are supposed to have gotten help....time to take the kid away.

8 year olds should not have sleep apnea nor be 200 pounds, simple as that.


----------



## bigmac (Nov 28, 2011)

We need to understand the limits of our knowledge. The social workers are under the impression that if this unfortunate child is placed in a foster home which will enforce an approved diet he'll suddenly loose weight. ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!! 

We have to acknowledge the fact that we really don't know why -- in the same environment -- some kids get fat, a few get really fat, and many stay thin.

This kid's life has been torn apart for nothing.


----------



## LovelyLiz (Nov 28, 2011)

bigmac said:


> We need to understand the limits of our knowledge. The social workers are under the impression that if this unfortunate child is placed in a foster home which will enforce an approved diet he'll suddenly loose weight. ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!
> snipped



I really would like these stories to be followed up on a couple years down the road, just to see if changing the environment did make a difference or not. 

Let's be honest, some people are fat for purely genetic reasons, some are fat for purely behavioral reasons, and most of us are fat because of some mixture of the two. If a young child is so fat that it is really causing some life-threatening problems, maybe a dramatic change of environment is necessary, just to see if it helps things.

BUT...there are two HUGE caveats I would add...

1) Foster care isn't the right placement. What would be better? I'm not totally sure. But the foster care system is so f*cked already, that just isn't the right choice.

2) Who wants to decide the line of how fat is too fat for a child to be before they need to get taken away? It's an impossible line to draw. KHayes and LovesBMs both seem sure that 200 lbs and sleep apnea are over that line. But what about other health problems? What about lower weights? What about health problems caused by lack of activity but not by fat? Should all those kids get taken away too? And who gets to decide? These questions are unanswerable, I think. Maybe it just has to be a case by case basis, but I still want to know who is going to be making these decisions - and whether they are severely fat-phobic or what their own ideology is, etc.


----------



## CAMellie (Nov 28, 2011)

My question is - if the "system" is so willing to offer to hire extra help for the foster mother...or even place the child in another foster home with a personal trainer...then why didn't they just offer that help to the biological mother???


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Nov 28, 2011)

CAMellie said:


> My question is - if the "system" is so willing to offer to hire extra help for the foster mother...or even place the child in another foster home with a personal trainer...then why didn't they just offer that help to the biological mother???



Good question. 

The article did state that the biological family has overweight members- I wonder if they assume everyone just ties a feed bag on and doesn't even try.


----------



## Lamia (Nov 28, 2011)

This is to me a huge reason to wave the SA flag. It's about shining a spotlight on bigotry hiding behind the guise of "concern". The state does not need to be involved in this family's life. It sounds like the mother was seeking help. How is that neglect? Speaking as a fat kid there was nothing my mom was going to do to keep me from eating. This kid is going through hell right now and I am sure he's shouldering all the blame which is a very horrible thing for a little kid. This was handled so poorly and it was handled this way because of the negative attitudes about fat.


----------



## KHayes666 (Nov 29, 2011)

Lamia said:


> This is to me a huge reason to wave the SA flag. It's about shining a spotlight on bigotry hiding behind the guise of "concern". The state does not need to be involved in this family's life. It sounds like the mother was seeking help. How is that neglect? Speaking as a fat kid there was nothing my mom was going to do to keep me from eating. This kid is going through hell right now and I am sure he's shouldering all the blame which is a very horrible thing for a little kid. This was handled so poorly and it was handled this way because of the negative attitudes about fat.



There's a difference in being a fat kid and being morbidly obese. The child is certainly not to blame but the parents sure as hell are.

When I was 8 the fattest kid in my class was about 100-120 pounds....this kid is over TWO HUNDRED, for an 8 year old that's too much. Not to mention he has sleep apnea at 8 years old, wtf????

I agree with you in terms of the media and everything screwing this up, but there's a time and a place to wave the size acceptance flag and this is not one of them. An 8 year old child should not be weighing 200 pounds and sleeping with a mask over his face.


----------



## Russell Williams (Nov 29, 2011)

My thoughts about the removal of a fat eight-year-old from the parents home and placement of the child in the foster care, presumably until the child becomes thin.

Does the welfare department only worry about fat kids? What about parents that let their children become anorexic. Are anorexic children being taken from their home? Smoking is bad for your health. What plans are there to place in the foster care system minors who smoke? Certainly minors who are taking drugs are putting themselves at risk. Is the foster care system prepared to handle all of the anorexic, smoking, and drug using minors or are they only focusing on fat kids? 

Are the people reading this prepared to have their taxes raised to pay for the huge increase in foster care expenses that would be involved if all kids who are fat, and or anorexic, and or smokers, and or drug users put into foster care?


----------



## LoveBHMS (Nov 29, 2011)

Here's what I don't get.

When a paysite girl goes on TV saying how much she loves being fat, makes money off being, and wants to gain weight; that's seen as a threat to size acceptance.

Yet allowing an eight year old to be at risk for diabetes before he's old enough to drive is ok. We can argue forever about the health risks of fat, but the simple truth is there are potential comorbidities. This child already has at least one.

We're talking about a small child. This is not the place to argue SA when it comes to kids.


----------



## Deven (Nov 29, 2011)

LoveBHMS said:


> We're talking about a small child. This is not the place to argue SA when it comes to kids.



Agreed. He's 8. At 8, you shouldn't have to worry about wearing a face mask to sleep. Kids might be genetically fat, and have weight issues, but this is beyond that.

But, I also see the other side of the coin. The Government just approved PIZZA as a VEGETABLE. If that doesn't scream hypocritical, I don't know what does...


----------



## Tad (Nov 29, 2011)

I guess I'd view it as:

- a child being extremely obese could be a _sign _of neglect, which could indicate that the child is a substantial risk if they stay at home.

- they would hopefully never take obesity, in and of itself, as evidence that a child needed to be removed from a home.

Also: how the media reports the story is not always a good reflection of the actual analysis and thought processes of the people involved.


----------



## butch (Nov 29, 2011)

I'd be curious to know how tall the kid is. Many of the reports about kids this size being taken from families are about kids who are also much much much taller than other kids the same age, and goes to further support the idea that this may be something other than too much food and too little exercise.

There are follow-up stories on the most famous fat child to be taken from her parents, Anamarie Regino, and being taken away did not 'help' her obesity. Her parents were at least exonerated from being thought of as unwitting 'feeders' who didn't know how to parent properly after the failure of foster care for young Anamarie.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Nov 29, 2011)

One thing to keep in mind about the sleep apnea connection is that it's not always related to fatness -- especially in kids. I've treated adults and kids who had OSA who were thin. A lot has to do with your face and head shape and with kids overgrown tonsils and adenoids can be the cause.

I wonder if anyone ever referred the kid to an ENT, or just assumed it was because he was fat?

As far as taking the kid away from the parents, I don't see this as a "kid" problem, I see it as a "family" problem. In order for the kid to have lasting weight loss, they need to address the way the family eats. It sounds like he lost weight and then gained when other kids and siblings fed him. Obviously not everyone was on the same page.

But singling the kid out as the problem is just going to embarrass him and lead to a regain in the future. Adding to it the stress of being yanked from one's family for the "sin" of being fat, and we're guaranteeing a screwed up relationship with food.


----------



## imfree (Nov 29, 2011)

Miss Vickie said:


> One thing to keep in mind about the sleep apnea connection is that it's not always related to fatness -- especially in kids....snipped...(



Sometimes I wonder if obesity could be a distant co-morbidity of other conditions and diseases. Sleep apnea is known to have many, including aggravation of diabetes and heart disease.


----------



## KHayes666 (Nov 29, 2011)

Tad said:


> I guess I'd view it as:
> 
> - a child being extremely obese could be a _sign _of neglect, which could indicate that the child is a substantial risk if they stay at home.
> 
> ...



Like I said earlier, there's a difference in being a fat kid and being morbidly obese.

Most fat kids are at no risk to be removed from their homes. This one however weighing twice as much as any normal fat kid definitely needed an intervention of some sort.


----------



## Lamia (Nov 29, 2011)

KHayes666 said:


> There's a difference in being a fat kid and being morbidly obese. The child is certainly not to blame but the parents sure as hell are.
> 
> When I was 8 the fattest kid in my class was about 100-120 pounds....this kid is over TWO HUNDRED, for an 8 year old that's too much. Not to mention he has sleep apnea at 8 years old, wtf????
> 
> I agree with you in terms of the media and everything screwing this up, but there's a time and a place to wave the size acceptance flag and this is not one of them. An 8 year old child should not be weighing 200 pounds and sleeping with a mask over his face.



Some kids are just big. I went to school with a kid who in Kindergarten probably weighed 130 lbs. He was huge. He's now 6'10 and 400 lbs. I get that it's bad for the kid. I also understand that sometimes kids are fat due to other factors that have nothing to do with eating. I am just intersted in how much time was spent exploring those options before they just decided to disrupt this kid's life.


----------



## bigsexy920 (Nov 29, 2011)

Well I was 200 lbs when I was 10 - and to be honest - it would have been good if i was taken away from my family, I was being abused there. 
Maybe this kid is too. Who knows, my personal opinion, and it is just that , an opinion that kids that have severe weight issues at a young age is a signal that there is something else going on that has nothing at all to do with food, eating or weight.


----------



## Lamia (Nov 29, 2011)

bigsexy920 said:


> Well I was 200 lbs when I was 10 - and to be honest - it would have been good if i was taken away from my family, I was being abused there.
> Maybe this kid is too. Who knows, my personal opinion, and it is just that , an opinion that kids that have severe weight issues at a young age is a signal that there is something else going on that has nothing at all to do with food, eating or weight.



Except they don't mention abuse. The sole reason he was removed was becuase his mom couldn't manage his weight. I am sorry to hear about your situation. I just have a problem with kids being removed from their homes unless they're in immediate danger. 

