Should parents of obese children face legal sanction?

Einhard

Most people acknowledge by now that smoking is one of the worst things one can do to one's body over a lifetime. It causes huge damages to the lungs and heart in particular, and approx 50% of smokers will die prematurely from related illnesses. It costs the state massively both financially (although, in fairness, smokers die younger and pay huge taxes on their addiction), and also in terms of social capital. Because of all this, the idea that a parent would allow or encourage a child to smoke is absolutely unacceptable, and any such parent would face a severe legal reprimand.

Obesity, too, is a hugely damaging condition. Unlike smoking which, in the main, affects the lungs and the heart, the effects of obesity are far broader. Practically every single illness or condition, with the exception of osteoporosis, is exacerbated by obesity. It leads directly to stroke, heart attack, diabetes. It leads to skin problems, problems with all the major organs. It leads, directly, to premature death. Not only that, but it's estimated to cost the state €4 billion a year in terms of the HSE alone.

And yet, 300 000 Irish kids are obese. That's about 20%, and the figure is still rising. The vast majority of these incidences are the direct responsibility of the parents. Kids become fat and obese because of the poor choices of the parents. In short, kids have their lives shortened and their quality of life reduced in the longterm, because of the actions of their parents. And yet, few people really bat an eyelid when they see parents accompanied by their tubby children waddling after them like fatten ducklings.

My question therefore, is should the parents of very fat or obese kids be treated the same way as parents who allow their kids to smoke, or engage in other very harmful activities? And if not, why not?

My (tentative) opinion is that, such parents should face some form of sanction.





TL;DR? Because obesity causes so many longterm health problems and lower life expectancy, and also costs the state huge amounts of money, should the parents of obese kids face legal sanction, in the same way that those who encourage their kids to smoke do?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

should lock parents up for not feeding their children enough vegetables, or allowing their children to develop bad eyesight, every filling or tooth removed should result in the same treatment for the parent but without anaesthetic, parents of children who die in accidents should have a limb amputated with rusty spoons, parents whose children achieve less than 90% in state exams should be forced to shoot their children in the gut as a lesson to both, parents of children who have sex before legal age should be hog tied and thrown into the jail cell of a randy prisoner overnight.



if we do all this, society will be solved.

Bassfish

Technically they can be brought to court. Social services would not get involved for the sole reason of a child being fat but if the obesity was indicative of general neglect, i.e a kid being given nothing but take away foods and being left to feed themselves, and it had gotten to a chronic stage, mommy or daddy could find themselves hit with a supervision order from the courts to take better care of the kid.

girl in the striped socks

Take the fat momma & the fat poppa & force them to take cooking classes. The kids might have some chance then of being handed proper home made food instead of over processed ****e out of the Chinese or the frozen food section.
The next time you are food shopping & you see an obese person, take a look at the food in their trolley. You would have a heart attack just gazing at it never mind eating it.

But yes I think there should be repercussions on the parents of obese kids.

krudler

Obese kids aren't fat, they're kidnap resistant.

daltonmd

No.

Given the results in the past as to what has happened to our children when the states gets involved, I believe that the only involvement should be through education.

We have to encourage parents and children that help is available without fear of prosecution. If parents are worried about being prosecuted then they aren't worried about the needs of their children. I believe that this would ultimately cause more problems down the line.


We have to look closely at the issue instead of trying to prosecute the very people we need to help the solve the issue.

Of the 20% of 9 year olds that are overweight, the majority of them are girls. They are also from a lower socio economical background.
It's also been shown that the better educated the parents are the healthier children are.

So again, education, not prosecution is the key.

Of course we do have to look at the parents behaviour, but we also have to look at how we promote/advertise food to our children. Walt Disney are pulling out of their long partnership with McDonalds and that is an indication of how these things are changing.

We also have to look at Supermarkets roles in this issue. How they promote crap food at low prices, sweets at the checkout or dotted around the aisles.

Food additives, hard to read/decipher labels, promotion of "healthy" foods that may look healthy on the surface but are sugar and salt leaden.

Take cereals, aimed exclusively at children which are possibly the worst thing a parent can feed their kids, bright colours,cartoon pictures, toy inserts - it's hard enough being a parent with having an entire worldwide rich powerful industry to fight against.

