Obesity = Child abuse? Part II

After just watching the coverage on the local news about this boy here is what he eats on average in a day:

Breakfast:
Bowl of chocolate cereal.
Toast with mayonnaise and processed meat.

Lunch:
Hamburger
French Fries
Bacon
Sausage
Whole pizza.

Dinner
Fast Food take out.

Included in his day is 4 bags of chips as well as chocolate bars, cookies and other snacks every 20 minutes.

He weighs 4 x as much as a normal child his age and has missed a lot of school due to health issues.

This is clear neglect for your child’s health and welfare.
The mother says she feels “obligated” to meet his demands. No. You’re the parent, NOT the maid. YOU make the decisions NOT your child. Your child would not be this heavy if YOU put your foot down and said no.

If you don’t buy the junk food or give him the choice of having junk food – guess what? He won’t have it as much as he is! Sure he may get it from a friend but chances are he’s not going to be eating off his friends to the amount that he is now.

Put your foot down and say NO to the cookies and pop and chips!

Your children will thank you for it – maybe just not right away.

Obesity = Child abuse?

Dr. Anonymous made me really think with his latest post entitled “Obesity = Child abuse?”. I’ve decided that instead of clogging up his comments window with my exceedingly long post, I’ll add it to here. :)

First of all, I disagree with Dr. A in that this *is* child abuse in my eyes. The child in this case is 8 years old, and weighs 218 pounds. When I was 8 years old, I weighed 60 lbs.

Secondly, it is indicated that the parents have repeatedly not come to appointments with nurses, nutritionists and social workers. This to me indicates that they are either not prepared to accept how unhealthy their son is, or that they just don’t care. Either option is dangerous for the child.

Do I think every overweight child is being abused? No. Not in the least. But I do believe in specific circumstances, the label of “abuse” is warranted.

It is a parent’s duty to make sure their children are brought up healthy and with good life skills. Showing them that it is okay to eat nothing but junk food is not a healthy life skill. You are helping inflict damage onto your child and is that not abuse? Whether this is done lovingly or not is inadmissible; the end result is the same: A child with unhealthy eating patterns and a dangerous risk of dying at an early age from issues that were completely preventable.

Should this child be removed from his parents’ care? I think if they continue to not take this issue seriously, then yes. The child should be removed from their care. They are harming him with what they are feeding him and letting him do or not do (in terms of exercise). Do I think every overweight child should be removed from their parents? No. But again, some cases warrant such drastic actions.

They have not shown they are capable of properly caring for their child. If they continue to follow this pattern of behavior and not accept the help offered to them, then removal of the child would be in his best interest until such a time that his parents understand the harm they are inflicting upon him.

Again, this shouldn’t be the case for every overweight child. Lord knows my parents tried everything they could with me to make me stay slim (though admittedly not always for health reasons – thanks dad), and I know several other friends with children who are overweight but not to such a severe state as this child.

I’m ashamed of the parents; these are people who are supposed to bring up their children properly and with a good foundation for getting through life. This child though may not even make it to 30 years of age; that’s not a long life time and he certainly doesn’t have a good foundation at the moment to build his life upon.

Sad.

Freaky Zoe!

Zoe going freaky after her bath.

My baby!

That’s Zoe. She’s a 4 year old Papillon and I have her at my place for a week or so. I also have a new Sony Handycam (ok it’s my parent’s) that I get for the week or so. :)

Fired..well, almost.

So, as it turns out, one of the doctors complained about me. Here’s the situation:

Dr. Orthopod comes into the office at 4:15 pm. He asks me if he can get a print of his report on Patient A. I check it out in the computer and see that it was printed the day before. Now, what I said to him is exactly this:

“I’m sorry, but it’s already been printed. While I can physically print it, I am no long allowed to do so. Unfortunately, you will have to speak to ROI tomorrow morning, since they leave at 4 pm, you won’t be able to speak to them until then. You can however, view the report on PCI. Or, you can go next door and ask Patsy if maybe she find it in the pile from the printer.”

