14 Stone - 8 year old boy

[Mrs Pauliebee]

Have to say the Tonight programme last night completely changed my view.

I originally thought, that's ridiculous, you can't take a child away from their Mother

because of his weight.  They just need help.

But then...they showed the story of the 12 Stone Dog who's owners were prosecuted,

the dog was taken away from them, given to the RSPCA to look after, dog lost weight,

they were charged, and then the dog returned to them on the understanding it never happened again.

Asks the question "Why treat a dog better than a child?"

From watching the programme, his mother is completely out of her depth and they are in a vicious

circle.  He's so big he can't walk the five minutes to school, so he stays home, gets bored,

starts eating, gets bigger, circle starts again!

I honestly think the only way to help the wee boy is to take him away and get him some

professional help, with the view to him returning to his mother after.

[davieB]

I doubt if anyone would be shouting for an anorexic child to be taken from their parents. It may well be the case that wee lard arse is suffering from an eating disorder with the opposite effect to anorexia and his mother was speaking the truth when she said that he becamer uncontrollable when refused his 4th clothes basketful of oven chips.

The family and the child probably need some help, not threats. I know social services had tried, and it did seem like the kid himself was very matter-of-fact about it, but removing him isn't the answer IMO.

I think the negatives far outweigh the advantages if he was taken from his home. The whole thing comes down to education. What would be the point in taking him from a familiar enviroment, treating him, then returning him back to the same enviroment that caused the problem in the first place?

[CaleyJulz]

I totally agree with MRSPB.........From watching the programme the mother needs help to if she was in a fit state of mind then i reckon like any parent she would do the best for her lad.  If he had been told no to eating so much  and his mum had more will more and more support from the right services then he might not be in this situation and if he has a medical condiotion causing his size why aint docs more involved.

[Mrs Pauliebee]

Can see your point davieB - but what happens to him if you leave him there, as CCC says his Mother suffers from severe depression, she doesn't (in my opinon) have the capacity to help him even with the correct diet sheets/advice.  She can't control him.

Did you watch the 34 stone Teenager, they came up with another good point, if you know someone is suffering from an eating disorder, is morbidly obese, and you continue to feed them - is that assisted suicide?  It's an extreme way of looking at it, but I can see their point!

[Scotty]

This even made it to 'Talk Radio' over here .... was listening to the story as I drove home last night. Most callers to the program thought that both the child and mother needed help and there was an even split between those who thought the child should be removed and those who thought it would be counter productive. The way it was worded over here was ... "Is it child abuse ?"

[davieB]

This is the pet subject of a good friend of mine. Her opinion is that it is child abuse, and the parents are solely responsible.

To an extent I agree. If any of my kids were getting fat then I know I'd try and do something to combat that, get them out more, take them swimming more often etc.

If it is child abuse then I'm not convinced that moving the child from the 'abuser's' enviroment is the answer. Like I said in the first post, it may relieve the problem in the short term but the child then faces returning to the same enviroment that caused the problem in the first place.

People in these situations need to be educated more. I know that's easy to say, and many people don't want to listen, but as far as I can see it's the only pratical long term solution.

[CaleyJulz]

The way i see it is they take kids of parents for not feeding them ...but to me in a way this is the exact same the lad should be taken away at the moment until he and his mum are ready and have been educated more .Its a such a shame on them all in away to the social services have failed them both by not doing more to help them before now.

[Alex MacLeod]

Heres a mother trying to blame society, doctors and anyone else she can think of. Fact is, and I'm sure most parents will concur, this child was not brought up to understand discipline. Child throws a tantrum, parent gives in.

Us older members of society can harp on about how good or bad our childhood was. Truth is we didnt have it so easy. When we got under our parents feet, or if they just wanted an hour or two's peace, we were send out with a ball, a bike, a shinty stick or whatever. If it was raining, put a coat on. Nowadays there are parents who find it easier to throw the child a few packets of crisps and send him/her to their room with a video game.

No matter how anyone tries to defend this particular mother. Truth is she is to blame and in my mind it is a form of abuse.

Whilst talking about crisps. In my childhood they were a luxury. Only to be had on a sunday when we all went for a drive. On the way home we'd stop by a pub, parents would go in, we'd sit in car, and one of them would come out after about ten mins with a handful of golden wonder, with the wee blue salt bag, and a bottle of Bon Accord lemonade. Them were the days.

[Action Man]

The way I saw it was the childs eating disorder pushing an already unstable woman over the edge. Too easy to always blame the parents, the school and social services wathed this happen too. You don't know how you are going to cope with children until you become a parent, this women has been needing help for a while.

[CaleyD]

Who is to blame doesn't matter a feck right now - as the saying goes "No point locking the gate after the horse has bolted" - it's what's done to rectify the problem and prevent it happening again thats important.  All this time being wasted deciding if the kid should be taken from his mother which could and should be spent offering them support and saving a life is just ridiculous.

Although I see no harm in the lad spending some time at some form of health camp or facility where they can kick-start him on a weightloss plan/fitness regime, it would be pointless if the mother wasn't there alsom to learn from it and see what needs to be done.

