Which parent is worse?

Let me begin by stating I am not a parent and never have been. And yet still, I am surprisingly good at judging. So let's examine two slightly horrific stories involving parents and food from a high-and-mighty standpoint perched numerous castes above the rest of society, shall we?

One on hand we have this story: A 12-year-old girl from Glasgow is suffering from a degenerative bone condition thought to be a result of a strict diet her parents have enforced. She has "the spine of an 80-year-old." The pre-teen has a severe type of rickets and has suffered a number of fractured bones as a result of woefully inadequate vitamin D.

And then we have this story: A baby girl in the UK, just 18-months-old, weighs as much as the average four-year-old. Why? Because her mom only feeds her chips (aka fries) and Coca-Cola. Mommy Dearest says it's been impossible to get her to eat anything else and hypothesizes, quite brilliantly, that her little girl's cravings come from her own prenatal cravings of fries dipped in chocolate sauce.

Who deserves to be locked-up (or at least publicly flogged) the most? The parents who allowed their 12-year-olds bones to become so brittle her legs are bowing into a horseshoe...because their (the parents') beliefs include not eating any animal products? Or the mom and pop who have turned their daughter obese before she can even speak full sentences?

Comments

I say the overweight girl's parents. But, at least---perhaps---the damage can be undone there.

I say the vegan girl...there's still hope for the obese one and perhaps the article will help the mother re-evaluate, but the vegan girls parents have been seeing the effects of her diet for years and they haven't done anything until now? Horrible!

the strict parents-definately. Being over weight can be undone, usually without any permanent consequences. The other little girl is pretty much done for- once you mess with your bones, you are out of comission.

The first child's bones may never be repaired. At least the overweight child may be able to overcome her problems. It seems to me like both sets of parents need to seriously attend some classes on nutrition for children. But then again, I suppose all parents-to-be could learn something from such a class.

I didn't vote because I couldn't decide which was more heinous. Although, I tend to agree with the opinion that the obesity is an easier fix for the long term, both sets of parents were neglegent in providing proper nutrition and both children are going to have major issues for probably the rest of their lives because of it.

Plenty of children are raised vegan with no negative side effects. Vegan diets are common in many Asian and South Asian countries, and they are in general healthy people. The problem with this particular child is something much more severe than being raised a vegan. My guess is that the child is being denied enough food (in general) and is also not getting enough sun exposure (which is actually what the body needs to make vitamin d).

Please don't assume that "vegan" diets are the problem. The child's parents obviously have some food issues of their own and are starving their child. They probably would do the same if they were omnivores.

Furthermore, (for all the doubters):
According to the American Dietetic Association, "Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence." (J Am Diet Assoc. 2003 Jun;103(6):748-65.)

Oh, and I wanted to add this statistic as well:

The skin makes its own vitamin D when exposed to sunlight and this is main source of vitamin D. Many of the 15-20% of adults in the UK with vitamin D deficiency have become so because they do not spend enough time outside. Just 15 minutes outside three times weekly from April to September is enough.

My vote is for the vegan parents. I understand that anymore being a vegan is a political statement these days. I get that. BUT... at what point is it worth the health of your 12-year-old? Have these people not heard of supplements? And okay, really? How did the child's bones become SO deteroiated (sp?) that it wasn't on a doctor's radar until now?
As for the overweight child, much like evryone else has said, it sounds like the mother has her own nutrition issues as well. I bet six months of nutritional counseling and some Mommy and Me aerobics classes would give that particular situation a 180 turn around.

Although did anyone else think it just a bit ironic that both of these situations are in the U.K.?

My vote goes for the vegan parents because of the damage done. The overweight family can hopefully change their ways with some guidance.

both are just so sad though.

Both stories are horrible, but I voted for the vegan parents. They obviously weren't educated enough in vegan eating to know that they should be providing alternative food that contains the same nutrients found in meats.

As for the obese infant.. does her mother really think that's a valid excuse?

Wow, that's tough because they're both putting their child at risk. However, the first child will never be able to reverse the damage done to her bones and whatever else has been done. Both are very sad!!

To Jenah: I don't think the vegan diet was the problem, the parents were obviously the problem...to take something like nutrition to the extreme and put your daughter's health on the line for years and years is completely unacceptable. I agree with Monique - how did the doctor miss this until now? Obviously there were many issues going on with this family.

The story of the underweight girl makes me so angry! Not just because her parents failed her so miserably, but because stories like this offer ammunition to every person that dangles veal in front of a vegan's face!

A vegan diet can be so healthy for children. Yet you always end up reading some horror sorry about a malnourished child, and many people end up blaming veganism rather than ignorance or child abuse.

Both of those are really, really terrible. Some people should NOT be parents.