I think if the state wants to get involved then they should do it by working with the family.


----------



## seavixen (Nov 29, 2011)

I remember when I was 9-10, I was over 200lbs; there were several other kids in my class that were in the 120-160 range; it depended a lot on height and such - but I don't remember how much I weighed at eight years old. It probably wasn't that much less than this kid. I don't see where they mention height anywhere (correct me if it's in there somewhere) but it's hard to judge how grossly overweight this kid is without knowing how tall he is. (I have friends whose 13 year old boy is 6'2" or something. He has been taller than me (5'6"ish) since he was 10 or so.)

Bottom line: I ate EXTREMELY healthily at that age. All meat that I ate was from local sources - mainly hunted, but some farmed; I actually didn't even like meat very much then, and I would not eat fat at all.. it gagged me. All vegetables, milk, etc., were freshly and locally grown. I ate a lot of vegetables, and my usual after school snack was a small portion of yogurt. Otherwise, I didn't snack. I didn't have soda or any kind of ready made junk food. I had meals, and we always ate dinner by 6:00PM. I was outside playing constantly - I rarely watched TV (we had like three channels up there, and those were spotty), and I loved riding my bicycle. I was also a tumbler, and I did yoga. (My mom was still into yoga from her hippie days, and - since I liked tumbling - I enjoyed doing the exercises with her. I'm still extremely flexible to this day.)

Yet, by this logic and even by some of the things stated by posters here, my parents were neglectful in raising me. What should they have done? Stopped feeding me meals entirely? Had me eat nothing but celery sticks? I tried eating nothing but a rice cake and a quarter can of tuna a day for awhile when I was a tween, because I was sick of people assuming the same crap about me that (apparently) even those in the SA community are comfortable assuming when it comes to kids. Guess what? It did NOTHING. Food is NOT everything when it comes to size. And I was exercising so much at that point in my life and up through my teens that I was in way above average fitness condition.

The idea that if a diet program doesn't work, something isn't being done correctly - and thus the kid has to be removed from his family - is so flawed, I don't even know what to say. Fat kids have it rough to begin with, without having that kind of insane pressure placed upon them. I don't know how many times I cried all the way to school when I was a kid, because the kids were mean and the teachers would do nothing about it. I can't even imagine how terrible it must be for kids now, with all of this anti-fat hysteria going on. Half the teachers probably feel morally obligated to join in with the jeering now.

Are there instances where there's some kind of abuse, parental neglect, whatever? Sure. But this blanketing of, "Oh, for this kid to be so fat, there must be something awful going on," is offensive AND untrue. I can't say one way or the other in this instance - I'm not the kid or his parents - but there is NOT a rule when it comes to size. Period.

Sleep apnea does not necessarily come from being fat, BTW. It's just one thing that "may" be weight related, just like almost everything else. Many people in my family have sleep apnea, and the majority of them are not fat.


----------



## Durin (Nov 29, 2011)

This is a bad precident folks. Putting a Child in Foster Care is a traumatic decision that will have profound impacts on the rest of their life and should only be done when sufficient cause such as abuse and neglect.

I don't see how this could possibly merit that decision. Counseling for the family Yes yes yes. Supervision of health fine but taking a child from the only home he knows. That's barbaric and somebody should lose their job over it. 

Period end of story.


----------



## LordQuas (Nov 30, 2011)

I live literally 10 minutes from this town. My aunt was a social worker for 30 years and knows a couple of the case workers involved with this case. I am not going to say anything out of respect for the family but I will say that all of the facts have not been reported and this was NOT a hastily made decision. This has nothing to do with anti-fat bias or any of that, this was purely about his declining health


----------



## bigmac (Nov 30, 2011)

LordQuas said:


> I live literally 10 minutes from this town. My aunt was a social worker for 30 years and knows a couple of the case workers involved with this case. I am not going to say anything out of respect for the family but I will say that all of the facts have not been reported and this was NOT a hastily made decision. This has nothing to do with anti-fat bias or any of that, this was purely about his declining health



The important question is whether foster care will do anything to improve this kids life?

People have to remember that life can be unfair. Some kids are going to have serious medical issues -- some will even die. Are we going to put all sick kids in foster care?

Remember the little girl in New Mexico that was removed several years ago for being too fat? She was ultimately returned when it was discovered she had a rare medical condition that caused her to gain weight.


----------



## bigmac (Nov 30, 2011)

KHayes666 said:


> I'm with you on that one. If a child is morbidly obese and is still as such a YEAR after the parents are supposed to have gotten help....time to take the kid away.
> 
> 8 year olds should not have sleep apnea nor be 200 pounds, simple as that.




8-year-old kids shouldn't have cancer either. Are we going to seize all the kids at the local children's hospital? After all we know environmental exposures can cause cancer. Obviously the moms of young cancer patients must have negligently exposed their kids to carcinogens.


----------



## bigmac (Nov 30, 2011)

CAMellie said:


> My question is - if the "system" is so willing to offer to hire extra help for the foster mother...or even place the child in another foster home with a personal trainer...then why didn't they just offer that help to the biological mother???



Actually help a poor struggling family? This is America not Sweden.


----------



## KHayes666 (Nov 30, 2011)

bigmac said:


> 8-year-old kids shouldn't have cancer either. Are we going to seize all the kids at the local children's hospital? After all we know environmental exposures can cause cancer. Obviously the moms of young cancer patients must have negligently exposed their kids to carcinogens.



Comparing extreme obesity to cancer is just poor taste. Kids can say no to food, you never know when cancer will strike.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Nov 30, 2011)

Right above this thread is a post about a 41 year old man who died, possibly partly from complications due to diabetes.

We can argue from now to infinite about if you can be fat and healthy or if obesity leads to other health problems. But when it comes to children, they and their health don't belong in a conversation about size acceptance. It's just not the place for it. It's no more appropriate than bringing up the death of a paysite girl.

There are boundaries and just like with posting on this site, they stop at age 18. Kids' health and well being is more important that worrying over anti-fat bias.


----------



## bigmac (Nov 30, 2011)

KHayes666 said:


> Comparing extreme obesity to cancer is just poor taste. Kids can say no to food, you never know when cancer will strike.



You're absolutely wrong. If loosing weight was as simple as you make it out to be there wouldn't be many fat people.

Indeed obesity can "strike" without any warning -- even in families that do everything right. Its not uncommon for fat kids to have thin siblings -- same environment, same dinner table, same fridge -- different outcomes.


----------



## bigmac (Nov 30, 2011)

LoveBHMS said:


> Right above this thread is a post about a 41 year old man who died, possibly partly from complications due to diabetes.
> 
> We can argue from now to infinite about if you can be fat and healthy or if obesity leads to other health problems. But when it comes to children, they and their health don't belong in a conversation about size acceptance. It's just not the place for it. It's no more appropriate than bringing up the death of a paysite girl.
> 
> There are boundaries and just like with posting on this site, they stop at age 18. Kids' health and well being is more important that worrying over anti-fat bias.



I'd agree with you if I had any faith that taking this kid from his family would actually improve his health.

Also, it is very much a proper function of the size acceptance movement to educate social workers about the realities of obesity -- that its not just simple calories in // calories out equation -- that a parent can do everything "right" and still have a fat child.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Nov 30, 2011)

True, they might have "done everything right", or not.

We don't know. But I feel as if some on here want nothing more than to discover the kid was riding his bike every day and taking grilled chicken and sliced pears for lunch and was still fat. It's possible. It's also possible he was parked in front of the TV every night with gallons of ice cream and buckets of KFC.

But beyond that, SA is SA. I don't see the point of integrating "fault". Is the argument different if you can prove that people don't affect their own weight?

This is a kid. I'd rather err on the side of him being able to breathe and not losing a leg before he's old enough to drive.


----------



## HereticFA (Nov 30, 2011)

LordQuas said:


> I live literally 10 minutes from this town. My aunt was a social worker for 30 years and knows a couple of the case workers involved with this case. I am not going to say anything out of respect for the family but I will say that all of the facts have not been reported and this was NOT a hastily made decision. This has nothing to do with anti-fat bias or any of that, this was purely about his declining health



Like most of the cases where fat children were taken from their homes, there are usually other issues woven into the situation. There was at least one other case I know of where there was reported sexual abuse in the home. (I found this out via "back channel" means, not the media.) But the weight related facet is usually what makes the headline.

In this case, the real problem is it's hard to distinguish their actions from an anti-fat bias:

"Then the Department of Children and Family Services took custody of the boy, citing his weight gain was a form of medical neglect. "

While I'm sure several here will embrace the "medical neglect" viewpoint, the true Size Acceptance supporters will recognise that as the straw man argument. Too many authorities are looking to "fix" fat people and starting with fat kids will receive the most public support. (http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/13/should-parents-lose-custody-of-their-very-obese-kids/ )

But when the mother says: "They are trying to make it seem like I am unfit, like I don't love my child. It's a lifestyle change and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying." That shows she is struggling to make the changes. 
(Both quotes from: http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_m49/child-mother-weight.html )
Whether her problems stem from financial, schedule or knowledge based limitations, she is trying to make changes. For a governmental organisation to step in and demand immediate change to what is probably a deep and fundamental problem in this family's lifestyle is unrealistic. These approaches may be realistic in dealing with substance or sexual abuse. There is a behaviour to stop. It's very unrealistic with nutritional and physical activity issues. 