It has to be a multi-disciplined approach.

I'd rather see these compainies and our own state funded national TV station legally sanctioned before parents.

Yakuza

Soc/Politics is thataway

---

>
OP, did you actually expect a reasoned debate in AH?

Gummy Panda

Put the kids on a reality tv show - Fast animals, slow obese kids

"oh noes... I got honey on my legs"

snickerpuss

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

or allowing their children to develop bad eyesight.

What? By like poking their eyeballs? The whole sitting close to the tv thing isn't true ya know.

ZX7R

not all obesity is caused by over eating sometimes it is medical,Also the way the weight ratio index works is flayed,if your child plays ruby or boxing they could be classed as obese and yet have 0% fat,also what if your child is a runner or atleic they might have a weight that says there malnurshed and yet be 100% fit.This country is a nanny state no its worse, its like living in nazi germany and been a jew

Sky King

We also have to look at Supermarkets roles in this issue. How they promote crap food at low prices....

While I agree with most of what you said in your post, I don't accept this. The fruit and veg in aldi is DIRT cheap. You can buy enough apples for a kid for a week for €2 in a bag. A bag of spuds is about €3. Etc.

There's no excuse for harbouring fat kids other than ignorance / laziness.

hondasam

I think kids deserve a treat same as adults but healthy eating and exercise need to be encouraged from an early age.
This might seem unfair but obese kids tend to have overweight parent/s.

mikemac1

I struggle down the footpath at certain times of the day as half of it is taken up by cars parked on it.

Just abandoned anywhere, god forbid Johnny and Mary have to walk a few hundred metres, some of these would drive into the classroom if they could

Now I know some parents have to rush to work straight afterwards in the morning, fair enough.
But what about the evenings?


And I see hardly anyone in the local school cycling, do kids not bring bikes to school anymore?

girl in the striped socks

mikemac1 wrote: »

I struggle down the footpath at certain times of the day as half of it is taken up by cars parked on it.

Just abandoned anywhere, god forbid Johnny and Mary have to walk a few hundred metres, some of these would drive into the classroom if they could

Now I know some parents have to rush to work straight afterwards in the morning, fair enough.
But what about the evenings?


And I see hardly anyone in the local school cycling, do kids not bring bikes to school anymore?

Kids aren't allowed to walk, cycle or get a bus anywhere because of all the paedophiles hanging around the school entrance looking to snatch them.

ladypip

I think you are all assuming every child who is overweight has a lazy obese parent. I was an overweight child with two healthy siblings and two healthy parents, my mother gave me the same food as my siblings had, she cooked a home made dinner every night, we had healthier lunches than most kids in the eighties going to school, I didn't secretly eat, I was brought to nutritionists and specialist drs at a young age because of my weight.

Two points I will make about this;
1. It was discovered I had a hormonal disorder which affects how fat is absorbed by the body but only in later life when it started affecting my menstrual cycle.

2. My confidence was destroyed by constantly having to deal with comments and going to " special drs" and I began to feel that if I was going to be fat I might as well have the benefit of eating all the nice things everyone thought I was eating in the first place, so I did and became a very overweight teenager as a result.

If I had been left alone and encouraged to throw myself into sports I'm positive it would have been more beneficial to me than all the attention I was given for my abnormal weight gain.

While I do agree that some parents could stand to educate themselves about nutrition and exercise for themselves and their children. Don't tar everyone with the same brush and please don't think that every overweight parent has an overweight child its simply not true. My son is very healthy has a great attitude toward food and loves sport, maybe I was extra vigilant because I didnt want the same experiences for him as I had.

Can you imagine the guilt and shame a child would feel if their parent was brought to court because they are obese?

Immaculate Pasta

Public flogging with a big wet fish is the way to go. :cool:

mikemac1

ladypip wrote: »

Two points I will make about this;
1. It was discovered I had a hormonal disorder which affects how fat is absorbed by the body

I knew a class-mate like that too, it happens alright

But it's a tiny percentage
For everyone else, children and parents it's lifestyle that has them in their condition

ladypip

mikemac1 wrote: »

I knew a class-mate like that too, it happens alright

But it's a tiny percentage
For everyone else, children and parents it's lifestyle that has them in their condition

That was only half of my point, I was trying to convey the point of an overweight child. Drawing attention to the fact that I was overweight and getting special treatment for it done more harm than good.

