Credit: Bruce Thomson/Flickr
Full confession: I used to be a fat kid. I was a scrawny, sickly toddler until my concerned grandparents decided to plump me up. So, between the ages of three and five, I went from underweight to severely overweight.
According to a recent Associated Press release, an 8-year old boy from Cleveland Heights, Ohio, is being placed into foster care because his family has failed to control his weight, which the state has determined to be a form of “medical neglect.” Weighing slightly over 200 pounds, the boy suffers from severe obesity; most boys his age are only 60 pounds. Despite the mother’s protests that she has tried her best to help him, the state has determined that it is in the boy’s interest to be temporarily placed in a foster home. Cuyahoga County (my home county!) is of the opinion that putting children temporarily in foster care is more ethical than obesity surgery or other drastic recourses to promote weight loss.
This scenario raises an interesting ethical question: When is the state justified in taking children out of their parents’ custody?
I think we can all agree that in cases of neglect or abuse, the state is justified in its paternalism. Minors are not afforded full rights; thus, the state is the best arbiter of their well-being in cases where the parents have demonstrated clear incompetence.
Severe obesity however, is a more contentious case. Unlike other forms of neglect such as starvation or refusing a child medical care, failing to control a child’s weight is not the fault of the parent alone. There are behavioral and genetic factors involved. Although the details of this case have not been released due to privacy reasons, it is possible that the boy is genetically predisposed to obesity. It is possible that his mother has tried to compel him to exercise and eat less, but he refuses. In addition, obesity is not equivalent to starvation or lack of medical attention because it does not place the child in imminent danger. Given these circumstances, it would be unjust and most likely traumatic to remove the boy from his family.
Speaking from personal experience, my grandparents did not feed me to maliciously clog my arteries or “medically neglect” me. My weight spiraled out of control because I loved ice cream and candy (like every normal five-year old). Certainly, they tried to restrict my intake, but since when did children always do what their parents or guardians wanted?
We have to question: can the state do a better job? Although the Cuyahoga County social worker who has been in charge of this case for 20 months has determined that the boy will be better off separated from his mother, is foster care the most ethical way to help him lose weight? Is being in foster care better than having an indulgent mother who lets you eat too much? The state fails to take into account that the boy is happy and well-adjusted with his mother. Placing him foster care to protect his health seems likely to harm his psychosocial well-being, and the state should not be the one making this trade-off.
Allowing Ohio to take away children in cases of severe obesity sets a dangerous precedent. It implies that the state can discipline our children better than we can. Cuyahoga County is arguing that the state is justified because obesity is a precursor to serious medical problems in the future, but this line of thinking careens down a slippery slope. What is next? Taking your child away failing for school? Taking your child away for joining a gang? Taking your child away for having a severe eating disorder? Each of these also has grave future implications. Does Ohio, the new “nanny state” propose to babysit these children too?
This brings up an interesting idea about how much the government should interfere in personal or familial issues and how much power it has in situations like these. It is one thing if the guardians are purposefully overfeeding the child, or as I read in one news report, giving the child more food so he/she could accompany the guardian in eating. However, a situation like that is extremely rare. And, ultimately, who can say they know better about the reasons the child is obese than the guardian? While the government may think it is making a decision that is beneficial for the kid, it is probably causing more psychological harm removing him/her from family members. Although I do thing the government has a right to step in if there is substantial proof of intentional overfeeding for malicious reasons, in most cases, this matter is better left to the family to deal with.
maybe the question should be what right does anyone have for taking something of another whether a dog, cat or child without due process of law? if the government feels it has a case let them prove their side of the issue. proof of burden should never be on the one accused but on the accusor. in others words innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.
second what makes anyone believe that people in government are any better qualified or more moral or better suited or gods if you will to impose their opinions on others with the power of the state by force? really what different is there between gov of today and the gov of jesus day? the religious leaders, also their rulers with minimum interference by rome, had their nit picking rules and regulations that violated the law all the time. that is why jesus condemned them as offspring of vipers and hypocrites and whos teaching was poisonous to those forced to eat it. they sucked the life out of everyone else. they harassed the people to no end, robbed them of their money in “legal” ways. jesus called this being skinned and thrown about. they regulated the sabbath to death, made all sorts of rules, why? to protect the people? no they were arrogant and felt everyone else was incapable of knowing anything. they looked with contempt on the common man and regulated him to death to make themselves feel superior and because they were so full of hate jesus even called satan their father.. my guess is those making these nanny laws are the same, they hate people. they have to create some kind of way to feel superior more righteous more capable and smarter than anyone else and that they should dictate to others who to live. and getting more money is also a strong motivator too. you can’t rule over innocent people so you have to turn everyone into a criminal to justify rule/money/taxes etc.
rose
rose