I'm very interested in this case since it parallels my own childhood. I was 194 pounds at an early age 9. It deeply concerns me to think I could have been taken from my home if I were growing up today. I also have the benefit of hindsight as I know what damage was done to me from the "mild" medical treatment regimen to reduce my weight. When I read articles with passages like: "Yet in the most extreme cases, removal from the home may be a more ethical solution than having a child undergo weight-loss surgery" ( From: http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/...stody-of-their-very-obese-kids/#ixzz1fD0js8Dj ) I get furious. To think that in today's world, at my former weight I might have been taken from my home and been subjected to WLS to "fix" me is beyond belief. But there is plenty of legal precedent to support that approach. Cases like this one are just another stepping stone in the path to control everyone's weight. As long as they can reduce diabetes, hypertension, stroke and apnea, all the other co-morbidities seem to be accepted as trade-offs (except by the patient who has to live with them.)


----------



## LovelyLiz (Nov 30, 2011)

LoveBHMS said:


> snipped
> Kids' health and well being is more important that worrying over anti-fat bias.



These things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, an anti-fat bias actually has a detrimental effect on a fat child's well being. I am all for things being done to help a child lose weight when that becomes a critical issue - but how it should be done and what will actually be the most helpful - those are not easy answers.


----------



## bigmac (Dec 1, 2011)

LoveBHMS said:


> True, they might have "done everything right", or not.
> 
> We don't know. But I feel as if some on here want nothing more than to discover the kid was riding his bike every day and taking grilled chicken and sliced pears for lunch and was still fat. It's possible. It's also possible he was parked in front of the TV every night with gallons of ice cream and buckets of KFC.
> 
> ...



If the mother is not at fault and has provided an adequate environment how is removing the child helpful?


----------



## bigmac (Dec 1, 2011)

mcbeth said:


> These things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, an anti-fat bias actually has a detrimental effect on a fat child's well being. I am all for things being done to help a child lose weight when that becomes a critical issue - *but how it should be done and what will actually be the most helpful - those are not easy answers*.




Very true -- with fat the proposed cures are often worse than the alleged disease.


----------



## Forgotten_Futures (Dec 1, 2011)

What I gather from the article is that the home was a problem. I can accept that the mother was trying, but she works, I presume his father also works (the article did not specify if his father was a part of the home or not). There was clearly not a way for this boy to be under supervision at all times, and no way to control him or his access to food when he was not under supervision.

I agree with the one point in the article; the entire family needs a rework of their food-related lifestyles. This boy may be the worst example of the household, but kids don't get (and stay) fat on their own (except SeaVixen, perhaps, but I'm willing to call Glandular Disorder in that case).

Also, to emphasize a bit more how mass-dense this kid probably is, I'm 6' 3", with a ~35" waist, and weigh 205 pounds.

And lastly,


> french fries and tomato paste on pizza should be counted as servings of vegetables


, potatoes are starches and tomatoes are fruits. NEITHER is a vegetable.


----------



## LordQuas (Dec 3, 2011)

bigmac said:


> The important question is whether foster care will do anything to improve this kids life?
> 
> People have to remember that life can be unfair. Some kids are going to have serious medical issues -- some will even die. Are we going to put all sick kids in foster care?
> 
> Remember the little girl in New Mexico that was removed several years ago for being too fat? She was ultimately returned when it was discovered she had a rare medical condition that caused her to gain weight.



Foster care is the best of a lot of not that great options at this point IMO. I don't think anyone could argue that if the child's health isn't getting better then SOMETHING needs to change and I'd have to imagine that other solutions were tried


----------



## seavixen (Dec 3, 2011)

Forgotten_Futures said:


> I agree with the one point in the article; the entire family needs a rework of their food-related lifestyles. This boy may be the worst example of the household, but kids don't get (and stay) fat on their own (except SeaVixen, perhaps, but I'm willing to call Glandular Disorder in that case).



Feel free to make assumptions as you will. FYI, I hit 5'0" at the age of 8 or so and was full grown by 11, and - while I was extremely heavy on the scale - I wasn't that fat in terms of the weight distributed on my body. It always shocked those who took my weight when I got on the scale, because I was "tightly packed," and the weight did not show that much. I physically matured very, very young, and was strong enough to beat grown men at arm wrestling, too. It takes a lot of muscle to move around heavy bodies.

(As for your glandular assumption, I'm assuming you mean thyroid? Normal levels. Nice try. Assumptions can be wrong. And I am far from being the only person who had this type of experience as a kid; but, of course, I'm sure most of the no-kids-are-fat-without-eating-twinkies-and-pizza-all-day people are just assuming I'm lying about my upbringing.)

NO mention is given of this kid's size or frame - just his weight - and, yet, so many people feel totally secure in making whatever assumptions they feel like. Maybe the kid is short and of small build and really fat for his size. None of us on this board (except perhaps for one exception) know one way or the other. The point is that I'm completely shocked that so many people within the SA community are behind such extreme actions without having these key facts to judge by. *This isn't even about just this case. It's about the implications, the ramifications, and the precedent - legal, social, and otherwise - that this type of thing would be/is setting.*

As to everyone screaming about health problems that fat kids face - once again, that's not the rule. I was a fat kid, and I was never sick. I did not and do not have diabetes (even though it runs very strongly in one half of my family; my father's paranoia about it is why I didn't get sweets much if at all). I did not and do not have sleep apnea. I did not and do not have high blood pressure. Et cetera.

I don't know how many people I know who eat the same things, in the same amounts, get the same amount of exercise, and are totally different sizes. If we can accept this in adults, how can we not accept this in children? Really? We have to make fat kids' lives more difficult by giving them even more horrific reasons to hate their bodies? Seriously? Do you know how many girls HATE themselves because they're fat or even just chubby? How many crash diet or try other incredibly unhealthy methods to try and lose ANY weight? *There is really no greater sin at this point in time than being fat.* Anywhere.

If eating disorders were around before, can you imagine what the hell THIS type of crap is going to do to kids psychologically? If even those in this supposedly supportive community are chomping at the bit to judge both them and their parents? So much guilt is attached to being fat already - I guess we might as well make them feel guilty for how their parents are going to be branded as unfit, too. I mean, why not. It's for their own good.

Funny - this is exactly what people who hate fat people think. That there needs to be more fat guilt. That that's the answer to "fixing" the masses that they find so hideous and revolting. Nice.

That said, I'm done with this thread now. I can only take so much disappointment with humanity at one time.


----------



## CastingPearls (Dec 3, 2011)

Seavixen, I had the same type body as you describe and was a very physically active child and teen. Junk wasn't allowed in my house and all meals were healthy and freshly prepared. My three siblings and myself appeared just 'chubby' but our weight on the scale was very high because of high musculature particularly in our legs--this was medically verified but still didn't protect us from derision and vilification and at the time none of us had a glandular problem or disease so I hear you on that. We were healthy kids and rarely sick. *You weren't the only one.*


----------



## Mathias (Dec 3, 2011)

Would the family have grounds to sue the state for the trauma the child may have been put through once he's returned to them?


----------



## Zoom (Dec 3, 2011)

Mathias said:


> Would the family have grounds to sue the state for the trauma the child may have been put through once he's returned to them?


I'd say the family has grounds to put in for kidnapping charges, though there's no way they could make them stick.


----------



## HereticFA (Dec 4, 2011)

Mathias said:


> Would the family have grounds to sue the state for the trauma the child may have been put through once he's returned to them?



Usually not. Governmental agencies are protected from lawsuits against them for performing their duties. 

The only real way to work this is by political pressure and embarrassing them. The best thing that could happen politically is if the kid were to gain weight while in their "protection".


----------



## Deven (Dec 4, 2011)

As much as I love the size acceptance movement and want to be a part of it, I agree with everyone who said children should be left out of it. We should teach children to be tolerant of others, regardless of weight, race, sexual orientation, and what-have-you, but can you imagine what this kid is going through at school? When I was only slightly chubby after my accident, before I gained as much as I have, I was tormented. I was teased. I was called ugly, fat, told to put down the pork roast, and other insults.

Some of us have a made a conscious decision. We are happy with our heavy bodies, we enjoy looking at heavy bodies. 

My question is, has anyone ASKED the kid how he feels about his body? Does he have a food addiction? At 8 years old, and at 200 pounds, there's a line. And that line has been crossed. Yes, being taken away from his parents is going to give him issues with food. Yes, he's going to need therapy. The family was given time to help get his weight under control. They apparently failed. 

The mother might dispute the claim that she was following the doctor's orders, but how can we be sure? Also, did they research alternatives? I know this sounds horrible, but a recent study showed that Weight Watchers was more effective than the diets that doctors put you on; was that looked into as an option? Did the kid get a YMCA membership so he'd become more active? I'm playing Devil's Advocate here: What if taking him away from her works? Are we going to be as outraged to find out he's lost 50 pounds away from his mother? We don't know the whole story...


----------



## KHayes666 (Dec 4, 2011)

DevenDoom said:


> As much as I love the size acceptance movement and want to be a part of it, I agree with everyone who said children should be left out of it. We should teach children to be tolerant of others, regardless of weight, race, sexual orientation, and what-have-you, but can you imagine what this kid is going through at school? When I was only slightly chubby after my accident, before I gained as much as I have, I was tormented. I was teased. I was called ugly, fat, told to put down the pork roast, and other insults.
> 
> Some of us have a made a conscious decision. We are happy with our heavy bodies, we enjoy looking at heavy bodies.
> 
> ...



Amen.

When a kid is 8 years old and too fat to move and has to sleep with a mask over his face.....his parents SUCK. There's no other way around it, his parents have done a horrible job.

Taking him away may save his life, I don't care if his foster parents are 2 marine drill instructors.


----------



## bigmac (Dec 4, 2011)

KHayes666 said:


> Amen.
> 
> When a kid is 8 years old and too fat to move and has to sleep with a mask over his face.....his parents SUCK. There's no other way around it, his parents have done a horrible job.
> 
> Taking him away may save his life, I don't care if his foster parents are 2 marine drill instructors.