Apparently, I didn’t sugar-coat it enough. Didn’t smile enough. Didn’t ass kiss enough. So I was hauled in by my boss this week and told I need to speak to the doctors a little nicer. Meanwhile, Marlene, the coworker with 10 weeks left to retirement had turned to the doctor and said “it’s a stupid rule, they’re all bitches up there in head office”. How is that nicer than what I said? I told him exactly what I had been told to tell him. I said it nicely, I spoke clearly, I smiled. And I get in trouble. Learn how to speak more professionally to the doctors, I’m told.

I didn’t swear. I called him Dr. Orthopod. I gave him all of the options I could. But despite this, he still went over my head to head office and my boss. Either he did or Patsy did, the girl from health records. She probably did, because she kept coming back complaining that there was 8 inches of papers to go through to get to his and there’s no way she’s doing it etc. etc.

Either way, I came – yet again – close to being canned.
I’m not sure how much more of this I can do. I’m almost ready to take myself into the back room, keep the lights out and pretend no one is there just to avoid this sort of stuff.

*sigh*

Angry E-mail brings down B.C. minister of mines

This made me laugh today.

Like most cabinet ministers, Bill Bennett never went anywhere without his laptop and BlackBerry, the devices that let him send hundreds of instant e-mails day or night, to everyone from constituents to the premier himself.

But that easy access to e-mail spelled the minister of mines’ downfall Tuesday when he lost his job after revelations that he had sent an insulting missive to a constituent he called “dumb” and possibly an “American spy.”

“It was an unacceptable exchange, clearly,” Premier Gordon Campbell said Tuesday after accepting Bennett’s offer to resign. “I think e-mails should be answered in a way that’s respectful of the opinions of the citizens that are involved.

Campbell said Bennett did a good job and showed integrity by stepping down. But the imbroglio also prompted the premier to offer advice to anyone else with a BlackBerry: “It’s always better to sleep overnight over an e-mail or any letter you’re angry at.”

Bennett’s downfall started a week ago as he sat in his hotel room at Vancouver’s Bayshore hotel and found an e-mail from a constituent who ran the local gun club in Fernie, which is part of his rural constituency.

Bennett’s blood boiled when Maarten Hart’s missive accused him of favouring big-money game outfitters over ordinary hunters and saying the Liberal government “bows to the almighty dollar and faces east three time each day (not to Mecca, but to Wall Street.)”

Bennett started typing furiously, retorting with a blistering e-mail of his own.

He called Hart “dumb” for not knowing who his friends are, labelling him an “American spy” and saying: “Let me be very direct with you, as you were with me. It is my understanding that you are an American, so I don’t give a shit what your opinion is on Canada.”

Then Bennett, 56, pushed the send button. At the moment, in his hotel room, he didn’t realize he had just deleted himself from the Liberal cabinet. But that conclusion didn’t take long coming.

“You know the next morning, when I thought about what I had done, I probably knew then,” said Bennett. “But I guess you hope against hope that maybe the guy [will] maybe cut me some slack. But he didn’t. And I understand. My e-mail to him was very harsh. I told the premier [Monday] night, the first time I talked to him, I would be resigning.”

A sheepish Bennett agreed with Campbell that fulminating in an e-mail was unbecoming of a minister. But he also went on to suggest that his rough-hewn beginnings in B.C.’s backcountry and his quick-fire temper may not be best suited to the easy accessibility of e-mail.

“You know, I didn’t grow up in the city or anything like that. . . . I never finished high school,” he said. “I was working fish camps when I was 17 years old. And I worked in them for many years. I’ve been in bar fights, I’ve been in knife fights.

“That’s not my life any more but sometimes I can be a little too earthy,” said Bennett, who in mid-life went on to get a law degree. “In the old days before e-mail I would have written that letter, looked at it in the morning and tossed it into the wastepaper basket . . . but I blew my cool and e-mail was too easy.”

Anti-American sentiments are a guaranteed flashpoint in the Kootenays, where Bennett’s riding is situated. It has been a favourite destination for Vietnam draft dodgers, many of whom became Canadians, and it will be hotly contested by the NDP and Liberals in the next election.

Hart — who fired off an e-mail at 10:30 p.m. Sunday, Feb. 4 to complain about Bennett to the premier and New Democratic Party leader Carole James — expressed no regrets that the minister’s head had rolled.

