Is this right?

[Mid A 15]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090112/w ... n_health_1

We've not had a discussion on here for a while now so here goes...

I've voted "yes" because I think it is discriminatory to say no to somebody based on physique.

You wouldn't discriminate on grounds of race, sexuality, disability etc so why physique?

If social workers spent as much time looking after children at risk as they apparently do victimising fat blokes perhaps Baby P and other such children would be alive today....

Discuss

[Ajarn Philip]

What exactly are we supposed to be discussing? Sorry, but although I try to keep up with current affairs from here, I'm obviously missing something!

[blondie95]

However if that man adopted a young child and at a young age he then died due to his weight do you not think that unfair. I know that of course someone could die at any time for many reasons but death from obesity can be avoided, and surely no one would want a child to go through that if they potentially didnt have to.

[Mid A 15]

What exactly are we supposed to be discussing? Sorry, but although I try to keep up with current affairs from here, I'm obviously missing something!

A married couple has been prevented from adopting because the husband is deemed too fat.

The question to discuss is whether or not this is a valid reason to refuse adoption rights given that it is illegal to discriminate on other grounds such as race, sexuality etc.

There have also been instances, most notably Baby P, where children have died or been abused and social services have not intervened.

Hopefully this sets it into context a bit.

[Ajarn Philip]

Thanks Andy, I wasn't trying to be clever, but this is not something I've heard about.

So if 'fatness' is a problem, surely the potential for any fatal illness is equally so. Smokers should be ineligible to adopt, so should anyone with a family history of heart disease. Perhaps DNA tests should be carried out to assess the likelihood of some fatal illness such as cancer or premature senility, or even criminal tendencies? If the adopting parents live in a 'dangerous' area, that would certainly rule them out. If they eat chips, they really shouldn't bother applying. Do they care? Are they capable of supplying love and affection? How fat is too fat? Who decides? How fat, stupid and cynical are the people making the decisions?

I've heard some daft arguments in my time, but 'let's keep the child in care rather than send him/her to a caring and loving family in case the father might just conceivably die in the next ten years' is as daft as it could possibly get.

[sejintenej]

Thanks Andy, I wasn't trying to be clever, but this is not something I've heard about.

So if 'fatness' is a problem, surely the potential for any fatal illness is equally so. Smokers should be ineligible to adopt, so should anyone with a family history of heart disease. Perhaps DNA tests should be carried out to assess the likelihood of some fatal illness such as cancer or premature senility, or even criminal tendencies? If the adopting parents live in a 'dangerous' area, that would certainly rule them out. If they eat chips, they really shouldn't bother applying. Do they care? Are they capable of supplying love and affection? How fat is too fat? Who decides? How fat, stupid and cynical are the people making the decisions?

I've heard some daft arguments in my time, but 'let's keep the child in care rather than send him/her to a caring and loving family in case the father might just conceivably die in the next ten years' is as daft as it could possibly get.

The words suggesting that everything else is OK come to mind but what is "everything else"?.
Passive smoking could be a problem but the use of DNA tests is OTT; action can easily be taken to severely reduce the liklihood of the heart attack, breasy cancer etc etc - and in any case should the worst occur there is often remedial treatment.
It doesn't matter whether obesity is a DNA problem or whatever. To acheive it the subject has to consciously eat too much / drink too much. Therefore there exists a high risk that the child will be over-well fed. Experience in this country (and many of us will remember it) has shown that obesity need not exist - even if DNA shows a risk of higher incidence.

I fully agree with your last paragraph - but don't let Social Services find out who you are or you will be banned from the country

[CHAZ]

This story of being fat also has a link to an Air India air hostess who recently lost her job because she was deemed too fat!
This is another type of discrimination and though I don't want to go off topic does seem to link to this thread.

Once again we see the greatness of British instituitions and quite frankly every child who is welcomed into a caring and loving family despite potential risks for father or mother will surely get more in those "ten years" than the same period in welfare.

Sometimes it can go wrong with foster parents and here perhaps the vetting process was insufficient but never stop
people from embracing children if they are fat, yellow, black or gay!

