Kids removed from family because of obesity

September 19 2011 16:00 in Food for kids, Weight Loss

Another horrible effect of the out-of-control obesity epidemic in Britain:

Parents of seven told: Your children are too fat, so you will never see them again

More

left
Stunning: Saturated Fat and the European Paradox 144
One Million Views on YouTube! 19
Low Carb Seems to be Healthy In Every Way 43
Guyenet, Taubes and why low carb works 78
The Problem With Low-Carb Bread 48
Dr McDougall in Shocking Vegan Interview 78
Why Calorie Counters are Confused 57
Will More Sugar Make Chocolate Healthier? 44
How Animals Eat Their Food 13
Lose Weight by Cutting Down on Dairy Products and Nuts 94
Bacon Poetry 12
A Tale of Two Meals 12
right

14 Comments

  1. 1
    OldSalt72
    September 19 2011 17:20
    I will bet money that the parents were following their Government's nutrition guidelines.
  2. 2
    Milla
    September 19 2011 17:39
    This is the worst reason for putting kids in a foster home I have ever heard of. It's absolutely disgraceful. Nothing short of evil!

    My guess is that socialworkers assume the parents are somehow sneaking in Candy bars and Coke to the kids when they fail to loose weight on the "healty" diet plan the nutritionists came up with ("Healthy pasta and potatoes"). Why else would the parents be denied all contact with their children? It's amazing that noone seems to have noticed that something like 99% fail to loose weight on a typical starchy low calorie diet.

    What if the kids fail to loose weight (very likely) in the foster home too? What then?

  3. 3
    Bex
    September 19 2011 18:14
    Shocking, though bear in mind this IS the Daily Fail, well known for reporting utter bollocks.....

    However, there is probably a grain of truth in it, and as we all know, the grain is most likely the problem. No doubt they are indeed told to eat their 6-11 servings of starch daily......

    Without wanting to sound like I condone being unhealthy though - if that is a pic of them and their kids, yes, they are fat, but they're not the worst I've seen, by a long shot!

  4. 4
    Jaime
    September 19 2011 18:43
    "We have tried very hard to do everything that was asked of us. My wife has cooked healthy foods like home-made SPAGUETTI bolognese and mince and POTATOES; but nothing we’ve done has ever been enough"

    Maybe the Government guidelines did not work, they still can blame them for not using more than they were eating.

  5. 5
    Kent
    September 19 2011 22:24
    This is not the "horrible effect" of an "obesity epidemic" this is a gross miscarriage of justice (should the report be accurate) of an over-zealous paternalistic government.
  6. 6
    Jennifer Snow
    September 19 2011 23:04
    I was going to say what Kent said. This kind of thing is the logical end result of socialized medicine--when the government pays the bill, it necessarily must dictate when/where/how/why the money gets spent. Your health is your life. So now it dictates your entire life.

    A lot to give up for a few "free" doctor visits, isn't it?

  7. 7
    Janknitz
    September 19 2011 23:28
    How extremely frightening!!!

    I hope their solicitor can find some expert witnesses that can make it clear to the court why the government nutritional guidelines are the problem, NOT the solution, and why these kids can't lose weight no matter how compliant their parents are with the nutritional parameters they have been given to work within.

    This is the terrifying result of the government getting involved in private affairs and I don't think this will be an isolated incident.

  8. 8
    Suz
    September 20 2011 0:29
    That's heartbreaking!
  9. 9
    Milla
    September 20 2011 5:27
    Jennifer Snow

    #6

    Please check your facts before going off against "socialized medicine" this kind of thing has happenend before in several states in America and has more to do with over-zealous social workers overstepping their their bounds.

    Here's one.

    http://video.aol.com/video/broken-home-good-morning-america/2471539746

    Google it and you will find more incidents in other states...

    By the way why would you rather have an insurance company (if you are lucky enough to have a policy) dictate the when/where/how/why the money gets spent? They are only in it for the money last I checked. This is how you end up paying more for less.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthca...

    Here in Sweden your MD get to decide what treatment is needed without having to go through a bureaucrat. What's so wrong with that?

  10. 10
    moreporkplease
    September 20 2011 21:15
    Dear Jennifer,

    I hear what you're saying. The UK and Canada have long suffered with intrusive nanny-government.

    But it's possible to have different models of society. There are other kinds of universal health-care, such as the German, Scandinavian or Swiss models, which are much more freedom- and patient-oriented.

    We here in the US hear mostly about Canada and the UK - but the truth is that everyone elsewhere understands these two are among the worst models for universal health care. No one anywhere wants to adopt Canadian or UK models.

    So we all agree this is over-reaching based on the terrible nutrition "science" conventional wisdom. Yet rather than just condemn, the issue is how can we all contribute to the food & health revolution Andreas is working so hard to foment? :)

    That's the positive way forward, together, no matter any poilitics! :)

  11. 11
    Dr J
    September 21 2011 17:38
    moreporkplease - I have to disagree with your opinion on the Canadian health care system. Consider that in Canada, nobody goes bankrupt because of disease, nobody is trapped in a job for fear of losing health benefits, nobody has to pay anything to see a doctor, get lab work done, go to the emergency room, have surgery or stay in a hospital. Yes, there may be a wait for non-emergency care and elective surgery. Big deal. If you have a serious problem, the system is there for you at no cost. There was a recent study which showed that physicians in the US get paid significantly more than Canadian docs for the same services. Yet, there is a net influx of US docs to Canada, not the reverse. This is an indicator that, even for less pay, it is better to practice medicine in a publicly funded single-payor system than in the alternative south of the border. Doctors understand this and are voting with their feet.
  12. 12
    moreporkplease
    September 22 2011 0:00
    Dr. J:

    Please notice I did not compare the US system to the UK or Canada systems. I compared them to other universal health-care systems. With deepest respect, you are responding to a criticism I did not make. :) We must all avoid the tired, reflexive arguments of politics-as-usual.

    If we actually look at the evidence -we must be evidence-based - from the world-standard 2010 WHO rankings, we will find Canada comes in at #30. You must agree this is not a stellar result. Germany, Switzerland and Sweden all rank more highly.

    The UK comes in at 18, also rather lackluster. If we are going to discuss effective universal systems for emulation, we should be looking at France, Italy, Austria, Japan, Norway, Iceland. (http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/)

    I truly don't mean to be contentious, Dr. J - I have the highest respect and admiration for you personally. Your contributions to this food and health revolution are stellar. So please understand my comments are completely neutral, and not directed to you or your amazing work at all. :)

    In comparison

  13. 13
    Dr J
    September 22 2011 3:48
    moreporkplease - I had a look at the link you provided. I am a little surprised that we are ranked below Morocco. Perhaps I don't understand the methodology. For instance, this is part of what they offer as an explanation:

    "Maximum attainable composite goal achievement was estimated using a frontier production model relating overall health system achievement to health expenditure and other non-health system determinants represented by educational attainment. Results of this analysis were largely invariant to model specification."

    Maybe I'm dense, but I'm afraid I just don't get it. At the same time, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't trade our health care system for that of Morocco.

  14. 14
    Jo
    September 23 2011 23:44
    I think some Americans have believed the Republican claims of 'death panels' and other bizarre rhetoric that come from the political right in the US. To be able to have access to a GP regardless of your age, employment status and previous health issues relieves people of a great deal of stress. You do not have to follow the doctor's advice if you don't want to, and in the UK you can pay to go private if you wish. You do have a choice. The NHS is not perfect, but I would prefer that to paying large amounts of money to an insurance company for the privilege of seeing a doctor.
up

Leave a Reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Pictures of participants through Gravatar

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.