Boy is snatched by social workers after mother refused doctor's advice to feed him junk food

mailonline ^ | 03rd December 2009 | Chris Brooke

[muawiyah]

Given the complex array of genes that you need to give you Celiac disease (gluten intolerance) many parents wake up one day and find out their baby cannot eat pablum ~ and then proceed to nearly starve the kid to death trying to get carbs down him. That's because no one in their immediate families ever had the problem, but it's been lurking in each parent all along.

Social workers and the vast majority of pediatric doctors and nurses also are ignorant of the situation ~ after all, it only affects 3.4% of Finns and Americans, and barely 1.2% of other Europeans. It's probably quite a bit higher among Sa'ami (I've seen estimates that 22% of Sa'ami suffer some degree of gluten intolerance).

The object isn't to get calories and carbs into the kid ~ it's to get gluten free calories and carbs in there, and preferably a greater than "normal" amount of protein and fats.

Think "white Eskimos" when up against this one.

Has nothing to do with fructose, processed or otherwise.

Treatments appropriate to your more ordinary variety of white folk are actually quite poisonous to these people.

[streetpreacher]

Reserving judgment but wanted to share this e-mail for Parentalrights.org:

“Best Interests” Means Junk Food and Child Removal

“While we understand Mr. and Mrs. Hessey’s distress, Zak’s welfare was paramount, and we believe we acted in [the child’s] best interest.” So said a spokesman for the British hospital that called in Social Services and had the two-year-old removed from his parents and four older siblings for four months.

The charge? Mom refused to follow the doctor’s advice to feed her son sugary snacks to address his failure to gain weight. “They said I should feed Zak chocolate, cakes and junk food just to get calories into him,” Mrs. Hessey told The Daily Mail. “But I objected, saying that was only a short-term answer and not a proper solution.”

The result was four months without their little boy, during which time the State-funded foster care program obviously applied the doctor’s prescription. “[N]ow it is hard to get him to eat anything else,” Hessey laments. On the doctor’s prescribed “regimen”, the boy gained about a pound. “[I]n foster care, Zak was the same with his food as he was at home. They [eventually] said we were very good parents,” Hessey adds.

The hospital’s defense quoted at the start of this article demonstrates perhaps the greatest danger of the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC): “In all matters…the best interests of the child shall be a primary concern.” Should the U.S. ratify the CRC, this core principle will replace the current standard, “proof of harm,” with the “best interest standard” applied in this case. Since the hospital and Social Services worked to ensure what was (in their opinion) in the best interest of the child, they did nothing wrong under the CRC.

In the U.S. today, because we have not ratified the CRC, such an event would be illegal. Fit parents have the right by law to make medical decisions for their children unless and until neglect or abuse can be proven. While this event is an outrage in England as well, the bureaucrats there were simply obeying the law, the CRC.

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the Constitution will end the threat of the CRC ever becoming binding law in America. So spread the word to your family and friends to sign the petition for the Amendment’s passage.

[freedommom]

Thanks for the info!!