rebecca puhl, Other, 01:54PM Jul 13, 2011
This week, JAMA published a commentary
(authored by Lindsey Murtagh and David Ludwig), discussing extreme
cases of childhood obesity where state intervention (e.g., child
protection services) may be warranted. While the authors wrote that
state intervention would not
be desirable or ethical for many obese children and that removal from
the home does not guarantee improved physical health, they propose that
“involvement of state protective services might be considered, including
placement into foster care in carefully selected situations”.
Perhaps not surprisingly, there has been significant media attention to this article.
This
editorial raises a very complex and difficult issue that must be
handled sensitively and without unfair bias. We cannot assume that
childhood obesity is child abuse, and we need to ensure that the
pervasive stigma that exists toward obese individuals does not color the
judgments of authority figures who are making decisions about obese
children and their families.
Unless
there is clear evidence that parents are truly incapable of caring for
their child, a child should not be removed from their family on the
basis of obesity alone. In making decisions about these families, the
same legal standards that are used for parental neglect or abuse in
other circumstances (unrelated to body weight) should be used, to ensure
that the focus is appropriately on the parents capability of caring for
their children – not on the child’s weight per se.
Obesity
may indeed be a sign of medical risk, but we need to be careful in our
understanding of what role the home environment plays, versus the larger
societal environment, the economics of food, and other major societal
conditions that have created obesity.
I
believe that the intentions of the JAMA article were to discuss how to
approach extreme cases of obesity where parental abuse and neglect may
be suspected, and the authors were not suggesting that all obese
children should be removed from their families. Unfortunately, the media headlines surrounding
this story suggest otherwise. Of course, the issue remains very complex
even if we limit the discussion to extreme, unlikely cases.
If
anything, this editorial and the resulting media response indicate the
need to find effective ways to support parents in their efforts to help
their children become healthier. This means we need to make it a
priority to change the societal conditions that have created obesity in
the first place, such as the fast food industry, widespread marketing
practices that target children and families with unhealthy foods, and
the economics and pricing of food which make healthier foods more
expensive, and unhealthy foods cheap and readily accessible.
There
simply is no magic pill to cure obesity – regardless of whether a child
is with or without their parents. We cannot ignore the complexity of
this issue, and
we must ensure that stigmatization does not play a role in determining
the fate of families who are affected by extreme obesity.
Rebecca Puhl, PhD is the Director of Research at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.
2 comments:
nike air max 2019
golden goose sneakers
nike air huarache
adidas nmd
jordans
james harden shoes
christian louboutin shoes
nike air max 270
michael kors outlet online
baseball jerseys
z7f97t7s73 u9a65a0n35 v7m85y4n67 e2m05p9n35 v1r04h7d73 j0d45q2j64
Post a Comment