What the hell is going on here with all the people who want to "fix" a fat kid. Some kids are just fat -- a few very fat. Whether the parents "suck" or not has little to do with it. My two oldest kids are 11 months apart -- they lived in the same house -- ate the same food -- went to the same schools ... yet one was thin and the other very fat. Did I somehow "suck" as the parent for one but not the other?

FYI: my fat kid is now a senior at The University of California San Diego, has a good job, and lots of friends (including a BF). She's still fat but so the fuck what!


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 4, 2011)

"The best thing that could happen politically is if the kid gained 50 pounds?" Are you for real? You're actually bringing politics into it?

THIS is why I said kids and kids' health need to be left out of it. To even think that an 8 year old kid who already weighs 200 pounds and can't perform a basic life function of respiration can benefit the SA movement by gaining weight is just awful.

I know nothing about social work, but I'm guessing it's pretty hard to take a kid from his parents. The media has clearly said that social services has worked with the child and his family for a year. They have to have spoken to the mother, looked at their kitchen, talked to the kid about his eating/activity. There isn't a chart at town hall or the courthouse that says "Thin kids--leave with parents; Fat kids--remove."

If you all think anti-fat people are dying to believe that fat kids just spent 24/7 on the couch with Burger King, it's every bit as wrong to assume that all fat kids are naturally big boned and are running around playing while the parents prepare salads and dry grilled salmon. 

Needing to believe, in the name of SA that "some kids are just big" or recounting your own "weighed X number of pounds even though I ate no junk food" childhoods isn't helping this kid.


----------



## KHayes666 (Dec 4, 2011)

bigmac said:


> What the hell is going on here with all the people who want to "fix" a fat kid. Some kids are just fat -- a few very fat. Whether the parents "suck" or not has little to do with it. My two oldest kids are 11 months apart -- they lived in the same house -- ate the same food -- went to the same schools ... yet one was thin and the other very fat. Did I somehow "suck" as the parent for one but not the other?
> 
> *FYI: my fat kid is now a senior at The University of California San Diego, has a good job, and lots of friends (including a BF). She's still fat but so the fuck what![*/QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Isa (Dec 4, 2011)

bigmac said:


> What the hell is going on here with all the people who want to "fix" a fat kid. SNIP



Maybe because some remember what it was like to _be_ the fat kid and those memories are not so pleasant. Personally, I would not wish that negative experience on any child.


----------



## bigmac (Dec 4, 2011)

The reasoning the people who are cheering the removal of this fat kid is being clouded by several fallacies.

Fallacy #1: The kid's really fat, therefore, the mother must be neglectful. The doctor assumes that the mother is not following his recommendations because if the mother had the kid would have certainly gotten thin. The hubris of this argument is obvious. 

It appears that some of the people on this board still believe that being fat or thin is simply a matter of calories in vs calories out -- and, furthermore, that its easy to control this balance. We know that these assumptions are false. The bodies of fat people fight attempts to alter body compositions.

I read several newspaper articles regarding this kid and not one of them even alluded to any behavior by the mother that could even remotely be construed as neglectful. It is clear, however, that the mother is poor (a substitute teacher) -- and most likely a member of a racial minority. Which brings us to the issue of class and race. Many folks in the social services community do indeed have unstated biases (i.e. poor minority mothers are often unfit).

Fallacy #2: Foster parents will provide a better environment. Foster parents aren't superhuman -- they're just ordinary folks from the local area who agree to foster a kid or two. The kid's foster parents live in the same food toxic world. The kid will still be exposed to the same crappy school lunches, the same fast food, and the same schizophrenic attitude toward food. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the kid's environment will change in any meaningful way. 

_... don't have time to finish this post -- to be continued_.


----------



## KHayes666 (Dec 4, 2011)

bigmac said:


> The reasoning the people who are cheering the removal of this fat kid is being clouded by several fallacies.
> 
> Fallacy #1: The kid's really fat, therefore, the mother must be neglectful. The doctor assumes that the mother is not following his recommendations because if the mother had the kid would have certainly gotten thin. The hubris of this argument is obvious.
> 
> ...



1. The kid can barely move. Its not about dieting its about EXERCISE. I ate my fair share of McDonalds, Burger King and steak/potatoes but because I got off my ass and went to the park, I wasn't 200 pounds. My parents would take me to the park, got me involved in sports and other things to keep me active. You don't have to put kids on a diet to make them lose weight but taking them to a park with other children would be a good start.

2. No, foster care isn't perfect but it doesn't have to be. The point is if foster parents can get the kid healthier when the real parents couldn't, they did their job.

Again, once more for the hard of hearing....this is NOT about size acceptance, this is the health and welfare of children.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Dec 4, 2011)

Bigmac, I believe I read in one of the articles that the family members are feeding the kid and that he's regained weight. He was doing well when the mom had control over his calories, but someone -- a sibling? -- started feeding him and he regained.

I would hate for a kid to be taken away from a family solely because he's fat but if his health problems aren't being addressed by his parents -- whether we're talking asthma, sleep apnea, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, life threatening allergies -- whether by intention or neglect, then other options need to be evaluated. If this kid were asthmatic and his parents were smoking around him, would we support the state's right to remove him? (No I'm not comparing smoking to being fat but in this case being fat is unhealthy for him just as smoking would be unhealthy for an asthmatic). 

To me the bigger issue is how much control parents should have over whether and how much to treat their kids for illnesses, when not protected by religious freedom. Should we remove kids because parents refuse to vaccinate? Should we remove kids if they refuse antibiotics for an ear infection and instead use naturopathic care? I declined tubes in my son's ears and instead sought out holistic care. Should he have been put in foster care? Does it make a difference if an intelligent, educated parent makes a choice at odds with the medical establishment? I chose a home birth. Should I have been forced to deliver in the hospital?


----------



## KHayes666 (Dec 4, 2011)

Miss Vickie said:


> Bigmac, I believe I read in one of the articles that the family members are feeding the kid and that he's regained weight. He was doing well when the mom had control over his calories, but someone -- a sibling? -- started feeding him and he regained.
> 
> I would hate for a kid to be taken away from a family solely because he's fat but if his health problems aren't being addressed by his parents -- whether we're talking asthma, sleep apnea, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, life threatening allergies -- whether by intention or neglect, then other options need to be evaluated. If this kid were asthmatic and his parents were smoking around him, would we support the state's right to remove him? (No I'm not comparing smoking to being fat but in this case being fat is unhealthy for him just as smoking would be unhealthy for an asthmatic).
> 
> To me the bigger issue is how much control parents should have over whether and how much to treat their kids for illnesses, when not protected by religious freedom. Should we remove kids because parents refuse to vaccinate? Should we remove kids if they refuse antibiotics for an ear infection and instead use naturopathic care? *I declined tubes in my son's ears and instead sought out holistic care. Should he have been put in foster care? Does it make a difference if an intelligent, educated parent makes a choice at odds with the medical establishment? I chose a home birth. Should I have been forced to deliver in the hospital?*



Why do you ask questions like that? There's a major difference in having a different option to treat an ear infection and parents so incompetent their child is morbidly obese.

If they let a sibling feed their child, that's not being a parent. Same as letting a kid sit on its ass all day playing video games rather than make them go outside and play.


----------



## wrestlingguy (Dec 4, 2011)

A great article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Link to original article can be found here.  

*Telling the story with sensitivity matters more than making a splash: Ted Diadiun*

_"You only printed that to sell newspapers!"

That's a familiar refrain from some critics, meaning that we didn't publish a given story because it had news or informational value . . . but only for its sensationalist appeal.

In response, let's take a look at a story that could draw that kind of accusation, depending upon how it was handled.

It was on Page One last Sunday -- about an 8-year-old boy who had been removed from his home by caseworkers from the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services, who alleged that his mother wasn't doing enough to control his weight.

The third-grader, classified as "severely obese" at 218 pounds, was placed in foster care in October. His mother is fighting for custody, which is to be decided in Juvenile Court this month.

You don't need to know any more to realize that there is more than one way to go with this story.

One way would be to play up the shock value of a severely overweight kid, and the tug-of-war between the social service folks and his mother. Get in, get a photo, get out, move on -- and never mind the pain you leave behind. Another would be to take the time to apply extra reporting and sensitivity. If you read the story, you know reporter Rachel Dissell took the second path.

Dissell said she originally thought that the county's decision would turn out to be about more than just the boy's weight -- that there might be drugs or abuse or some other problem. But that did not develop. The situation turned out to be complex, though, with reasonable arguments on each side and no easily discernable villain.

This was more than just a tale of one overweight kid. It was an exploration of a complicated dispute, the vexing problem of youth obesity and what people are trying to do about it.

There were no photos, and Dissell took great pains to avoid identifying the family. "That's the reason the mom agreed to talk to me," said Dissell. "We didn't want this story to define the kid's life or have him made fun of unduly. We saw this as more of an issue story. There are more than a thousand severely obese third-graders in the county. This kid's only one of them."

So the story ran, with all its intricacies and conflicts and nuances.

And then all hell broke loose.

Dissell and Juvenile Public Defender Sam Amata, the mother's lawyer, began getting phone calls Sunday afternoon, and they just kept on coming.

"Dr. Phil." "Inside Edition." ABC News. "The Today Show." "The View." "Good Morning America." Local radio talk shows, and radio shows from places they had never heard of. Dissell says she got 20 phone calls on Tuesday from a Spanish-language television station.

All were clamoring for the name of the mother and her son. Some wanted to fly them to New York to appear on TV. Some hinted at flying Dissell in, too, or trading other information, if she would cough up a name and phone number.

Her answer was always the same, as was Amata's: It was up to the boy's mother, who steadfastly said, "No."

"I don't feel like this woman's story belongs to me in any way," said Dissell. "Her trust was in us to tell a very sensitive and personal story."

The boy's mother resisted any temptation she might have had to bask in 15 minutes of national fame. "She said her point was to help her son, not to get involved in a media circus," said Dissell. "She said talking to all those people was not going to help her son. They just wanted to do a show about a fat kid."