Ask yourself this - do you think the mother acts out of hate or resenment towards her child in assisting with his problems or is she just not prepared with the tools and support needed to reverse the trend.  My money is on the later and in todays society that should be no excuse for seperating ANY mother from their child.

The whole dog analogy I just find laughable - how you can possibly compare the bond between a mother and child with the bond between a dog and it's owner is beyond me.  Also dogs generally tend to eat what you give them and do what you tell them....they can't sneak off into the cupboard and open themselves up a can of Pedigree Chum behind your back.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Geordie in-breds - he will turn into the next feckin Gazza.

[Mrs Pauliebee]

Caley D, ask Uncle Albert, dogs don't just eat what you give them, his dog is a theiving ***** and nicks food right of his plate/wherever he can find it.  The dog analogy is not laughable, why should a child be left to suffer, but a dog be taken

straight away from the owners and them prosecuted.  Whilst the childs mother is offered"help", yes she was coping with depression, but in my eyes milking that excuse too!

Perhaps if the consequences were harsher for parents, she wouldn't have let her child

get into this state, she's have got off her erse and found him the correct help ages ago.

The latest development was that the boy was comfort eating due to and abusive father.

So maybe there was some resentment?

It does matter who is to blame, how can you fix a problem if you don't go straight back to the source!

I can see HM5 is going to be interesting!

:panda01: :moon2: :panda01:

[CaleyD]

Lets take your dog analogy one step further then.  Lets euthenise people who get old and become a burden on society - or all those homeless people, if we can't find them somewhere to live or a shelter to take them in, lets just pop them off aswell.  If it's good enough for dogs, then it's good enough for us...right?

[dead_ball_specialist]

CaleyD, you site one extreme, but support another extreme at the other end of the spectrum. There's no getting away from the fact that we have a growing underclass in this country (have you ever watched shameless?), in part because certain elements of the population who perhaps aren't the best breeding stock, are breeding like rabbits - because the welfare state pays them a fortune to do so. This is in stark contrast with the average working couple, who are having on average 1.7 children.

The dumb are expanding, the smart are decreasing. Is this a healthy state of affairs? You don't have to be a 'nazi' to recognize that it's not.

[Mrs Pauliebee]

Weighting to Die

Think about this one then...should I pay taxes to send this woman to £5000 a week treatment?

Hasn't she done this to herself?  It didn't help her the first time, she just piled it all back on!

[Joonya]

She has done this to herself........ she has to want to help herself first and from what ive seen she dont want to do that.. and.....why should people pay taxes to help people like her when they do it to theirs selves there are people more deserving than her .  this is ccc btw

[CaleyD]

CaleyD, you site one extreme, but support another extreme at the other end of the spectrum.

I said nothing about supporting it, I was merely taking it to the extreme to make the point regarding "where do you draw the line?"

Weighting to Die

Think about this one then...should I pay taxes to send this woman to £5000 a week treatment?

Hasn't she done this to herself?  It didn't help her the first time, she just piled it all back on!

So whats the answer?  You suggested above that the boy in question be taken in to care, the cost of which would be met from public money (i.e. Taxes), yet you grudge your taxes being used to help this woman.

Do we go down the American route of scrapping the NHS so only those who can afford proper medical care get it?  Or do we lay out some kind of criteria in order that people qualify as "deserving".  Who decides who's life is worth more than the next persons?  Does the fact that a persons makeup lends them more suceptible to obesity really mean they don't deserve NHS treatment?

Our system may not be perfect, but I like to think it's a few steps ahead of playing god or deciding a persons fate in direct colleration to the size of their bank balance.

Some on this thread talk as if obesity is a clear cut choice these people make, and because they are fat they deserve everything that comes to them - they clearly have little or no understanding as to the underlying issues which cause it, off which there are many.

[Mrs Pauliebee]

"So whats the answer?  You suggested above that the boy in question be taken in to care, the cost of which would be met from public money (i.e. Taxes), yet you grudge your taxes being used to help this woman."

Absolutely, each individual case is different, and I didn't say put the Kid into care.  I personally think he needs to go to a Fat Camp, if you don't nip it in the bud now and change it, he'll just get even bigger.  £5000 a week is too much money to spend on a woman who is not helping herself.  As you say there are many reasons for a person being Morbidly Obese, but at the end of the day, they have to want to help themselves and put the effort it to, she had already been successful and lost weight, then the minute she was left on her own, she panicked and put it all back again.

Are you saying we should pay £5000 every week for her to lose 30+ stone? 

I've watched several documentaries on this subject, the people are often so stuck in their ways, they can't see the damage they do to themselves, "I hardly eat" (que camera panning to several pizza boxes disgarded beside the bin!).

I'm all for treating Obesity, but I think people have to prove they are ready to and want to lose the weight before hefty (excuse the pun!) budgets are spent on it.  I think to have a gastric bypass you have to lose acertain amount of weight yourself before they will accept you.  Maybe they should have a ruling about putting people on these programs too?