Gummy Panda

ladypip wrote: »

mikemac1 wrote: »

I knew a class-mate like that too, it happens alright

But it's a tiny percentage
For everyone else, children and parents it's lifestyle that has them in their condition

That was only half of my point, I was trying to convey the point of an overweight child. Drawing attention to the fact that I was overweight and getting special treatment for it done more harm than good.

For you though. What we are doing now isn't working so we do need to take steps

Eoin247

There has been much debate in the UK about a related topic. Should obese people/smokers or the like who made these lifestyle choices be allowed to use public health services and use taxpayer money for related diseases? I think they shouldn't.

In the post above me, you have an exceptional case. A doctors note would suffice to show that you had a hormonal disorder and that being obese wasn't your choice.

information is the key

there are enough intelligent adults out there who think they're being healthy by eating bran flakes, special k, or nutrigrain bars as it is - it's no wonder kids will be fed muck if this is the norm for people

mikemac1

mikemac1 wrote: »

I struggle down the footpath at certain times of the day as half of it is taken up by cars parked on it.

Just abandoned anywhere, god forbid Johnny and Mary have to walk a few hundred metres, some of these would drive into the classroom if they could

Now I know some parents have to rush to work straight afterwards in the morning, fair enough.
But what about the evenings?


And I see hardly anyone in the local school cycling, do kids not bring bikes to school anymore?

No, kids don't walk or bike to school anymore because they stand a real risk of being run over by the parents of their classmates who are being driven to school.

Funny really, when I went to school, only the rich kids were brought in by car!

ladypip

Steps are being taken, but the results wont show themselves until the current generation are adults, Most if not all schools have a healthy lunch policy ensuring children are eating a good lunch coupled with food education. Some schools have a breakfast club where children can receive a healthy breakfast this would be most beneficial to children of parents who are the stereotypical lazy uneducated parent.

My four year old done a healthy eating week in play school which was then followed by a fruit on Friday program, where every child had to bring a piece of fruit on a Friday and eat it. Most of them had fruit everyday but there were a couple of children who only had fruit on a Friday.

Things are being done to educate parents through their children as well.

Education is key its the solution to most problems.

Giselle

Einhard wrote: »

Because of all this, the idea that a parent would allow or encourage a child to smoke is absolutely unacceptable, and any such parent would face a severe legal reprimand.

What severe legal reprimands do the parents of teen smokers face?

I see hordes of young teenagers smoking after school lets out, but I've never ever heard of a parent being prosecuted for it.

Einhard

Einhard wrote: »

TL;DR? Because obesity causes so many longterm health problems and lower life expectancy, and also costs the state huge amounts of money, should the parents of obese kids face legal sanction, in the same way that those who encourage their kids to smoke do?

The message is unlikely to get through until parents start to bury their middle aged children!
Reminding them that they will remove years off their children’s life expectancy, may get the message through to some people.

up for anything

Einhard wrote: »

My question therefore, is should the parents of very fat or obese kids be treated the same way as parents who allow their kids to smoke, or engage in other very harmful activities? And if not, why not?

TL;DR? Because obesity causes so many longterm health problems and lower life expectancy, and also costs the state huge amounts of money, should the parents of obese kids face legal sanction, in the same way that those who encourage their kids to smoke do?

I didn't know that there were legal sanctions applied to those people who encourage their children to smoke. What are they?

Should those same legal sanctions be applied to people who encourage their children to drink alcohol by their own example, by having it readily available in the home, by allowing them to go out to pubs clutching fake/borrowed id before the legal age of drinking, by never punishing them for getting pissed unless maybe they are brought home by the police or carried home by their friends, by allowing house parties to take place/dropping their children off at them where those same underage drinkers arrive clutching a six pack of Wicked, cider or a bottle of Jack Daniels which now seems to be the preferred method of obtaining fun/oblivion by both sexes at an early age. Alcohol does as much damage as both obesity and smoking. That isn't going to happen then because it would mean a large proportion of the adult population in this country would have to curtail their own drinking and re-educate their own attitudes towards alcohol.

mikemac1 wrote: »

some of these would drive into the classroom if they could....