Dissell thought that decision was wise. She had seen what had happened after her stories about Johanna Orozco, the young woman who went through many months of reconstructive surgery after her ex-boyfriend shot her in the face with a shotgun.

"It was such a disheartening experience for her," said Dissell. "The national media can chew you up and spit you out. Some of them never got to the heart of her story; they just used her."

Perhaps all those networks were hoping to do a nuanced, sensitive story. I'll leave that for you to decide.

But unfortunately, by Wednesday, a local TV station had managed to track down the address of the third-grader's family and descended on the neighborhood: interviewing (and naming) neighbors and the boy's best friend on camera.

So much for protecting the boy's privacy.

Of course we want to sell newspapers. We also want our stories to be worthwhile and have substance. And we don't want them to prey on innocents.

It is possible to do that, if you try. Not everyone does. _

*I appreciate and respect both the reporter, and shockingly enough, the mother of the child who chose to not sensationalize herself by plastering her and her kid all over tv for her 15 minutes, likely to the detriment of the child, and the fat acceptance movement. 

Perhaps some of the people who have done so from this forum could learn something from her.*


----------



## Miss Vickie (Dec 4, 2011)

KHayes666 said:


> Why do you ask questions like that? There's a major difference in having a different option to treat an ear infection and parents so incompetent their child is morbidly obese.
> 
> If they let a sibling feed their child, that's not being a parent. Same as letting a kid sit on its ass all day playing video games rather than make them go outside and play.



I ask questions like that because issues like obesity are so emotionally loaded that they garner a lot of attention (as evidenced here). To me the larger issue is at what point should states step in to remove kids from the home. 

And actually untreated ear infections can lead to deafness, mastoiditis and meningitis, so they're not completely innocent. Untreated asthma can lead to a child's death. If a child is morbidly obese, *are* the parents incompetent? Really? Have you ever tried to control every moment of a child's life? Have you ever been a parent? 

I'm not saying this mother is blameless, but I am saying that it's easy to sit in judgment of her from the comfort of our own lives. I had the benefit of a good education and a spouse when raising my kids. My kids had healthy appetites for healthy foods, and we had established a lifestyle of mostly organic foods from day one, so it was easy for me. But if I didn't have the background in nutrition, if I didn't have a spouse, or a yard to grow fresh vegetables and a place to let my kids play safely, in a city that's kid friendly, it would have been a lot harder. Especially if I had to work to support my kids.

It just seems to me that automatically blaming the mom is no better than automatically assuming that the social workers are a bunch of fat haters. The truth is, like most things, most likely in the middle. And the issue of when the state should intervene in the lives of kids is still largely unanswered.


----------



## LovelyLiz (Dec 4, 2011)

Isa said:


> Maybe because some remember what it was like to _be_ the fat kid and those memories are not so pleasant. Personally, I would not wish that negative experience on any child.



Most of my negative experiences with being a fat kid were caused by people in my life who were trying desperately to save me from all the unpleasant experiences they had as fat kids.

Still there is a deeper issue beyond just fatness here - it's the general question about freedom of lifestyle and choice and government control; which is why questions like MissVickie's are important too, because they highlight that issue, which is the bigger thing that's going on.


----------



## moore2me (Dec 5, 2011)

Removing a child from his/her family so that the kid can be raised better has a nasty, racist history in the last hundred years. One of my tenants was a full blooded Sioux Indian about my age. She told me that when she was a toddler, she was removed from her familys home on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in the Black Hills. She was taken to a white, government, missionary school where they tried to get the Indian out of her. 

She had to cut her hair. She could not speak her native tongue. She was told she no longer had a mother, father, or any brothers or sisters. (This last part was especially cruel because her sister was in the schools too in a nearby dorm.) She wasnt allowed to go back home until she reached 16 and then she was dumped back on the reservation. She spent years trying to reconstruct her life that was stolen from her. . . . by the government . . . trying to help the poor child who would have been raised by savages.

---------------------------------------

Roll the time machine to the present day. I have been surfing websites of different political fringe groups in my state. No, I am not interested in joining them, I just keep track of who is on Facebook. The is one small group who has talked about requiring a search warrant for any government worker (social services) that comes on their property and keeping a weapon handy. Note: I am against violence and I used to be a government worker  this kind of volatile attitude scares me and I see trouble down the road. Taking peoples kids is a call to arms in most rural areas.

--------------------------------------------------------

Now, one more little time travel jaunt. Removing children from homes that were bad for the kids was also a practice of the Nazis during Hitlers reign of power. Thousands of blond, blue-eyed Hebrew children, kids of Jehovahs witnesses, and other anti-Nazi parents had their children forcible taken from them and relocated to proper Nazi homes. After all, the Germans knew much more how to properly raise a child.

So, here we have in the last century, children taken from their parents by the government for the good of the child. The parents were either Indian savages, non-Christian Jews, or raising fat children. Why stop at kids that are fat? Why not remove kids that dont read enough books? Kids that have too many babies? Kids that have DUIs? Kids that huff paint? Kids that torture animals? Kids that are anorexic? The list could go on and on . . .


----------



## KHayes666 (Dec 5, 2011)

Comparing removing obese children to possibly save their lives to removing jews to exterminate them......I'm done with this thread.


----------



## Angel (Dec 5, 2011)

KHayes666 said:


> parents so incompetent their child is morbidly obese.



When did you get your medical degree? When did you get your degree in psychology? When did you get your degree in anything? Have you ever been a parent to a child for the first eight years of his life? Have you ever worked for or with children's services or for or with any county agency that involves the welfare or custody of children? Do you have any expertise or experience when it comes to parenting, child care, or assessing the mental, emotional, or intellectual status of an adult?

That mother is probably far more competent than you and probably has a higher IQ. Perhaps you should do more reading before making the assumptions you have.

A child who is morbidly obese does not necessarily mean that the parent is incompetent or neglectful or abusive. 

There are multiple factors that influence a child's weight and growth patterns besides the amount of food they consume. There are some children who could be classified as morbidly obese who are probably more active than you were as a child. 

There are specifics to this case that have intentionally not been revealed to the public in order to protect a minor child and his identity. All of the medical information can't be revealed to the public. 

Instead of blame the focus should be on the overall welfare of this child (and all children for that matter). The child was seen by a doctor. Was he seen by a psychologist? Was the family in therapy? Was a dietitian involved with the entire family? Was the child given a full medical work-up including chem panels, hormone levels, etc? Was the child offered physical therapy rather than a drill sgt. approach? Did anyone even bother to walk with him or do things with him that would lead to increasing his capacity for physical activity? If he has breathing difficulties and mobility issues, you can't just expect him to instantly become active like other children his age that are within a specific age/height/weight "normal" percentile.

It's more complicated than "get off your ass" or the parents being "incompetent".

Another issue that has been brought up locally is who gets to set the precident? So now if your child weighs 200 children services can step in. What if the weight is lowered to 180? Is it the number or a child's health? 

There are plenty of other cases that need attention and more delving into that would require much more in depth investigating and man hours from a department that is understaffed. The one thing that makes this case different is that some of the physical evidence is easlily measurable and also visible (meaning the evidence of the child's weight is easily attainable). Such is not the case in where there are neglect or sexual abuse allegations. Think about it. Which is easier to "prove"?

Don't ever think that children's services always does the right thing. Just like any other organization, they look out for themselves first and foremost. They worry more about lawsuits than investigating. Cases where there is 'concrete' evidence or visible evidence get immediate attention. Cases where children are too young to articulate for themselves and cases where someone goes to bat for a child who has no voice, are often not given the same consideration or time.

I'd like to know about what other types of cases this caseworker has been involved with; how much time the caseworker actually spent investigating this case as compared to others; how much time was spent in this child's home when compared with other cases; what other avenues were investigated; if this caseworker has any biases against fat people; how long this person has been working with children's services; if this person has children or has ever had children in her care; if there was a team approach (physician, psychologist, dietitian, therapy, etc. that included the child, parents, and siblings, and anyone else living in the household) or not.

I'm afraid that the visible and measurable evidence and a quick and easy solution outweighed what is probably in the best interests of the child's psychological well being and long-term self-desired lifestyle changes/goals. Taking a child from loving parents and imposing rigid diets might bring about temporary results; but it could also cause far deeper emotional issues, scars, and trauma.


What's really ironic is that some of the assumptions you have made and some of the things you have posted in this thread are more in line with the beliefs and false assumptions by those who bash fat people than with say.... someone who is supposedly a FA and who loves fat women and someone who I would have though would have learned a few things about the psysiology of fat individuals after having read posts here for approximately eight or more years.


----------



## HereticFA (Dec 5, 2011)

mcbeth said:


> Most of my negative experiences with being a fat kid were caused by people in my life who were trying desperately to save me from all the unpleasant experiences they had as fat kids.


This was the same experience for me.

With all the posters here saying it's all about the kid's physical health seem to forget about the mental impressions they are making with the draconian measures of taking the kid from the home. I've seen as many fat stereotypes presented in this thread by supposed supporters of fat people as I've ever seen in a mainstream board.


----------



## HereticFA (Dec 5, 2011)

KHayes666 said:


> 1. *The kid can barely move.* Its not about dieting its about EXERCISE.


Stereotype much? I haven't found any of the articles that indicated immobility as you're stating.



KHayes666 said:


> I ate my fair share of McDonalds, Burger King and steak/potatoes but because I got off my ass and went to the park, I wasn't 200 pounds. My parents would take me to the park, got me involved in sports and other things to keep me active. You don't have to put kids on a diet to make them lose weight but taking them to a park with other children would be a good start.


It sounds like you were lucky enough to have a nuclear family with both parents involved in your life. Good for you. Apparently you underestimate the real impact of that privilege.