I didn't vote because I think they both do - Either way it's child abuse. To me, it doesn't matter if the hefty child can lose weight later, the damage is being done now! Who knows if once that child grows up if it will ever be able to lose weight or might end up with an eating disorder or never ending food issues! The vegan parents are just as bad! There is nothing wrong with raising your children vegan, but clearly they are NOT doing it the right way and this poor child is suffering for it.

Underfeeding or overfeeding - both are in the wrong for not putting their child's health & well being first!

@ Kelly T - I'm not trying to create controversy here...but I disagree with the comment that "Being over weight can be undone, usually without any permanent consequences." As someone who was overweight as a child and is now not, the consequences were tremendous and will stay with me forever. And I am not an isolated example, I've met hundreds of people over the years that were over weight of children and carry that trauma with them still as adults, whether it be physical,emotional, or mental manifestations.

I couldn't choose. While technically the obese kid can change and hopefully not be damaged for life, both kids are actually being malnourished and neglected - strange as that sounds. Both situations make me so sad.

The overweight child is being undernourished as well. Lack of proper vitamins and minerals at her age can cause developmental delay in the brain and other important areas.

BOTH of the damage with proper care can be undone, i actually asked my bone practitioner about this and she said with proper care, the girl with the bad bones CAN restore, especially because she's still young. But i dont think this is the point, i mean, both parents have issues with food of somesort and they need to leave the health of their children out of it. No one is "worse", i feel bad for both girls...

As a parent who is considering a vegan lifestyle (for myself), I had a hard time choosing, but I'd have to go with the vegan parents. Part of it is the strictness of whatever diet they've had her on (HELLO! Ya don't starve your kids!!!!), part of it is the fact that it has apparently been going on for quite some time, and another part is that you can be vegan and not starve. However, I don't believe in placing severe food restrictions on kids. You can set a healthy example, and encourage your kids to follow suit, but making certain foods forbidden is almost guaranteed to set them up for disordered eating, if not full-blown EDs.
I think the mother of the baby is clueless and just not very smart. But the baby is young enough, hopefully, to re-learn.

Both are horrible. And I agree with lisa that both kids are being malnourished. It's a tough call. But if I HAVE to make a choice, I have to go with the vegan parents, only because of the time difference. 18months vs 12 years. That's shocking! How can you watch your own child suffer for years when you could easily stop it? The mother of the toddler just sounds... well, stupid, honestly. She probably thinks she is a great mum who makes her kid happy all the time with that tasty food she has been taught to love. (As an aside, chips in chocolate sauce? Um, EW!)

12 years is a lot of time to watch a child suffer, especially as we know that a vgan diet can be so healthy! I have to wonder how nobody, not just doctors, stepped in to help. Unless she is homeschooled, her teachers must have noticed! You don't get that malnourished without other effects like poor school performance.

I keep coming back to the intent behind the choices that were made. The vegan parents, despite not actually knowing how to raise a vegan child, chose what could have been a healthy choice had they done it right (please don't think I am defending them ... it is still child abuse and reprehensible). But there is no way to redeem yourself for giving fries to a child that young as a meal, never mind making it a habit. No kids WANTS to eat broccoli the first time!!

And I tend to agree with Fitarella ... some habits, be it starving yourself or bingeing, are hard to break. The lessons that child has learned may never leave.

I have to wonder at what point the now-18-month-old piped up and said, "Mummy, I simply refuse to eat that organic applesauce. I simply MUST have those chips!"

If you give babies healthy options, they will learn to like healthy food. They won't like ALL healthy foods, but they aren't going to refuse everything in favor of fries. They do, however, tend to want what adults around them are eating - so I'd say it's Mummy who needs to improve her eating habits first, especially what she eats in front of the baby. (My two kids are living examples of this. ED is all junk, YD is Healthy Life Poster Child. Because MY eating habits changed.)

As for the vegan parents, I agree that the veganism is not the issue. This is clear-cut child abuse in the form of severe neglect, and would be just as likely if they ate a Standard American (or British in this case) diet.

In my mind, it's a dead heat. Both children are very unfortunate victims of their parents' issues and both will likely have lifelong consequences.

V.

I'm late to this, and normally I try not to be judgmental of other parents because who knows what my kid will do tomorrow. In this case, though, I'd say both parties are at fault -- in a best-case scenario, the Scottish girl's parents should have seen she was sick. And the 18-month-old? At that age, kids are all about what's put in front of them. If you introduce fries and cookies, they'll want fries and cookies. And if that's what you're eating? It's awfully hard to tell them they can't.

Parental example has a huge impact on kids. But Leslie, you knew I was going to say that, right?

Wow - I hate to judge people as well but I agree with Dara, both parents are at fault. Both situations are a form of child abuse in my opinion.

wow gold
wow power leveling
wow gold
wow powerleveling