Turned down for adoption on basis of BMI

Thanks RA, it's quite interesting as I had never stopped to think about it much before, only my own personal experience. I would be interested to know that as the obese population is rising, is PCOS also rising because of that? I know the underlying problem that causes PCOS is insulin resistance, ir can cause obesity, but obesity can also worsen insulin resistance. But, even when slim, the PCOS doesn't go, the symptoms just aren't as severe. I know when I was diagnosed 7 years ago, I was the first one to have the blood test in the whole area and they had to be sent off to a specialist before I had scans etc, so I am guessing there is still a lot of research to be done.

Sorry Sophie, kind of derailed the thread there.

I'm a bit confused as to why people are getting so upset, particularly you, ONE. You most definitely owe Mrs Jess an apology, that was not on, not on at all.

Also, no one has listed the risks of obesity in an emotive manner in order to make people feel bad, the fact of the matter is that people who are morbidly obese could very well drop down dead just like that. People don't always get warnings.

Re: the article, that won't be the only reason they've been turned down, and if he had wanted to adopt that badly he would have addressed his weight problem. And being seriously overweight is a problem, like it or not.

<an overweight Hole failing to see the fuss>

Unfortunately heart attacks, strokes and diabetes do cause people to drop down dead suddenly, and happen at a much younger age in people with obesity. I have seen obese people in their thirties die of heart attacks.

But anyway, this is a circular argument. I do understand your point. I think it should be looked at like any other chronic health problem in the context of a full and thorough assessment.

Thanks Oriana. We're excited and petrified in equal measures!!

ONE, sorry to come back to you again but I forgot to say if you're less concerned about the rights and wrongs of the troubles than you are about a man being told to loose some weight before starting the adoption process you're priorities are really squeeiff.

Yep it's a very interesting area. And there's definitely a genetic component to it as well.

Anyway I'm hoping to go into O&G so maybe I'll understand it better in a few years ?

You'll be great POD, do keep me updated as I had wondered how it was all going, but might have missed any updates as was away for a bit when moving.

RA - sounds an interesting line of work long term.

That is such wonderful news POD, fingers crossed xx

A big 'fingers crossed' from me too - although I am sure you won't need it. M x

Duplicate post

Backtracking, but I can't see why you're comparing yourself to the chap in the article, BMI of 28.5 = 6ft and 15 stone, BMI of 42 = 6ft and over 22 stone.7st of fat on top of your current muscle mass etc would disable you more than you are thinking. I bet you'd struggle with many simple activities of daily living without getting puffed, let alone complete the BA's BFT whatever that is with a BMI of 42!!

1 stone (out of 22) is all it would take to get this guy to BMI of 40. If I knew that was (apparently) all that was stopping me from getting a longed-for child, I would get on and lose it and complain about the unfairness of it all later.

Should BMI be an absolute criteria for adoption, no. Should it be considered, definately yes, for all the reasons stated above.

Plus smoking, and other major health conditions ARE considered alongside criteria like BMI.

Maybe the fact that they also didn't score highly enough on interviews/questionnaires on parenting skills / empathy / coping strategies for example w also contributed, but that wouldn't make such a neat story, would it?

The guy does not have a bmi of 42. article says its MORE than 42. the maths dosnt add up. his bmi must be at least 50. so its not just a matter of losing 1 stone.

i cant believe im admitting this but my BMI is very very high (over 50) and i have 2 young kids. definatly not an ideal situation. i huff and puff after them, cant play with them properly, im constantly waiting to sit down and have a rest.

however

i do believe i am very patient with them, they both eat a healthy diet, they both get plenty of exercise and certainly lots of love. they do lots of activities and we read lots of stories etc etc and all that jazz.

so, am i an ideal parent??? no. but i do believe im a pretty damn good one. certainly much better than a long line of foster carers or childrens home. and i do believe there are more children then people wanting to adopt. most children waiting for adoption are older.

ONE, you seem to be against all decisions of this type in the adoption process?

The thing is, there are more parents available than children. Somehow some parents need to be selected and some don't. If it is done randomly it is not in the best interests of the children, so it has to be done on some criteria. Don't you agree?

You are quite right, 24.5stone +6ft 1 = BMI of 45, so he would be needing to loose over 2 1/2 stone. Was just going on what i'd heard on the radio today!

Rights and wrongs of the case aside, still an achievable target if he really wanted it and is as healthy and active as he reckons though perhaps??

I am not going to become a little controversial, so first want to say thanks for your comments on this thread Magenta, Oriana and POD ?

The bloke is morbidly obese and his wife doesn't look terribly healthy either. You don't get that way through a healthy lifestyle*, as Magenta pointed out. Yet their reaction to the adoption agency making that point is not to resolve to change the things that need changing, but to scuttle off to the press. Says it all, really.

* Edited to add/clarify - a child in their care would share their lifestyle, and face the same risks they do, given that obesity is as much or more about nurture as nature.

And ONE, your comments have been downright bizarre, and the one to Jess (I presume) really quite vile.

completely agree (as a fatty too) - especially about the horrible comments - i have frequently felt quite dramatically at odds with people on here about various issues - but your comments were extremely out of order - you are certainly clever enough to make your point without being so unpleasant. and so far as not apologising for people disagreeing with your stance - that is fine - but absolutely not fine to refuse to apologise for being personally offensive.

what worries me most is the lack of willingness to change on their part - that by itself would make me think they were not ready to become good parents - regardless of any other issues

I would be astonished if the decision was based solely on weight. Absolutely gobsmacked!

The forms required for adoption are huge - and detailed to a degree that amazed me when I first saw one of the ones required. You might get some idea of the detail and assessment required from the list on this link

http://www.baaf.org.uk/res/pubs/forms/index.shtml

Whoaaaa, ONE! I don't know quite why this seems to have hit such a sore point with you, but your over-reaction to this has been way, way OTT and you owe Mrs Jess an apology at the very least.

As a mum of 2 small children, with a BMI of less than this guy but still would be regarded as obese, I haven't taken a single thing on this thread as inferring that because I'm large that I'm not fit to be a parent to my little boys, or that I won't be a good parent to them. That isn't the point. The point is that is it right by authorities who owe a duty of care to children who are very likely damaged or vulnerable, to knowingly place them with someone who has a condition that could cause serious health problems and/or could lead to them passing on their unhealthy lifestyle to the children, who could end up with the same weight problem.

I really do not understand the outrage displayed by some.

Of course parents who can conceive naturally are not subject to the same monitoring or refusal of having a baby, how on earth would that work? But as POD said, the lives of those children that need adopting are paramount, it is not and should not be focussed on the rights of us to be parents.

The governments big push is to tackle obesity, and has been for a number of years, we all know the risks associated with being even a little overweight, never mind obese (which clinically, i am), there are NHS schemes there to support those that want to lose weight, and although it is difficult for a minority, it is not impossible.

Of course weight will be a factor in the suitability to adopt, just as it is for fertility treatment, it is common sense as far as i can see (and i had to lose weight for fertility treatment, there was no better insentive for me)

Why on earth would a potentially unhealthy set of parents be preferable to a healthy set? And as for all the what if's and whys about Cancers etc, being overweight is obvious, you can see it and measure it, and you can do something about it, just like smoking. Cancer, for example, is not predictable in this way.

Of course none of these means that parents who conceived naturally and are obese are bad parents, it just means the welfare of those children who need familes is being responsibly regarded.

Nothing much to add to what has already been said (I agree that instead of bloody whinging if they're that desperate to adopt they can lose weight - countless people have done the same to improve their chances of conception) but I must say I find ONE's fascism rant absolutely hilarious ?