KHayes666 said:


> Again, once more for the hard of hearing....this is NOT about size acceptance, this is the health and welfare of children.


And for the thinly veiled "supporters" of fat people, remember that the personal is the political. In this community that usually means fat acceptance is deeply political. Many of us remember how we were "supported" as fat kids. That kind of "support" is mental abuse, the kind of abuse on a par with repetitive physical assaults in regards to the lasting effects on the kid.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 5, 2011)

I grew up in Boston which is where the Christian Science religion was founded. I recall periodically throughout my childhood there would be court cases covered in the press where parents didn't want to get medical help for sick kids because it was against their religion. The arguments basically boiled down to whether freedom of religion extends to having the right to not get treatment for your cancer ridden kid. Nobody argued against freedom of religion or said Christian Scientists were evil or stupid or wrong. The question was if parents had the right to make those choices on behalf of children.

Everyone wants to make this about "anti fat bias" rather than focusing on a 218 (not 200) pound 3rd grader. Sure "the personal is political" but politics start at age 18, not 8.

And for the last time...child services worked with the family for a year. They did not rush in and take the kid. They gave it a YEAR of WORKING WITH THEM.

And there is a difference between annecdotal and statistical evidence. There are 218 pound 8 year olds who have medical conditions and 218 pound kids who just eat too much. The overinsisting on this board that there has to be something wrong just proves that this discussion, as all involving kids, shouldn't be on this board.


----------



## HereticFA (Dec 5, 2011)

LoveBHMS said:


> I grew up in Boston which is where the Christian Science religion was founded. I recall periodically throughout my childhood there would be court cases covered in the press where parents didn't want to get medical help for sick kids because it was against their religion. The arguments basically boiled down to whether freedom of religion extends to having the right to not get treatment for your cancer ridden kid. Nobody argued against freedom of religion or said Christian Scientists were evil or stupid or wrong. The question was if parents had the right to make those choices on behalf of children.


And in many societies around the world, taking a child bride was considered proper, until enough women who spoke out against it that it was stopped. We will go through this with fat kids as well. Once enough that were taken from their homes finally grow and have a legal voice, the chorus will be loud enough to be heard over the stereotypes. That means we are facing over twenty to thirty years of fat kids being taken from their homes.



LoveBHMS said:


> Everyone wants to make this about "anti fat bias" rather than focusing on a 218 (not 200) pound 3rd grader. Sure "the personal is political" but politics start at age 18, not 8.


The seeds of politics are planted early. It's only at age 18 that those seeds are able to be harvested by voting. 



LoveBHMS said:


> And there is a difference between annecdotal and statistical evidence. There are 218 pound 8 year olds who have medical conditions and 218 pound kids who just eat too much. The overinsisting on this board that there has to be something wrong just proves that this discussion, as all involving kids, shouldn't be on this board.


And overreaction to those medical conditions can cause just as much damage as the medical conditions purported to be treated. Anecdotal information is frequently a cause to compile statistical information.


----------



## NancyGirl74 (Dec 5, 2011)

There is a fine line between being a kid who is simply fat and being a kid who is so fat their life is at risk. If this child was a grown up who's life was at risk due to his weight he'd be looking for ways to better his health. As a child he has to depend upon the adults in his life to do that for him. If his parents cannot be those adults (whether from lack of knowledge, lack of means, or lack of caring) it is not the child's fault. He should not be kept in jeopardy while the "grown ups" run around debating issues that frankly should not concern anyone but that specific child, his family, and those looking out for that family. This one kid is not the poster boy for anti-obesity movements or size acceptance. To try and make him such is a selfish motive to prove someone else's point. In the mean time, people are trying to help this kid because his parent's cannot (or will not). While I don't think that removing him permanently is the smartest thing (or even what they are going for) I do think getting him out of an unhealthy situation so that education, medical aid, and therapy can be given to both child and family is not a bad thing. It may just save his life.


----------



## butch (Dec 5, 2011)

I love all the speculating going on about this case. The best evidence we have to judge this case is the stories of previous children who have been taken from their family units because of their weight. If you do the research, you'll see it doesn't work out with the results that social services are looking for.

Until someone can find me evidence to the contrary, that in the majority of cases this 'works,' then I'll continue to use facts to back up my beliefs that statistically, it is more likely that this will hurt, rather than help, the fat child and their family. 

For the sake of the child and the mother, and not my own personal beliefs, I do hope that they end up healthier and happier after this, regardless of what results social services gets from this. Sadly, I think psychology backs up the fact that anytime a family is forced apart, there are a lot of pyschological scars left behind, even if that 218 pound 8 year old loses weight.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 5, 2011)

Most people's weight doesn't top out when they're 8. So a 218 pound 8 year old might well be on track to be 300+ pounds by the time he's out of elementary school. A child's muscular-skeletal system is not equipped to handle that; a child's heart isn't equipped to pump blood through a body of that size. And that's not even touching on the missed social and recreational opportunities.

Saying the cure is worse than the disease is just short sighted. This child has apnea meaning his growing brain and body are being deprived of oxygen and that he may be sleep deprived. He may also be on track for serious medical problems that are not just the figment of the quack-bigoted medical establishment's imagination.

And for anyone who thinks there's an epidemic of seizing fat kids from their parents I'd ask this:

1. If you were a fat kid, did your parents ever get a visit from social services?

2. If you're a parent or guardian of a fat kid, or you work in education/day care and watch fat kids, have you ever been contact by social services with their intent of taking the kids?


----------



## bigmac (Dec 5, 2011)

Isa said:


> Maybe because some remember what it was like to _be_ the fat kid and those memories are not so pleasant. Personally, I would not wish that negative experience on any child.



I was a fat kid so yes I do remember. However, ripping a child away from his mother really doesn't seem like a good way to make childhood more pleasant (sarcasm intended).

Weight loss programs have failure rates of over 90%. Thus, by far the most likely outcome is that this child will have his life destroyed -- His mother will have her life destroyed -- ALL FOR NOTHING!!!


----------



## bigmac (Dec 5, 2011)

HereticFA said:


> ...
> 
> With all the posters here saying it's all about the kid's physical health seem to forget about the mental impressions they are making with the draconian measures of taking the kid from the home. *I've seen as many fat stereotypes presented in this thread by supposed supporters of fat people as I've ever seen in a mainstream board.*



Exactly!!! WFT?


----------



## bigmac (Dec 5, 2011)

KHayes666 said:


> Comparing removing obese children to possibly save their lives to removing jews to exterminate them......I'm done with this thread.



The removal of Native American children is a better example. Throughout North America and in New Zealand and Australia too (until the 1970s in some places) Indian children were removed from loving parents and placed in residential schools (often run by the Catholic Church with all that implies). Indian Affairs officials assured the public that this was all in the best interest of the Indian children because Indian parents couldn't be trusted to raise properly suitably acculturated children. 

Likewise it appear that the wise men and women of social service departments believe that poor minority parents can't be trust to raise suitably thin children.


----------



## Lamia (Dec 6, 2011)

I was the second fattest kid in my school. I never had a visit from social services. It was the 70s when the world didn't care if you wore a seat belt or that my mom let me lay in the back window when she drove. I was in track and cheerleading I played outside from sunup to sundown. I had a great childhood, aside from other people being mean to me because I was fat. That's on them not on me. 

Times have changed and some of us don't like the state dictating to us how to live our lives under the guise of concern for our health, wealth or benefit.


----------



## HereticFA (Dec 6, 2011)

Lamia said:


> Times have changed and some of us don't like the state dictating to us how to live our lives under the guise of concern for our health, wealth or benefit.


We've entered an age of citizens and leaders without common sense (or who have a hidden agenda). Just because a currently targeted "war on X" is in vogue, that seems to give license to overlook secondary and tertiary effects of the current "solutions". As long as the targeted "X" is corrected, all will be forgiven by society and screw the actual victim. If anything goes wrong, just blame the victim.

To me the most frustrating part of this thread is how so many here support effectively "arresting" the VICTIM. If it's in the kid's interest to protect them from an obesigenic environment, then address the ones who are making it that way. Leaving the actual perpetrators in the relative comfort of their daily routines while the victim is uprooted and spirited away is what I find so objectionable. No, I'm not saying to arrest the parent and leave the kid(s) living alone. But focusing on those with legal responsibility for establishing and maintaining the kid 's environment is the proper approach. I'd rather see fines and penalties applied rather than removal from the home. (Since the kid was put into a foster home, I wonder what the kid's juvenile record shows, "unauthorized caloric intake", "illegal BMI", or just "rebels against authority"?)

Abrupt lifestyle changes don't last, they just disrupt life and make a mess, like an explosion. If you release a lot of energy over time you can accomplish work. If you release a lot of energy very fast, you have an explosion. Unlearning the desire for poor quality foods and learning new "favorite foods" and developing new family holiday recipes takes time, at least two to more than five years. Furthermore, everyone should expect "setbacks" along the way. It will not be a linear progression but fraught with gains and losses over time with the average trending in the right direction. 




Isa said:


> Maybe because some remember what it was like to _be_ the fat kid and those memories are not so pleasant. Personally, I would not wish that negative experience on any child.


If that is what you really believe, maybe you should support disciplining pregnant women who fail to follow nutritional guidelines and gain too much weight during pregnancy. Many studies now show that is where a lot of the cases of obesity begin, in the womb. (My belief, however, is that even "optimum nutrition" for pregnant women will still lead to kids prone to easy weight gain. Government nutritional guidelines are an overlooked part of the "obesity" equation.)

So many posts here seem to imply the mom can fully control what the kid eats as if she were feeding an infant or the family pet. At best she can only influence what the kid eats. Once a kid gets to be older than age 2, personal will enters the picture. I think that's actually when "political will" also enters the picture, not just at age 18 when they can exercise that will at the societal level and vote. The personal will always be the political.