Now I know some parents have to rush to work straight afterwards in the morning, fair enough.
But what about the evenings?


And I see hardly anyone in the local school cycling, do kids not bring bikes to school anymore?

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

Kids aren't allowed to walk, cycle or get a bus anywhere because of all the paedophiles hanging around the school entrance looking to snatch them.

Fair comments. However, those parents who have been at work all day might face the same time constraints in the afternoons and evenings - varying pick up times from primary school, secondary school and childminders - having to supervise homework, after school activities, cook, clean, laundry, bath times, bedtimes, prepare for the next day on the same hamster wheel. That may not allow time for a brisk, healthy walk home from school.

Also it is very easy to put down parental fears of pedophiles and abductions when such events are may be very rare but all it takes is one to destroy and hurt a family for a very, very long time. I would hazard a guess that Philip Cairns' parents wish that they had driven him back to school that day.

Gummy Panda

bluewolf wrote: »

information is the key

there are enough intelligent adults out there who think they're being healthy by eating bran flakes, special k, or nutrigrain bars as it is - it's no wonder kids will be fed muck if this is the norm for people

But my kids need bran flakes for fibre!!!!

/doesn't feed kids veg

dark crystal

Yes, get the nanny state to police what parents feed their kids at home. That'll definitely work.

Jester252

Giselle wrote: »

What severe legal reprimands do the parents of teen smokers face?

I see hordes of young teenagers smoking after school lets out, but I've never ever heard of a parent being prosecuted for it.

Having their lungs filled with Tar?
Life in-prison?

monkeypants

Bring on the Lard Court. Of course, the judge and all the other staff involved will be thin and fit so as to set a good example.

Eoin247

Jester252 wrote: »

Having their lungs filled with Tar?
Life in-prison?

Life in prison for your teenager smoking? If that were the case there would be more prisoners than workers in Ireland 3/4 of the teenagers i know, or go to school with, smoke.

daltonmd

Sky King wrote: »

While I agree with most of what you said in your post, I don't accept this. The fruit and veg in aldi is DIRT cheap. You can buy enough apples for a kid for a week for €2 in a bag. A bag of spuds is about €3. Etc.

There's no excuse for harbouring fat kids other than ignorance / laziness.

Promotion of crap food such as crisps, sweets, chocolate, suger laden drinks are much more appealing to children than cheap fruit.

I have yet to witness a child throwing a strop at a fruit stand demanding that their parents buy them apples.

They could give the fruit away for free and parents could take the fruit for free- it's getting the parents and kids educated enough to eat them that's the problem.

Einhard

daltonmd wrote: »

No.

Given the results in the past as to what has happened to our children when the states gets involved, I believe that the only involvement should be through education.

I'm not suggesting that the state intervene and remove the kids to industrial schools, but rather that parents face some for of sanction, or perhaps community service for those on lower income.

We have to encourage parents and children that help is available without fear of prosecution. If parents are worried about being prosecuted then they aren't worried about the needs of their children. I believe that this would ultimately cause more problems down the line.

If a child is morbidly obese, then I would argue that the parents aren't sufficently concerned about that child's welfare.

We have to look closely at the issue instead of trying to prosecute the very people we need to help the solve the issue.

I'm not arguing that this would be a panacea for the problem, but parental responsibility should be something that is expected of parents.

Of the 20% of 9 year olds that are overweight, the majority of them are girls. They are also from a lower socio economical background.
It's also been shown that the better educated the parents are the healthier children are.

I accept that overweight and obese kids are more likely to be from a lower socio-economic background, but I don't really see that as a valid excuse. If it were, then obesity would have been a long-term problem in Irish society, and that's simply not the case. During the height of the boom, the most prosperous era in irish history, more Irish kids than ever were obese and overweight. So, while I agree that it's more difficult to eat healthily when one is poor, I don't think that can be used to give a blanket absolution to parents.

Also, in a recent survey on this issue, while 30% of "lower class" kids were overweight, 17% were from higher socio-economic groups. I take your point about education etc, but I think that this can be overdone, and tends to substitute parental responsibility for societal responsibility.
So again, education, not prosecution is the key.

Of course we do have to look at the parents behaviour, but we also have to look at how we promote/advertise food to our children. Walt Disney are pulling out of their long partnership with McDonalds and that is an indication of how these things are changing.