“I don’t think the sentiments expressed by Mr. Bennett about Americans are appropriate in any context, let alone directed to a landed immigrant such as myself, and certainly not for a man who is charged with representing sensitive mining and environmental negotiations with Americans,” Hart said in an e-mail to The Sun.

“I believe that Mr. Bennett believes his position gives him the power to send e-mails such as he sent me, and I want him to know that this is not the case.”

The NDP’s James said Bennett did the right thing by resigning. But she also saw it as a sign of a larger flaw in the government’s relationship with people it disagrees with.

“It’s an attitude problem they need to fix,” she said. “No question it’s a reminder to everyone. You need to take time at the end of a long day, putting down e-mails . . . you need to think about what you’re putting down.”

What I really like is that he attempted, vainly, to make an excuse that because he didn’t grow up in the city and instead in the backwoods of B.C, he was too “earthy” in his e-mail. Understandably, since I too grew up in the backwoods of B.C, I know how many people (especially men) converse with each other and tend to business in the very same manner he did; albeit with less-educated responses. Nonetheless, as a middle-aged man he needs to learn that he is no longer in the backwoods of B.C and instead a prominent figure within the government of said province. It would be just as inexcusable for a landed-immigrant minister from say India, to behave as he would if he were still in some back water Indian village. Does it make his response humorous? Yes. Politically correct? Can I get a ‘HELL NO’?

Another thing that greatly amuses me is the anti-American sentiments spewed in his e-mail (which I will post in a moment). Over the years I have come to accept the fact that you cannot point fingers, either jokingly or otherwise, at the United States without someone becoming upset but, on the flip side, it is perfectly okay for an American to do the same to us. Canada is, for the most part, the biggest punchline of any American voiced joke/criticism. There has been speculations over the years as to if this is related to their (Americans) inability to take a joke at all, and in talking with several American friend this seems to be true. While there are some exceptions to the rule, such as Jeff Foxworthy the comedian, it seems that many Americans (notice my use of the word “many”) get greatly insulted at jokes directed at their “culture”. Does it still make the B.C Minister of mines e-mail appropriate? Nope. But I do think this issue is a lot deeper than simply one man letting his temper get the best of him.

Here are the actual e-mails.


From: Maarten Hart

Sent: 19 November 2006 19:52

To: Bennett.MLA, Bill

Subject: Big Game Allocations

Dear Bill:

I am writing to let you know that the proposed big game allocation process is an insult to the residents of British Columbia and insult to the rights of BC hunters. Giving Guide/Outfitters such a large piece of the pie and guaranteeing their rights is absurd. I know that your government bows to the almighty dollar and faces east three times each day (not to Mecca, but to Wall Street), but even given that bent, the fact is that the resident hunter provides 100 times the revenue that nonresidents do. Look to the south and see that guides take a distant second to residents in every state; as they should here. Please respond to the wishes of your constituency and let Minister Penner know that this is unacceptable.

Sincerely, Maarten Hart

Fernie Rod & Gun Club

President

The above is the e-mail sent to the B.C Minister of mines. Below is his response.


From: Bennett, Bill SMIN:EX

Sent: 29 January 2007 20:55

Subject: Your e-mail of November 19th

Mr. Hart,

I am in my hotel room in Vancouver tonight reviewing the wildlife allocation in preparation for a meeting I have with minister Penner and I came across your November 19th email. I have been reading through this stuff since 5 pm today and meanwhile downstairs in this hotel is the biggest mining conference in BC that I ought to be participating in. Fortunately, I am almost done with my review. Your email, mercifully, was at the very bottom of my pile of paper.

Let me be very direct with you, as you were with me.

- It is my understanding that you are an American, so I don’t give a shit what your opinion is on Canada or Canadian residents.

- Our government does not “… bow to the almighty dollar and face east to Wall Street each day…”, but we do recognize a fool when we come across one. How do you think you are representing the interests of your members when you insult the BC hunter’s strongest advocate, yours truly. I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to sort out this allocation file. It is complex, something that you obviously have enormous difficulty with. You don’t know who your friends are, which makes you dumb.