While I'm sure we'll never know the true details of the case, the stances taken by so many here based on just the hypothetical situations tells me most here just don't get fat acceptance. It's not about gaining or maintaining weight. It's about avoiding emotional abuse because of weight. It's about avoiding weight loss methods that cause more loss of money than weight after ten years. It's about avoiding weight loss methods with complications that are as (or more) serious than the "obesity related diseases" that you are trying to avoid by weight loss. Fat acceptance is about not fleeing from fat in such a blind fear that you fail to see where you are headed on your escape route.


----------



## bigmac (Dec 6, 2011)

KHayes666 said:


> 1. The kid can barely move. Its not about dieting its about EXERCISE. *I ate my fair share of McDonalds*, Burger King and steak/potatoes but because I got off my ass and went to the park, I wasn't 200 pounds. My parents would take me to the park, got me involved in sports and other things to keep me active. You don't have to put kids on a diet to make them lose weight but *taking them to a park with other children would be a good start.*
> 
> 2. No, foster care isn't perfect but it doesn't have to be. The point is *if foster parents can get the kid healthier* when the real parents couldn't, they did their job.
> 
> Again, once more for the hard of hearing....*this is NOT about size acceptance*, this is the health and welfare of children.



-- We've all eaten our share of junk and very few of us had enough exercise. Regardless some of us are fat -- some not. I was always the fattest kid in my elementary school classes (over 100 pounds in the first grade // over 200 by the sixth grade). I was fat despite the fact my parents provided very healthy food and despite the fact I was active (bike riding, sports, chasing the dog around). I drew a short straw when it comes to being fat. The kid in question drew an even shorter straw. The fact that you were not fat is all very nice but totally irrelevant. 

-- You assume that there's a park nearby. In rich cities like Boston there are (taxes from rich neighborhoods fund parks and rec even in poor areas). However, there are many cities and towns without any safe public places (I live in one). And again why would you assume that a couple of hours a week at the park would turn this fat kid into a thin kid -- its not that simple.

-- One more time -- foster parents will not be able to "help" this kid -- the only weight loss program that doesn't have a greater than 90% failure rate is WLS -- are you advocating WLS for an eight year old? 

-- And yes it is about size acceptance. Social Services is treating the child's weight as a moral failure. They (and you) are working under the assumption that this kid wouldn't have been fat but for poor parenting. Would we take a child away from his parents because someone determined he was too ugly, or too dumb, too tall, or too gay -- of course not. *But because of a mistaken belief that being fat is a moral failure or lifestyle choice some folks feel perfectly justified in using the power of the state to destroy a family. If this isn't a size acceptance issue I don't know what is!!! *


----------



## bigmac (Dec 9, 2011)

I just found this 10 year old New York Times article about _Anamarie Regino_ -- the fat girl New Mexico social workers took into custody. Its long (ten pages) and detailed but definitely worth the effort to read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/08/magazine/watching-her-weight.html?pagewanted=1


The assumptions jumped to by doctors and social workers were astounding. Truly a scary Big Brother tail.


----------



## moore2me (Dec 9, 2011)

bigmac said:


> I just found this 10 year old New York Times article about _Anamarie Regino_ -- the fat girl New Mexico social workers took into custody. Its long (ten pages) and detailed but definitely worth the effort to read.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/08/magazine/watching-her-weight.html?pagewanted=1
> 
> ...



Thanks for pointing out that article, Big Mac.

You are right. I had no idea a single family could be lined up the the US government's crosshairs and pounded down by big government. And to think it was all over one little girl who was like a baby antelope around the bureaucratic lions.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 9, 2011)

One thing that made no sense was the article says they suspect the kid had Prader-Willi Syndrome. PW kids have a spare chromosome like Downs Syndrome kids. It's not a clinical diagnosis; you can tell with a blood test. My friend's daughter has it and they knew from the tie she was a baby.

Yes the article was sad, but it's a safe guess that there have been instances of kids being taken away for suspected abuse when they really did just bruise easily or had unexplained genital bleeding that looked like abuse. I still say there's no epidemic (the article is a decade old!)of fat kids being seized from their parents.

Additionally, the number of kids who are fat due to a mysterious medical condition that nobody can diagnose or understand is miniscule. In my time at Dims, there have been at least 2 threads started called "Why are you fat?" That invite posters to answer that question. Most responses, and this is from fat peole themselves, contain all or part lifestyle. IOW, in the majority of human bodies, weight can be affected by eating and moving. Maybe the kid in Ohio has an unexplained medical condition, but it's way way way more likely that changes in eating and exercising habit can improve his health.


----------



## bigmac (Dec 9, 2011)

LoveBHMS said:


> One thing that made no sense was the article says they suspect the kid had Prader-Willi Syndrome. PW kids have a spare chromosome like Downs Syndrome kids. It's not a clinical diagnosis; you can tell with a blood test. My friend's daughter has it and they knew from the tie she was a baby.
> 
> Yes the article was sad, but it's a safe guess that there have been instances of kids being taken away for suspected abuse when they really did just bruise easily or had unexplained genital bleeding that looked like abuse. I still say there's no epidemic (the article is a decade old!)of fat kids being seized from their parents.
> 
> Additionally, *the number of kids who are fat due to a mysterious medical condition that nobody can diagnose or understand is miniscule.* In my time at Dims, there have been at least 2 threads started called "Why are you fat?" That invite posters to answer that question. Most responses, and this is from fat peole themselves, contain all or part lifestyle. IOW, in the majority of human bodies, weight can be affected by eating and moving. Maybe the kid in Ohio has an unexplained medical condition, but it's way way way more likely that changes in eating and exercising habit can improve his health.




The highlighted portion is dead wrong!!! We know so little about why some people get fat while others in the same environment don't that it would not be a stretch to say that almost all fat people suffer from a "mysterious medical condition."

Being fat is no more a "lifestyle" choice than being gay is. Some gay folks choose to embrace their gayness in flamboyant ways (more power to them). Likewise there are many fat people who after years of repression decide to eat whatever the hell they want. Such people do indeed sometimes get fatter -- but just as often they don't gain additional weight -- again we don't know why some fat folks get ever fatter while some remain stable.

With regard to children we have no idea why some kids are picky eaters, while some eat almost anything. Why some kids automatically limit their intake, while others are always hungry.

Reality is not nearly as neat and tidy as your preconceptions.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 10, 2011)

I strongly doubt most fat people believe they suffer from a mysterious medical condition.

Really.


----------



## bigmac (Dec 11, 2011)

LoveBHMS said:


> I strongly doubt most fat people believe they suffer from a mysterious medical condition.
> 
> Really.



Really? I put the term in quotes. My point was that we know very little about obesity. Far to little to justify the removal of fat kids.


We don't know why one sibling turns out fat while his or her brothers and sisters remain thin. Almost all of us eat things we shouldn't but only some of us get fat again we don't know why. Very few of us exercise enough but one more time only a few of us get really fat.


----------



## lost_lenore (Jan 2, 2012)

This is obviously a pretty contentious thread... but I find it really quite odd that so many proponents of this child being taken away (the boy, not the girl with PW syndrome) keep making a distinction between fat and obese..

my son was underweight at birth to about 3... then chunked up to normal sized until he hit 10... at which point, for no recognizable reason... he tripled in weight. he went from average sized to morbidly obese... it was bizarre. he had his hormone levels tested, every blood test known to modern medicine... and we came up with nothing. 

so i did the only thing i could do... nothing. his eating habits had not changed... nor had his physical activity schedule... everything was the same, except for him... 

he also developed sleep apnea during this time... as well as asthma, which required treatment.

he had a cpap machine and an inhaler as well as a nebulizer for breathing treatments... he was a mess.

but there was nothing i could do.. 

this was in 2004. 

my son will be turning 18 in a few short weeks... and is healthy, attending his first year of college, hasn't used a cpap or nebulizer in about 7 years (after approx. a year of use) and is chubby, but by no means obese. He's also 6'5".

so it feels a bit personal to have someone say that another child in such a similar situation should be removed from his home... 

Gaining weight isn't a diagnosis of anything.. It's just not. It's a symptom. So figure it out... do whatever you need to do, run the tests and consult the doctors... but if (and i say 'if' because i don't know these parents and that child, or their story personally) there's nothing being done to CAUSE that weight gain... what are the grounds for removal?

simply being present when it's happening, doesn't seem like causality to me. 

but i might be too biased to be objective... i can't tell.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 2, 2012)

lost_lenore said:


> ...
> 
> Gaining weight isn't a diagnosis of anything.. It's just not. It's a symptom. So figure it out... do whatever you need to do, run the tests and consult the doctors... but if (and i say 'if' because i don't know these parents and that child, or their story personally) there's nothing being done to CAUSE that weight gain... what are the grounds for removal?
> 
> ...



Excellent post! You summed it up great. 

Unfortunately the social workers (and some people on this board) are getting it backwards. They are assuming that because the kid is super fat the mother must be negligent.

To make matters even worse, this type of removal actually discourages parents from seeking medical treatment/diagnosis/help for fat kids. If doctors are going to report parents of fat kids to social services said parents are not going to take their kids to the doctor.


----------



## KHayes666 (Jan 2, 2012)

bigmac said:


> Really? I put the term in quotes. My point was that we know very little about obesity. Far to little to justify the removal of fat kids.
> 
> 
> We don't know why one sibling turns out fat while his or her brothers and sisters remain thin. Almost all of us eat things we shouldn't but only some of us get fat again we don't know why. *Very few of us exercise enough but one more time only a few of us get really fat.*



I dunno why I came back to this thread but Loves is right.

Depends on WHAT you're eating and HOW MUCH. I can have a cheeseburger then run outside to the playground meanwhile my brother can have 3 cheeseburgers and then sit on his ass and play video games. Yes we both ate something we "shouldn't" but we both chose different paths after.