Looks as though our Philip will have his passport revoked if he rocks up in UK sometime soon!!!

[Angela Woodford]

quite frankly every child who is welcomed into a caring and loving family despite potential risks for father or mother will surely get more in those "ten years" than the same period in welfare.

Well said CHAZ!

Plus - if they want the guy to lose weight, running after, and around with, a small child is pretty strenuous exercise! Race you to the end of the road, Daddy!

[marty]

You wouldn't discriminate on grounds of race, sexuality, disability etc so why physique?

I'm not saying I agree with the decision - the guy seems like a decent enough bloke. However, his 'physique' is controllable, to an extent, whereas your race and sexuality are not matters of choice. He is most likely fat, overweight or whatever you want to call it due to poor diet & lack of exercise and so the worry must be that any child living in his care will go the same way. Will a child sit there and eat chicken and broccolli whilst dad tucks into pies and chips? The difficulty is knowing where you draw the line - smoking, drinking etc.

[Ajarn Philip]

I'm not saying I agree with the decision - the guy seems like a decent enough bloke. However, his 'physique' is controllable, to an extent, whereas your race and sexuality are not matters of choice. He is most likely fat, overweight or whatever you want to call it due to poor diet & lack of exercise and so the worry must be that any child living in his care will go the same way. Will a child sit there and eat chicken and broccolli whilst dad tucks into pies and chips? The difficulty is knowing where you draw the line - smoking, drinking etc.

But what are you saying, marty? Anyone with bad habits shouldn't be allowed to adopt? Where do you draw the line and who draws it?

One point I meant to make earlier is that if you're not qualified to adopt, surely you should be disqualified by law from having children naturally?

[englishangel]

I tried to put this on earlier. Angela, the running after small children didn't work for me.

Devil's advocate.

The bloke is not just fat, he is morbidly obese to the point of disability. His BMI is 42, the healthy BMI is 19-24. They only want him to get down to 40.

The other side, my husband had a BMI of 19 and mine was 23 when we met 36 years ago, we are both now about 28. All three of our kids have BMIs under 19, eat well and are never ill.

I haven't voted BTW though I would probably go with a.

[Ajarn Philip]

The other side, my husband had a BMI of 19 and mine was 23 when we met 36 years ago, we are both now about 28. All three of our kids have BMIs under 19, eat well and are never ill.

Was there such a thing as BMI 36 years ago? I'm barely aware of what it means today. This is all far too clinical for me.

[englishangel]

I don't know if it was called BMI 36 years ago but husband was 9 and half stone and I was rather more.

[jhopgood]

Thanks Andy, I wasn't trying to be clever, but this is not something I've heard about.

So if 'fatness' is a problem, surely the potential for any fatal illness is equally so. Smokers should be ineligible to adopt, so should anyone with a family history of heart disease. Perhaps DNA tests should be carried out to assess the likelihood of some fatal illness such as cancer or premature senility, or even criminal tendencies? If the adopting parents live in a 'dangerous' area, that would certainly rule them out. If they eat chips, they really shouldn't bother applying. Do they care? Are they capable of supplying love and affection? How fat is too fat? Who decides? How fat, stupid and cynical are the people making the decisions?

I've heard some daft arguments in my time, but 'let's keep the child in care rather than send him/her to a caring and loving family in case the father might just conceivably die in the next ten years' is as daft as it could possibly get.

Are they also suggesting that overweight/obese couples should have their tubes tied or pregnancies prematurely terminated because the parents are at risk? Just because it is a third party deciding whether parents are suitable doesn't mean the same rules shouldn't apply to everyone.
Why do I find it increasingly difficult to understand these decisions?

[englishangel]

A long while back we discussed this briefly and in fact obese people (and as I have said this bloke is obese to the point of disability) are generally sub-fertile, either through physical ianility to get it togewther (use your imagination) or becauee fat plays havoc wioth the hormones.

Having said that I did read a report that in one maternity unit the doors were being widened to accommodate obese mothers. Now as any maternity ward upgraded in the last 30 odd years was built so that the beds could be moved in and out easily the mind boggles.