We also have to look at Supermarkets roles in this issue. How they promote crap food at low prices, sweets at the checkout or dotted around the aisles.

I agree with this. But too often, we seek to blame the supermarkets and the advertising industry when we should be demanding more of parents. I don't think it's legitimate to blame Burger King for the fact that a 5 year old child is obese. I know I probably sound like a crusty old Tory here, but whatever happened to parental responsibility.

Take cereals, aimed exclusively at children which are possibly the worst thing a parent can feed their kids, bright colours,cartoon pictures, toy inserts - it's hard enough being a parent with having an entire worldwide rich powerful industry to fight against.

Ah now, I think is slightly hyperbolic. If a parent can't say no to a 5 year old child when it comes to what the parent is buying, then I think their parental skills are pretty comprimised to be honest.

It has to be a multi-disciplined approach.

Absolutely. I agree that advertising should be regulated, and perhaps that a sugar tax could be introduced, but I also think that a mutli-strand approach should also mean that parents who consistently refuse to take responsibility for the health and welfare of their children should face some sanction.

I'd rather see these compainies and our own state funded national TV station legally sanctioned before parents.

So if my child is morbidly obese at 8 years old, it's Burger King's fault and RTE's fault, but not mine? I think is a frankly rather strange attitude. Should parents be absolved of any and all responsibility in the face of these nefarious outside influences?

ZX7R wrote: »

not all obesity is caused by over eating sometimes it is medical,Also the way the weight ratio index works is flayed,if your child plays ruby or boxing they could be classed as obese and yet have 0% fat,also what if your child is a runner or atleic they might have a weight that says there malnurshed and yet be 100% fit.

I agree. But considering the massive increase in obesity over the past few years, it's pretty obvious that most of that is to do with lifestyle. If one has legitimate health issues, then fair enough- obviously parents in that instance would not face sanction.

This country is a nanny state no its worse, its like living in nazi germany and been a jew

Yeah. seeking to prevent parents inflicting a lifetime of health problems and a lower life expectancy on their kids is exactly like the Holocaust. I really dislike these guys, and don't think I've ever used one, but in this instance it's richly deserved: :rolleyes:

ladypip wrote: »

I think you are all assuming every child who is overweight has a lazy obese parent. I was an overweight child with two healthy siblings and two healthy parents, my mother gave me the same food as my siblings had, she cooked a home made dinner every night, we had healthier lunches than most kids in the eighties going to school, I didn't secretly eat, I was brought to nutritionists and specialist drs at a young age because of my weight.

Two points I will make about this;
1. It was discovered I had a hormonal disorder which affects how fat is absorbed by the body but only in later life when it started affecting my menstrual cycle.

2. My confidence was destroyed by constantly having to deal with comments and going to " special drs" and I began to feel that if I was going to be fat I might as well have the benefit of eating all the nice things everyone thought I was eating in the first place, so I did and became a very overweight teenager as a result.

If I had been left alone and encouraged to throw myself into sports I'm positive it would have been more beneficial to me than all the attention I was given for my abnormal weight gain.

While I do agree that some parents could stand to educate themselves about nutrition and exercise for themselves and their children. Don't tar everyone with the same brush and please don't think that every overweight parent has an overweight child its simply not true. My son is very healthy has a great attitude toward food and loves sport, maybe I was extra vigilant because I didnt want the same experiences for him as I had.

Can you imagine the guilt and shame a child would feel if their parent was brought to court because they are obese?

Ok, just to be clear, I fully accept that some kids have health issues which cause them to gain weight. I mentioned osteoporosis in the OP. However, it's clear that the vast majority of obese kids are overweight due to lifestyle issues, which parents have a huge influence over.

Can you imagine the shame and self-image problems an obese child might feel?

Giselle wrote: »

What severe legal reprimands do the parents of teen smokers face?

I see hordes of young teenagers smoking after school lets out, but I've never ever heard of a parent being prosecuted for it.

If a parent were buying cigarettes for thier 10 year old, then yes, I imagine they would be prosecuted.

daltonmd

Einhard wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that the state intervene and remove the kids to industrial schools, but rather that parents face some for of sanction, or perhaps community service for those on lower income.