- Don’t lecture me about “listening to the wishes of my constituents”. As someone who has spent the past six years working my ass off for my constituents, I am not about to take that kind of bullshit from someone who, for all I know, is up here as an American spy who is actually interested in helping the US create a park in the Flathead.

I will continue to work for hunters and anglers in the East Kootenay as I always have and you will continue to be a self-inflated, pompous, American know-it-all.

Have a nice day.

Bill Bennett

Smoking

TORONTO (CP) — Ontario residents are ready for a ban on smoking in vehicles carrying children, and it’s time for the provincial government to enforce one, a representative of the Ontario Medical Association said Wednesday.

“What we’re finding is that the public is heavily on side for this and is coming more heavily on side with time,” said Dr. Ted Boadway, a health consultant for the OMA, which represents 25,000 doctors across the province.

“And we’re also seeing some other communities in North America in particular are beginning to take this up and do something about it, and we haven’t yet in Ontario.”

Boadway cited figures from the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit that showed support in the province for such a ban increased from 68 per cent in 2002 to 78 per cent in 2005.

Sixty-six per cent of Ontario smokers and 81 per cent of non-smokers supported the ban in 2005, compared to 50 per cent and 73 per cent, respectively, in 2002.

The OMA issued a statement Wednesday urging the provincial government to follow in the footsteps of Bangor, Maine, which approved a new law Jan. 8 prohibiting people from smoking in vehicles transporting children. Violators face fines up to $50 US.

Ontario doctors said Wednesday they applaud the province’s smoking ban that went into effect last year, but added that more must be done to increase awareness that adult tobacco use is also a child health problem.

A 2004 report by the OMA found that second-hand smoke is 23 times more toxic in a car than in a house.

“The fact is that in cars you reach some of the highest toxic levels of these poisons that you reach anywhere,” Boadway said.

Even very short exposure to second-hand smoke can trigger an asthmatic attack in children, while effects on lung health have a long-term effect, Boadway said.

“Those are things you can’t measure at the time, but unfortunately have catastrophic effects later.”

Rolling down the windows while lighting up in your car won’t help either, Boadway added.

Research has shown that levels of toxins generated by cigarette smoke won’t be significantly affected by open windows unless you can generate a “tornado-like wind” in the car, he said.

“If someone wants to get in their car by themselves and poison themselves away, that’s their right to do so . . . and there’s not much we can do about that,” Boadway said.

“But the problem is poisoning someone else, and particularly children, who are vulnerable and who can’t often speak up for themselves.”

Nancy Daigneault, president of tobacco industry-funded lobby group Mychoice.ca, cautioned against implementing a blanket ban.

“In terms of the grand scheme of things and the obesity problem and all the other problems that are facing our children these days, I think we have to be careful before we take a heavy-handed legislative approach to dealing with something of that nature,” she said.

“If we’re going to be going down this route and handing police the power to pull people over who are smoking in cars, I think we’d have to get to a point in society where we say, is this product something that we should be still being permitted to be sold? . . . Why is it still a legal product?”

“It doesn’t make sense to me.”

All I have to say is: About friggin’ time! I hope it gets passed and I hope other provinces jump on the bandwagon. There is nothing I hate more than seeing children in a car with the windows rolled up while their parents suck on a cancer stick.

I also have this to say about Nancy Daigneault’s statement: Stop passing the buck by mentioning childhood obesity. That’s just plain sad.

It’s every adult’s right to choose to kill themselves slowly, do so in your own home away from people who CHOOSE not to partake in the same thing you do. I am all for banning smoking in bars, restaurants and all public places and I am all for banning smoking in cars carrying children. Children sometimes do not have a voice, they cannot voice their concerns or opinions sometimes and it’s our job to step in when parents are placing their children at terrible danger.

But I suppose, looking at this objectively, one could ask “what’s next?”. On the subject of childhood obesity, will it come to a point if this legislation goes through that parents will be arrested/fined or have their children taken away because they fed them french fries once in a while or their lunch choices don’t meet government standards? I suppose one could ask: When will it stop? How far will this sort of thing go?

What do you think?
Making smoking in cars carrying children illegal – good or bad?