[Johnboy]

They could give all these grossly obese people lipo-suction then feed the sucked out stuff to the starving people in some of the third world countries in darkest Africa - thus killing two birds with one stone.....  :014:

[CaleyD]

"So whats the answer?  You suggested above that the boy in question be taken in to care, the cost of which would be met from public money (i.e. Taxes), yet you grudge your taxes being used to help this woman."

Absolutely, each individual case is different, and I didn't say put the Kid into care.  I personally think he needs to go to a Fat Camp, if you don't nip it in the bud now and change it, he'll just get even bigger.  £5000 a week is too much money to spend on a woman who is not helping herself.  As you say there are many reasons for a person being Morbidly Obese, but at the end of the day, they have to want to help themselves and put the effort it to, she had already been successful and lost weight, then the minute she was left on her own, she panicked and put it all back again.

From what I can make of the whole thing the treatment she got helped deal with the physical side of her ailment but did little to help her psychologically or she wouldn't have relapsed so easily/quickly.

Are you saying we should pay £5000 every week for her to lose 30+ stone? 

I'm saying that you can't just put a cost on someone's life in that manner - If it takes £5000/week to save a life then that's what it takes and I think you have to look just as much at the people charging this money as those receiving it.  With Obesity becoming such an apparent 'National' problem then we should not be relying on overpriced private facilities.  If it is the huge issue these documentaries make it out to be then surely it makes more sense to set up public facilities to reduce the costs of dealing with the problem.

I've watched several documentaries on this subject, the people are often so stuck in their ways, they can't see the damage they do to themselves, "I hardly eat" (que camera panning to several pizza boxes disgarded beside the bin!).

Documentaries, by their very nature, are designed to be over dramatic and look at the extremes of any situation.  It's also well documented that the people involved are no strangers to setting up shots such as you suggest above to enhance the shock factor of any given situation.  As is often the case with any argument, the truth often lies somewhere in the middle.

I'm all for treating Obesity, but I think people have to prove they are ready to and want to lose the weight before hefty (excuse the pun!) budgets are spent on it.  I think to have a gastric bypass you have to lose acertain amount of weight yourself before they will accept you.  Maybe they should have a ruling about putting people on these programs too?

People have to lose a certain amount of weight in order to make the risks of surgery acceptable, very little to do with "proving" themselves worthy.  Breaking the cycle is the hardest part in dealing with any kind of obsessive/addictive disorder and in extreme cases such as those being talked about on here the individuals are seldom capable of doing this without external intervention.

I would be very interested in IHE's (professional persona talking) opinions on this subject given the fact that we are dealing with a psychological issue (albeit with severe physical consequences).

[Johnboy]

Is it not all part of a culture now that prevails in this day & age, that dictates that anyone should have whatever they want at anytime..?

No one should have do without anything - whether it is food, alcohol, dope - the latest developments in mobile phones...

Whatever it is you want - go for it - help yourself -

The problem with the above, seems to be a case of let junior do whatever he likes, have whatever he likes, eat whatever he likes.....

If things go wrong someone else will have to sort it out.....

[tm4tj]

Fat lot of good this will do.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

It could revolve around whether you are treating a behavioural addiction or an underlying Eating Disorder. The former can only be "treated" by setting boundaries and is led by dietary constraints. You often find that it is the carers who need the most support and education. They have to be very strict in their care and are emotionally blackmailed by their loved one. It is often found that the carers are the needy ones and they actually revel in the role of caring as it gives them life satisfaction. They often project the blame onto anything but themselvesTo succeed both parties have to be either motivated and committed or set strict limits or committed.  :001:

Treating an underlying eating disorder is a totally different scenario and much more difficult to treat. Eating disorders are often related to psychological traumas in childhood and adolescence and are often a form of self punishment or a self inflicted form of abuse. This requires skilled psychological therapies comprising of exploratory psychotherapies and/or a cognitive approach. The aim is to mend the broken id/ego and increase the elements of self esteem. It is interesting that anorexics will draw themselves as being fat and bulimiacs will draw themselves as skinny. That is treated by correcting self perception and can take years.

What really pisses me off that interventions have to wait until the "sufferers" are way out of control. GP's and authorities should do something at an earlier stage. There is actually a minimum BMI when the Mental Health Act can be initiated. Not always the best thing but can work. But there isnt a maximum BMI to act on - which seems crazy. Mind you I must be pretty feckin close.  :015: :015:

[Johnboy]

IHE....

To me it appears there are many more seriously and dangerously obese young people around now, than was the case - say 20 years ago -

Eating disorders have been around for many years.  Is it the case that addiction problems are more prevalent now,

or are both scenarios on the increase..?

Why should this be?

[maimie]

probably for lots of reasons.  folk don't cook anymore and some don't even know how to.  fast food is - relatively - cheap.  i'm also not convinced that there isn't an addictive quality to some of it.  it's well known that some of the foods we eat know are very high in fats, salts, sugars - especially processed foods.

kids in many inner city areas (and outer too) don't know what fruit or veg are.

we don't sit down at the table to eat anymore but sit in front of the telly.

as long as it's quick and the telly says it's good it must be..

also we eat far more carbs now than we used to

also for folk who are 'emotionally inept' food can be a way of expressing love for someone...