I didn't imply that you were, but you suggested legal sanctions and have only now clarified that. ALthough I fail to see how community service will help the parents?

Einhard wrote: »

If a child is morbidly obese, then I would argue that the parents aren't sufficently concerned about that child's welfare.

If they are not educated, poor and feeding their kids the wrong foods it does not mean parents are not concerned about their childrens welfare.





I

Einhard wrote: »

'm not arguing that this would be a panacea for the problem, but parental responsibility should be something that is expected of parents.

Yes, but if they don't realise that they are doing something wrong? I think it is wrong to conclude that parents with overweight people are not concerned about their children.

Einhard wrote: »

I accept that overweight and obese kids are more likely to be from a lower socio-economic background, but I don't really see that as a valid excuse. If it were, then obesity would have been a long-term problem in Irish society, and that's simply not the case. During the height of the boom, the most prosperous era in irish history, more Irish kids than ever were obese and overweight. So, while I agree that it's more difficult to eat healthily when one is poor, I don't think that can be used to give a blanket absolution to parents.

I never said it was an excuse, it's a reason. I haven't seen that report do you have a link? Thanks.

Einhard wrote: »

I agree with this. But too often, we seek to blame the supermarkets and the advertising industry when we should be demanding more of parents. I don't think it's legitimate to blame Burger King for the fact that a 5 year old child is obese. I know I probably sound like a crusty old Tory here, but whatever happened to parental responsibility.

I didn't blame Burgerking. Please show me where I blamed Burgerking?

You don't sound like a Tory - but you also don't sound like a parent (apologies if I am mistaken).
There is a huge advertisment industry out there that is paid billions from huge companies to advertise their products. They spend billions delving into the psyche of parents and children. Their ads are strategically targeted for the purpose of making money.

Einhard wrote: »

Ah now, I think is slightly hyperbolic. If a parent can't say no to a 5 year old child when it comes to what the parent is buying, then I think their parental skills are pretty comprimised to be honest.

Sorry, but if these cereals are advertised as "healthy" full of vitamins when on closer inspection they are full of sugar/salt - then it's misleading the parents.

Einhard wrote: »

Absolutely. I agree that advertising should be regulated, and perhaps that a sugar tax could be introduced, but I also think that a mutli-strand approach should also mean that parents who consistently refuse to take responsibility for the health and welfare of their children should face some sanction.

Which is what I said. Please tell me where there are parents who consistently refuse to take responsibility for their childrens health? That's a different agrument to the one you posed and it was should parents be sanctioned if their children are obese.

Any parent who consistently refuse to take action for their children. Full. Stop. Should face sanction. I never implied anything else.

Einhard wrote: »

So if my child is morbidly obese at 8 years old, it's Burger King's fault and RTE's fault, but not mine? I think is a frankly rather strange attitude. Should parents be absolved of any and all responsibility in the face of these nefarious outside influences?

I never said that - you agree with a "multi disciplined approach" yet say this? Again, I said ; "I'd rather see these compainies and our own state funded national TV station legally sanctioned before parents."

You are literally making up argements here. I never said any of the above - never implied it and would certainly never support it.

ladypip

Einhard wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that the state intervene and remove the kids to industrial schools, but rather that parents face some for of sanction, or perhaps community service for those on lower income.
If a child is morbidly obese, then I would argue that the parents aren't sufficently concerned about that child's welfare.

Absolutely. I agree that advertising should be regulated, and perhaps that a sugar tax could be introduced, but I also think that a mutli-strand approach should also mean that parents who consistently refuse to take responsibility for the health and welfare of their children should face some sanction

So a negligent parent is punished for their child's obesity, How do you honestly think that parent will now treat that child?

I'm not arguing that this would be a panacea for the problem, but parental responsibility should be something that is expected of parents.

I couldn't agree more but fear of punishment isn't going to make a bad parent a great parent with the knowledge and skills to change.

I accept that overweight and obese kids are more likely to be from a lower socio-economic background, but I don't really see that as a valid excuse. If it were, then obesity would have been a long-term problem in Irish society, and that's simply not the case. During the height of the boom, the most prosperous era in irish history, more Irish kids than ever were obese and overweight. So, while I agree that it's more difficult to eat healthily when one is poor, I don't think that can be used to give a blanket absolution to parents.

