Punish parents of obese children?

[nasor]

This thread was inspired by comments in another thread on not permitting parents to smoke around their children. The consensus seems to be that people shouldn’t be allowed to smoke around children because the second-hand smoke is harmful to their health.

Although I don't have any references handy, I'm sure it would be easy to show that obesity causes vastly more health problems than second hand smoke, and that obese children are far more likely to be obese adults. If people shouldn't be allowed to smoke around their kids, should it also be illegal for people to allow their children to become too fat? It’s not like it would be hard to enforce; just give all the kids a body fat measurement every few months and punish the parents who let their kids get too avoidably obese.

[General Zod]

It's not entirely the same thing. In one case you're directly exposing a child to a poison. In the other case, while fatty foods can lead to obesity, it's far more common to become obese through simple lack of exercise and physical activity. Since there's no single cause for obesity, as opposed to putting poison directly in someone's system, it's not nearly as clear-cut an issue.

What do you do for the children that actually do have genetic disorders and predispositions towards becoming obese, for example?

[nasor]

It's not entirely the same thing. In one case you're directly exposing a child to a poison. In the other case, while fatty foods can lead to obesity, it's far more common to become obese through simple lack of exercise and physical activity.

In the other thread people concluded that parents should not be allowed to do unnecessary things that substantially increase the likelyhood of their child having health problems. Of course, smoking is an action that harms children while tolerating obesity is usually more of an inaction on the part of the parents - although it could be argued that in many cases obesity is also caused by the actions of the parents, i.e. giving the child too much junkfood. But I don't really want to get caught up in an argument over whether or not smoking around your child is equivalent to allowing your child to be obese, I was just mentioning my question was inspired by another thread about parents mistreating their children.

Since there's no single cause for obesity, as opposed to putting poison directly in someone's system, it's not nearly as clear-cut an issue.

What do you do for the children that actually do have genetic disorders and predispositions towards becoming obese, for example?

That's why I specified avoidably obese in my post. I'm aware that there are some cases were genetic disorders greatly increase a person's predisposition toward obesity, but I suspect (although admittedly don't have any references) that the vast majority of obesity cases would be preventable if the child's parents simply insisted on a healthy, moderate diet and a reasonable amount of exercise. If a parent feels that they are doing all they can to keep their child healthy but are still failing, they could take the child to a doctor and get the condition certified in order to avoid whatever sanction the law mandated.

[Darth Wong]

This thread was inspired by comments in another thread on not permitting parents to smoke around their children. The consensus seems to be that people shouldn’t be allowed to smoke around children because the second-hand smoke is harmful to their health.

Although I don't have any references handy, I'm sure it would be easy to show that obesity causes vastly more health problems than second hand smoke, and that obese children are far more likely to be obese adults.

You can't directly compare second-hand smoke to letting your kid eat too much.

If people shouldn't be allowed to smoke around their kids, should it also be illegal for people to allow their children to become too fat? It’s not like it would be hard to enforce; just give all the kids a body fat measurement every few months and punish the parents who let their kids get too avoidably obese.

There is a difference, I think, between forcing others to breathe your poison and failing to enforce enough dietary discipline on them. Not that both are not bad things, but one is more akin to assault while the other is more akin to negligence.

[nasor]

There is a difference, I think, between forcing others to breathe your poison and failing to enforce enough dietary discipline on them. Not that both are not bad things, but one is more akin to assault while the other is more akin to negligence.

I was thinking of it more in terms of a "threshold of harm" for what should or should not be permitted. Being obese is probably at least as damaging to your health as second-hand smoke, so if exposing kids to second-hand smoke is considered too risky than surely allowing children to become obese should be too risky. I'm not saying that they are the moral equivalent of each other, I'm just saying it's strange that even though being obese is at least as bad for your health as inhaling second-hand smoke, no one seems to consider alowing your child to be obese to be child abuse, even though many people do consider smoking around children to be child abuse.

[General Zod]

In the other thread people concluded that parents should not be allowed to do unnecessary things that substantially increase the likelyhood of their child having health problems.

I don't know what thread you were reading, but the biggest objection to cigarette smoke around a child is that it's virtually immediately damaging. Any non-smoker being around enough smoke (especially in an enclosed area) will almost always want to get out of the vicinity and/or start coughing around it. In comparison eating a little extra food at dinner can hardly be shown to be as immediately damaging and harm causing in the long run. Especially when you consider that nicotine is physically addictive and can lead to a more or less irreversible disease (cancer, for example). Obesity is quite reversible.

Of course, smoking is an action that harms children while tolerating obesity is usually more of an inaction on the part of the parents - although it could be argued that in many cases obesity is also caused by the actions of the parents, i.e. giving the child too much junkfood. But I don't really want to get caught up in an argument over whether or not smoking around your child is equivalent to allowing your child to be obese, I was just mentioning my question was inspired by another thread about parents mistreating their children.

Giving them a little bit more food isn't necessarily neglect. . .and parents with an overweight child might be avoiding giving them a healthy diet, but there's no immediate and obvious cause the same way smoking in front of a child can be shown. There's also the cost factor to consider. It's far cheaper to add a few extra laws on the books and have officers enforce them than it would be to investigate every single case of obesity and make sure that it isn't in fact a result of neglect as opposed to some genetic thing. Who's really willing to foot that kind of bill?

[General Zod]

I was thinking of it more in terms of a "threshold of harm" for what should or should not be permitted. Being obese is probably at least as damaging to your health as second-hand smoke, so if exposing kids to second-hand smoke is considered too risky than surely allowing children to become obese should be too risky.

According to what studies? Or are these just 'facts' you're pulling out of your arse? I don't exactly agree with letting children become overweight, but comparing it to exposing them to an obviously harmful substance is hardly a fair comparison at all.

[Darth Wong]

I was thinking of it more in terms of a "threshold of harm" for what should or should not be permitted. Being obese is probably at least as damaging to your health as second-hand smoke, so if exposing kids to second-hand smoke is considered too risky than surely allowing children to become obese should be too risky. I'm not saying that they are the moral equivalent of each other, I'm just saying it's strange that even though being obese is at least as bad for your health as inhaling second-hand smoke, no one seems to consider alowing your child to be obese to be child abuse, even though many people do consider smoking around children to be child abuse.

What about "allowing" your child to smoke? There are limits to how much you can blame parents for a child's actions, and it's the child eating the food, not the parents.

[Lusankya]

There are also limits to the amount a parent can make a child eat healthily. Sure the parents can give them healthy lunches, and only feed them healthy food, but the child still may be able to trade their healthy lunch for chips and coke at school, and children are quite capable of stealing money from their parents so they can buy a bar of chocolate on the way home.

Then of course, it's also hard to make other people exercise. A parent may encourage their child to do sport, and they may even make it compulsory, but they can't make the child put any effort into it. A sufficiently lazy child will simply turn into the kid on the team who stands around in defence and never once lifts their pace above a fast walk. It's better than no exercise, but it's not a recipe for good health.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!