I have a set of twins as friends, one of them is fat and the other isn't. One eats and rarely exercises and the other really doesn't eat much. Their genetics are exactly the same but they live their lives differently. I'm sure if my thin friend ate as much as the sibling my friend would be just as fat.

This is not the case for everyone, but for people who say obesity is a mystery....ha!


----------



## HereticFA (Jan 11, 2012)

KHayes666 said:


> I have a set of twins as friends, one of them is fat and the other isn't. One eats and rarely exercises and the other really doesn't eat much. Their genetics are exactly the same but they live their lives differently. I'm sure if my thin friend ate as much as the sibling my friend would be just as fat.



And I suspect the thin friend CAN'T eat as much as the fatter sibling. Likewise, if the fatter sibling ate as little as the thinner one, I suspect he'd be hungry all the time. Therein lies the possible issue in their case- satiety.

"Obesity" is so multifaceted in origin but singular in symptom.


----------



## mithrandirjn (Jan 11, 2012)

I'm sorry, but did I just read fat being equated with homosexuality? Really?

It's fine to say that some people are more predisposed to having wider frames, having slower metabolisms, or having more stubborn belly fat/thigh fat/whatever fat, but putting it on the same plane as sexual orientation smacks of avoiding responsibility for one's lifestyle, or the health of one's family. Barring a very, very tiny percentage of people, obesity doesn't "just happen". It doesn't mean that obese people can't be healthy, but the vast majority of human beings don't develop body fat for mysterious reasons.


----------



## Blackhawk2293 (Jan 12, 2012)

mithrandirjn said:


> I'm sorry, but did I just read fat being equated with homosexuality? Really?
> 
> It's fine to say that some people are more predisposed to having wider frames, having slower metabolisms, or having more stubborn belly fat/thigh fat/whatever fat, but putting it on the same plane as sexual orientation smacks of avoiding responsibility for one's lifestyle, or the health of one's family. Barring a very, very tiny percentage of people, obesity doesn't "just happen". It doesn't mean that obese people can't be healthy, but the vast majority of human beings don't develop body fat for mysterious reasons.




Ok yes, I think equating it with sexual orientation is going a bit far. 

But I just want to add that there are a number of psychotropic medications that can also result in massive weight gain. Considering that there is an increase in the amount of prescriptions of these drugs in dealing with children that present with challenging behaviors, why is this hardly ever mentioned when obesity is talked about? Especially childhood obesity?


----------



## KHayes666 (Jan 12, 2012)

Blackhawk2293 said:


> Ok yes, I think equating it with sexual orientation is going a bit far.
> 
> But I just want to add that there are a number of psychotropic medications that can also result in massive weight gain. Considering that there is an increase in the amount of prescriptions of these drugs in dealing with children that present with challenging behaviors, why is this hardly ever mentioned when obesity is talked about? Especially childhood obesity?



You make a great point because I've seen how anti-depressant medication blows people up like balloons but there's a counter question to be asked. Why the hell are 8-10 year olds taking anti-depressant medications to begin with? I can see aged 12 and up but if we're talking CHILDHOOD obesity, not pre-teens, then why are young children taking medication for a condition they probably haven't developed yet?

Now as children get older you're absolutely right in saying that kind of medication leads to sometimes massive weight gain (I've seen it happen) which is a problem, but when you're talking 8-10 year olds there must be pretty lousy parents to ok a child to be put on anti-depressants at such a young age.


----------



## Blackhawk2293 (Jan 12, 2012)

KHayes666 said:


> You make a great point because I've seen how anti-depressant medication blows people up like balloons but there's a counter question to be asked. Why the hell are 8-10 year olds taking anti-depressant medications to begin with? I can see aged 12 and up but if we're talking CHILDHOOD obesity, not pre-teens, then why are young children taking medication for a condition they probably haven't developed yet?
> 
> Now as children get older you're absolutely right in saying that kind of medication leads to sometimes massive weight gain (I've seen it happen) which is a problem, but when you're talking 8-10 year olds there must be pretty lousy parents to ok a child to be put on anti-depressants at such a young age.



Yeah I worked with a kid (he was 10 at the time) who was on multiple psychotropic medications when I was in Child Protection and he was well over 200 lbs, side effect of the medications, the fact that they put him on adult doses and the interaction between the different ones. The mother manipulated the system to have him put on the drugs so that she could control him and keep him with her. One of the worst cases of psychological abuse and physical harm (through poisoning) that I had ever seen. The kid's doing well now that he's away from her.


----------



## butch (Jan 12, 2012)

mithrandirjn said:


> I'm sorry, but did I just read fat being equated with homosexuality? Really?
> 
> It's fine to say that some people are more predisposed to having wider frames, having slower metabolisms, or having more stubborn belly fat/thigh fat/whatever fat, but putting it on the same plane as sexual orientation smacks of avoiding responsibility for one's lifestyle, or the health of one's family. Barring a very, very tiny percentage of people, obesity doesn't "just happen". It doesn't mean that obese people can't be healthy, but the vast majority of human beings don't develop body fat for mysterious reasons.



This queer here doesn't think that all cases of 'homosexuality' is something that one is 'born with.' I'm not the only one who believes that being attracted to the same gender isn't simply some genetic alteration or chemical variation for everyone, and so your repsonse is too essentialist to capture the variety of human experience.

I've been fat every single second of my life, and that isn't true about my sexuality, so why should I classify one identity as being 'out of my control' and the other one as being 'in my control' when I have no evidence that either is true? 

It wasn't that long ago (and still is happening, hello Marcus Bachmann) that most folks felt about 'homosexuality' in exactly the same way you describe fatness. Funny how we still don't have medical proof about the origins of gayness, and yet enlightened folks assume one must exist, and yet those same enlightened people refuse to entertain similar ideas about fatness.


----------



## mithrandirjn (Jan 13, 2012)

Blackhawk2293 said:


> Ok yes, I think equating it with sexual orientation is going a bit far.
> 
> But I just want to add that there are a number of psychotropic medications that can also result in massive weight gain. Considering that there is an increase in the amount of prescriptions of these drugs in dealing with children that present with challenging behaviors, why is this hardly ever mentioned when obesity is talked about? Especially childhood obesity?



Absolutely; there's no getting around how overmedicated society has become (especially for kids), how much crap gets pumped into a lot of our foods, all of that is more than valid, they're enormous reasons for concern. People still need to take personal responsibility for their own health (and if they don't like their size, big or small, it's on them act...sadly, nobody else is going to help), but it's definitely fair to say the deck gets stacked against people, often in ways they can't even anticipate. 

That said, I'm starting to think it's time I drop out around here. Not to say there aren't people with conditions, people born with physical/health complications, people who are stuck taking medicines that impact their weight, etc., but I really think we've crossed a line if we look at the majority of people and say "we don't know why people gain weight". Now we're entering the realm of willful denial. 

Truth: fat people shouldn't be discriminated against, shouldn't be assumed to be lazy or whatever, shouldn't be singled out over their size, and I fully believe people can be healthy at nearly any weight. What I can't buy into are arguments that arrive at a final conclusion that, again, outside of those with conditions, "we don't have any control over weight." Now reality has been shut out. 

Best of luck, but I can't get behind that at all.


----------



## Fat Brian (Jan 13, 2012)

mithrandirjn said:


> What I can't buy into are arguments that arrive at a final conclusion that, again, outside of those with conditions, "we don't have any control over weight." Now reality has been shut out.
> 
> Best of luck, but I can't get behind that at all.



Why is it such a leap to say that science really doesn't understand why people get fat? The diet industry and Big Pharma have so corrupted health science and medicine its amazing we know anything at all. They are more concerned with turning a profit than curing disease, as evidenced buy having a dozen ways to give old men boners but yet the cure for cancer eludes them. No one has said we have "no control" over weight but the ways we're told to control it don't work for everyone.

I believe we are far more complex than anyone is willing to admit and the causes for the differences among are currently beyond the reach of medical science. The debate on what causes fatness has been whittled down to the fallacy of calories in vs. calories out, and that is truly willful ignorance. Our bodies ARE NOT MACHINES, a simple calculation cannot explain how it reacts to food and what it does with it. We have allowed ourselves to be dehumanized to the point that we try to "fix" ourselves with a math problem.

You have a lot to learn about fat PEOPLE, sure, you can go to the paysite area and get your jollies and say you like fat women but you don't understand fat people.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 13, 2012)

mithrandirjn said:


> ...
> 
> People still need to take personal responsibility for their own health (and if they don't like their size, big or small, it's on them act...sadly, nobody else is going to help), but it's definitely fair to say the deck gets stacked against people, often in ways they can't even anticipate.
> 
> ...



Your mixing the issues. If a fat person -- who is fat for pretty much any reason -- is suffering as a result of their fat then yes it is up to them to do something if they want to change their condition. The problem is that the somethings prescribed by the diet industry and well meaning but ill-informed health professionals (diet and low intensity aerobic exercise) don't work.

If a fat person want's to become as close to thin as possible he or she needs to actually change there composition, physiology, and biochemistry of their body. They have to force their body to become something its not naturally. This can be done with a combination of very high intensity exercise and a high protein diet that excludes processed foods, simple carbs, and sugars.

A fat person who dedicates themselves to such a regiment forces multiple changes in his or her body; increased muscle mass and bone density, endocrine system changes (natural anabolic effect without synthetic steroids), and changed energy metabolism. This is essentially the Biggest Looser program. 

Such programs actually work -- however, there are multiple caveats.

-- You need to dedicate far more time and effort than most people have available. You need to train with the intensity of an elite athlete.

-- You need to maintain your regiment for the rest of your life. If you stop you'll get fat again in very short order.

-- Many people don't have the exercise tolerance required. They will be overcome by pain or injury.


----------