I think it was the more money less time attitude of the boom that destroyed home made food as the norm. Parents and teenagers with allot of disposable income and less and less time to cook turned to the fast fix, they could now afford to have the "treats" they used to get maybe once a month everyday.

Also, in a recent survey on this issue, while 30% of "lower class" kids were overweight, 17% were from higher socio-economic groups. I take your point about education etc, but I think that this can be overdone, and tends to substitute parental responsibility for societal responsibility.
So again, education, not prosecution is the key.


I agree with this. But too often, we seek to blame the supermarkets and the advertising industry when we should be demanding more of parents. I don't think it's legitimate to blame Burger King for the fact that a 5 year old child is obese. I know I probably sound like a crusty old Tory here, but whatever happened to parental responsibility.



Ah now, I think is slightly hyperbolic. If a parent can't say no to a 5 year old child when it comes to what the parent is buying, then I think their parental skills are pretty comprimised to be honest.

So if my child is morbidly obese at 8 years old, it's Burger King's fault and RTE's fault, but not mine? I think is a frankly rather strange attitude. Should parents be absolved of any and all responsibility in the face of these nefarious outside influences?

+1

I agree. But considering the massive increase in obesity over the past few years, it's pretty obvious that most of that is to do with lifestyle. If one has legitimate health issues, then fair enough- obviously parents in that instance would not face sanction.

Ok so the fat police come around to my house. Mammy and daddy have a doctors note to tell them i have a legitimate reason for being overweight. Do I get a special fat for a reason badge? Now all the children in school are asking how come my parents didnt get in trouble? Drawing more attention making me feel worse and worse.

Ok, just to be clear, I fully accept that some kids have health issues which cause them to gain weight. I mentioned osteoporosis in the OP. However, it's clear that the vast majority of obese kids are overweight due to lifestyle issues, which parents have a huge influence over.

Can you imagine the shame and self-image problems an obese child might feel?

I dont need to imagine that situation, I lived it and I can tell you with conviction that drawing so much attention to children with weight problems will do more harm than good.

ladypip

ha my multi quote was an epic fail!

paddyandy

Parents are not in charge like they used to be and parental authority has weakened over the decades eroded by the media agenda .This Agenda constantly bombards the viewers with Ads + Frequent suggestions as to how people can behave .It's quite subtle and covert and at times brazen .They have Companies in New York that teach advertising companies on ' Pester Power' and parents have a hard time these days coping without much support so they yield . The Children are manipulated all the time through this satanic device .Watch 'how the kids took over ' on utube and see for yourselves.

Irish Guitarist

Am I the only one that doesn't see overweight children everywhere? I keep hearing statistics such as one in every three children are obese but I don't see any more overweight kids now than I did twenty or thirty years ago.

christmas2012

If the parents are directly feeding them,like for example if a young person smokes,i wouldnt punish a parent,unless the parent is not feeding their habit,the same goes for their behaviour with friends,does the parent influence it or not,so its a tough one to prove whether the parent is doing it direclty or not.
For obesity though i would probably lean towards penalty,because the likelyhood that the parent is directly responsible is high..

paddyandy

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Am I the only one that doesn't see overweight children everywhere? I keep hearing statistics such as one in every three children are obese but I don't see any more overweight kids now than I did twenty or thirty years ago.

Familiarity breeds invisibility . When there is a lot about for long enough people don't notice it and it becomes the Norm .

Gummy Panda

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Am I the only one that doesn't see overweight children everywhere? I keep hearing statistics such as one in every three children are obese but I don't see any more overweight kids now than I did twenty or thirty years ago.

It really depends on area. I see it more in poorer areas tbh

Ms.M

I'm a teacher and in my school they serve burgers or hot-dogs at break, and chips and wedges at lunch.
It's disgusting. And that's a SCHOOL!

ladypip

ladypip wrote: »

ha my multi quote was an epic fail!

Put [/QUOTE] at the end of each quote.

Giselle

Why single out parents of the obese? Why not the parents of smokers or underage boozers. Both those are arguably more health damaging and are much easier to avoid than over eating.

Methinks this is another fat persecution thread.

Society as a whole doesn't suffer for a persons obesity, though it certainly does in terms of the pollution and annoyance of smoking and the anti-social behaviour engendered by underage drinking. And thats before the costs in individual health.

