Threats to the Family: Doctor Says Parents Should Lose Custody of Obese Children?

The family is a great good for the individual and society. The family does not belong to government to do with as it pleases. For government to trample the rights of the family is not only destructive, it is a vulgar perversion of the natural order and the spiritual order, the product of a "twisted and depraved generation," and it is evil.

P>KNOXVILLE, TN (Catholic Online) - We are witnessing more instances where an out of control civil government is interfering with our families.  Now, the American Medical Association has published an article in its prestigious journal (JAMA) which advocates that some parents should lose custody of their obese children. The authors of the article are Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity expert at Children's Hospital in Boston and an associate professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, and Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and researcher.

According to ABC News, Ludwig and Murtagh say, "In severe instances of childhood obesity, removal from the home may be justifiable, from a legal standpoint, because of imminent health risks and the parents' chronic failure to address medical problems." They are also quoted in the online edition of Time as saying, "State intervention may serve the best interests of many children with life-threatening obesity, comprising the only realistic way to control harmful behaviors."

There are many problems with Ludwig and Murtagh's comments. For instance, they say that severely obese children are at "imminent risk." This is an exaggeration. While it is true that obesity constitutes a health risk, no fair minded person would call the risk imminent. They also accuse the parents of obese children of "chronic failure." This is pure speculation. It is obvious that there could be other possible reasons. Furthermore, they say that they want to "control harmful behaviors," which is a red flag. 

What we have here is a lot of word games, reckless accusations, and, finally, an admission of truth--that certain "anointed" professionals know what is best for others and that by virtue of their expertise they have the right to control others. Many of them certainly know a lot and deserve our respect. They can offer us invaluable help, but they do not have the right to control our behavior, nor are they qualified. We are not guinea pigs subject to experimentation. Besides, such arrogance can cause serious harm. 

Time also spoke to Vivek Sankaran, a law professor at the University of Michigan who directs the Detroit Center for Family Advocacy. Sankaran said that in Michigan, the advocacy center is trying to get an obese 2-year-old freed from foster care. Sankaran said, "What we've seen in this case is that the actual removal causes irreparable damage to the child - emotional problems, behavioral problems - and it's the type of thing that can't be remedied."

This happened to a family in Albuquerque, NM about 10 years ago. When Anamarie Regino was 3-years-old, government officials took her from her parents and placed her in foster care because she weighed 90 pounds. However, Anamarie didn't improve and was returned to her parents. She was later diagnosed with a genetic predisposition. Adela Martinez, Anamarie's mother, told ABC News, "They say it's for the well-being of the child but it did more damage [than] any money or therapy could ever [ ] do to fix it." She called it "two months of hell." Anamarie, now 14, agreed. She believes Dr. Ludwig is wrong. She said, ". . . to get better you need to be with your family, instead of being surrounded by doctors."

This is one of the more public attempts by healthcare professionals to intrude upon the family. It is certainly not the first example of improper intervention. The American Academy of Pediatrics has encouraged its members to ask parents and children intrusive questions under the rubric of "well-child visits." For instance, they might ask if children wear helmets when they are riding bicycles or if they wear seat belts in the car. They may inquire if there is a pool or guns where they live. If there are guns at the house, doctors are encouraged to talk about how the guns and ammunition are stored.

Although such questioning goes beyond the purview of a doctor's expertise, some states may require that doctors obtain this information. In some states, doctors may even be required to speak with children in private without their parents. Information from the California Family Health Council says that when children reach 12 years old it is a normal policy at some clinics for doctors to ask parents to step out of the room so the doctor can talk with the child in private. The council says that "All young people have the right to get some services confidentially." And they tell parents that this helps keep their child "safe and healthy." What nonsense!

These intrusions into our families are not merely meddlesome; in many instances they are supported by government at some level. As such, they contain a veiled threat. You may recall that Ludwig and Murtagh's solution to childhood obesity is to use the police power of the state to take some of these children from their parents. Ludwig and Murtagh estimate that there are about two million severely obese children in the United States, so it appears they would sic child protective services and local law enforcement on about two million families.

The use of the police power to control childhood obesity is representative of a much wider problem, which can be described as an attack on the institution of the family in Western society. The family is too fragile for such force to be used against it without causing it irreparable harm. And when the authorities do use such tactics against the family, they break down the bonds of trust between government, the police, the citizenry, and families.

With assistance from some members of various professional communities-  and the misuse of its police power - governmental agencies may be able to take our children, dismiss parental authority, force their way into our homes, arrest us, and cost us thousands of dollars in legal fees; but unless there is a grave reason for such actions, the government will never have a legitimate or moral right. In any such intervention, it will be acting like a bully.

The rights of the family come from God. The family is the most fundamental unit of society. It is the building block of society. You only have to look at it in relation to society in order to see that this is true. As such, the family is prior to the state and the state must recognize its primacy. It is the first government, the first economic unit and the first school.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church helps explain how to protect and sustain the true relationship between government and the family based on the principle of subsidiarity. According to this principle, "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions. . ." (1883).

This principle is derived from the way that God governs the world and His respect for human freedom. God did not reserve the exercise of all power to himself. We can see this when we look at creation. God entrusted "to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature" (1884). Thus, the principle of subsidiarity "sets limits for state intervention" (1885).

The family is a great good for the individual and for society. Government should consider it a grave duty to acknowledge the primacy and true nature of the family, to protect it and promote domestic prosperity (2010). The family does not belong to government to do with as it pleases. For government to trample on the rights of the family is not only destructive, it is a vulgar perversion of the natural order and the spiritual order, the product of a "twisted and depraved generation," and it is evil. Therefore, Ludwig and Murtagh's proposal is to be rejected.
 
 
-----

Michael Terheyden was born into a Catholic family, but that is not why he is a Catholic. He is a Catholic because he believes that truth is real, that it is beautiful and good, and that the fullness of truth is in the Catholic Church. However, he knows that God's grace operating throughout his life is the main reason he is a Catholic. He is greatly blessed to share his faith and his life with his beautiful wife, Dorothy. They have four grown children and three grandchildren.

-----

Supporting FREE Catholic Education with Grass-fed Beef

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'