Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
The Back Pages

Obesity — not a child protection issue

Mike Fitzpatrick
British Journal of General Practice 2008; 58 (555): 742. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp08X342589
Mike Fitzpatrick
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

The return to school after the summer holidays has already produced the first request from the child protection authorities for information about an overweight 15-year old boy, whose family is now threatened with statutory proceedings.

It is only a few weeks since David Rogers, public health spokesman for the Local Government Association, declared that ‘parents who allow their children to eat too much could be as guilty of neglect as those who did not feed their children at all’.1 The LGA's conviction that overweight children should become the subject of child protection procedures was reported under the headline ‘Fat children “should be taken from parents” to curb obesity epidemic’. It seems that the Fat police are already on the rampage.

I first encountered the facile presentation of obesity as a form of child abuse at a case conference about a teenage girl some years ago. Social workers accepted that her parents were devoted and there was no hint of neglect. Nevertheless, they cited a recent case in the US in which authorities had been blamed over the death of a morbidly obese young woman and insisted that drastic action had to be taken.

I pointed out the inappropriateness of the parallel between the situation of an under-nourished and neglected infant and an over-weight and pampered adolescent. In the former case, actual bodily harm is the direct result of parental abuse and is, at least in physical terms, readily susceptible to intervention. The dramatically improving growth chart of the ‘failing-to-thrive’ infant following admission to hospital can be found in every child health textbook. In the latter case, long-term risks to health are the result of a complex (and poorly understood) combination of factors, including the wider ‘obesogenic’ environment (of cheap, fast and fattening food, sedentary lifestyles and leisure activities) as well as the behaviour of both the young person and her parents.

A paediatrician told the case conference that there was only weak and contradictory evidence supporting the efficacy of any particular treatment for childhood obesity.2 She argued against the proposal for coercive action, putting the view, recently restated by the Royal College of Paediatricians, that obesity is ‘a public health problem, not a child protection issue’.3 I was concerned that imposing stigmatising statutory measures on the family would alienate them from both health and social services without providing any benefit for the child. However, it seemed that the anxieties of the child protection authorities to avert blame outweighed their concerns for the welfare of the child, who was duly placed on the ‘at risk’ register.

‘Did it do any good?’ I recently inquired of the subject of these proceedings. ‘No’ was her candid response. The only benefit of being on the register was that she was enrolled in an exercise course at the local swimming pool. But, as she recalled with some bitterness, this ceased on her 16th birthday when she was no longer the responsibility of the child protection authorities. However, since enrolling on a college course and joining a local gym, she had managed to lose several stones in weight.

Apart from being threatened with legal action, parents will shortly be receiving official warnings if their children are overweight and instructions from the government about healthy eating and physical activity (despite the abundant evidence that such exhortations are utterly useless). In their crusade against childhood obesity, public health zealots would do well to heed the wise words of paediatric experts in this field, who recently observed that ‘it is also important to remember that obesity remains extremely difficult for professionals to treat, thus criticising parents for what professionals are frequently unable to do smacks of hypocrisy.’4

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2008.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Sherman J
    , Fat children'should be taken from parents’ to curb obesity epidemic. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4543279.ece (accessed 8 Sep 2008).
  2. ↵
    1. Reilly JJ
    (2006) Obesity in childhood and adolescence: evidence-based clinical and public health perspectives. Postgrad Med J 82(96):429–437.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Jeffreys B
    , Child obesity ‘a formof neglect’. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6749037.stm (accessed 8 Sep 2008).
  4. ↵
    1. Viner R,
    2. Nicholls D
    (2005) Managing obesity in secondary care. Arch Dis Child 90(4):385–390.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 58 (555)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 58, Issue 555
October 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Obesity — not a child protection issue
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Obesity — not a child protection issue
Mike Fitzpatrick
British Journal of General Practice 2008; 58 (555): 742. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp08X342589

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Obesity — not a child protection issue
Mike Fitzpatrick
British Journal of General Practice 2008; 58 (555): 742. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp08X342589
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Who Is My Patient?
  • Working with vulnerable families in deprived areas
  • What is the collective noun for a group of patients?
Show more The Back Pages

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242