Its much easier to pick on the fat people though, isn't it?

And no, I'm not overweight.

JupiterKid

No - this is PC health fascist thuggery gone crazy.

I think the reason why there are many more overweight kids these days isn't due to diet - crisps, fizzy drinks and McDonalds were all around when I was a kid and I ate crap galore - but the big difference was that back the the 1980s kids were allowed to play outdoors all day long and got plenty of exercise in doing so.

Now parents are so paranoid about child safety that the kids are kept indoors and plonked in front of a telly - no exercise = fatter kids.

It's not rocket science.:rolleyes:

daltonmd

JupiterKid wrote: »

No - this is PC health fascist thuggery gone crazy.

I think the reason why there are many more overweight kids these days isn't due to diet - crisps, fizzy drinks and McDonalds were all around when I was a kid and I ate crap galore - but the big difference was that back the the 1980s kids were allowed to play outdoors all day long and got plenty of exercise in doing so.

Now parents are so paranoid about child safety that the kids are kept indoors and plonked in front of a telly - no exercise = fatter kids.

It's not rocket science.:rolleyes:

Don't disagree with you but I'd add that the fear of letting them out led to a boom in Computers, mobile phones, smart phones, Ipads, TV and now Social networking being used instead of outdoor activity - kids are on-line living a cyber life. It's a bigger issue, in my opinion, than obesity. There is a loss of social interaction which is a learned behaviour. Look at the rubbish posted on these sites, the bullying that goes on. Different ballgame.

Giselle

JupiterKid wrote: »

No - this is PC health fascist thuggery gone crazy.

I think the reason why there are many more overweight kids these days isn't due to diet - crisps, fizzy drinks and McDonalds were all around when I was a kid and I ate crap galore - but the big difference was that back the the 1980s kids were allowed to play outdoors all day long and got plenty of exercise in doing so.

Now parents are so paranoid about child safety that the kids are kept indoors and plonked in front of a telly - no exercise = fatter kids.

It's not rocket science.:rolleyes:

No, its not, but its also not pure paranoia either.

Back in the 80's and before, a good percentage of families had at least one parent who stayed home or at least worked part time. The kids could be sent out to play and reported home regularly or sent out the back with a football. But the parent was always aware of where they were and the kids knew what time to be back at. One parent at home meant more home cooked dinners from scratch, and less reliance on convenience food, and dinner took place at a table, not staggered in shifts as people get home from work. All those things promote good eating habits and good health.

Now as both parents work to keep the family afloat the kids are home after school with no supervision or sent to a minders if younger. If the kids are home alone the parents naturally prefer if they know they're in the house rather than out without anyone knowing what they're up to. Its very understandable, and few people have the choice or the inclination to stay home full time these days.

Its much more layered than a single answer or approach. Not that I claim to have any of the answers .

Forest Demon

I don't know what is happening with all the obese children. With the majority of parents being slim and all (NOT)

Its like that big mystery of why teens drink. I don't know where they get it from.

My point is if parents don't have healthy habits........

Most adults don't want to be fat themselves and I am sure blame themselves for their children being overweight. Society and peer pressure plays a part but at the end of the day parents are responsible for feeding their children. Its support and information that will make a difference.

Children should be weighed as part of development checks and parents should be educated in diet and requirements. If children are very overweight then they should be monitored. If children are very overweight and parents are not taking action then social workers should get involved. I am not sure where to go after that. After that it is getting into child abuse area but will Irish society face (and fund) this approach. I cant see it. If little action is taken when children die in state care or get abused by those in positions of authority then what action can we expect in this area. More of the same finger wagging and media bollox and no action.

Chuck Stone

Tax soda-pop, ring-fence the proceeds and use it for information campaigns so that parents of fat kids are stigmatized.

When a kid is morbidly obese it's simply a child protection issue (neglecting the health of the child) and so the state should intervene.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

When a kid is morbidly obese it's simply a child protection issue (neglecting the health of the child) and so the state should intervene.

While I agree in principle, in today's economic climate, what service will you sacrifice to enable this to happen?

Chuck Stone

Deleted User wrote: »

While I agree in principle, in today's economic climate, what service will you sacrifice to enable this to happen?

Make the soda-pop tax pay for it.