The New England Journal of Medicine has published, today, a few leading articles on the subject of child obesity, especially its implications for heart disease and the costs thereof to society. For more on childhood obesity, see my previous post.
The Journal pontificates on the subject and calls for action:
Unfortunately, the U.S. government has thus far invested only a fraction of a cent in research for every dollar that obesity costs society. And although broad consensus exists regarding the dietary and lifestyle habits needed to prevent and treat childhood obesity, we lack anything resembling a comprehensive strategy for encouraging children to eat a healthful diet and engage in physical activity. Such a strategy would include legislation that regulates junk-food advertising, provides adequate funding for decent lunches and regular physical activities at school, restructures the farm-subsidies program to favor nutrient-dense rather than calorie-dense produce, and mandates insurance coverage for preventing and treating pediatric obesity.
In other words, what it is saying is that the responsibility for some kids becoming fat should be shared by all of society, and that no kid should be exposed freely to a Macdonald’s burger or French fries. Not even an ad of the same.
It is, therefore, suggesting that tax money be spent on providing nutritious lunches in schools, and providing gyms and playgrounds for the kids. In addition, it is advocating insurance for all kids. The question I have for the learned journal is: Who is going to pay for it? And why?
Can one dare ask the high-and-mighty Journal, “What gives you the right to assume that State-funded care is all that is possible to tackle healthcare issues? As far as the issue of taxing people for these services, may I ask: By what right?”
What gives an obese kid (or anyone else, for that matter) the right to be a recipient of a part of my hard-earned money, unless I choose to do so?
The Journal assumes a Socialist position on healthcare rather casually.
Elsewhere in the same issue, it thunders on the cough preparations for children (that have been scientifically proven to be useless) and calls for banning them or, at the least, banning the ads. In other words, if your child has a persistent cough, and you want him or her to just take a bit of cough syrup and sleep it off, you don’t have the right. They have the right to stop you. You, the user, can do nothing. You see, you don’t have the brains to know which is good for your kid, or which ad to believe and which one to dismiss as crap. The Government will do this thinking for you.
To get back to the issue of child obesity, the most important things are for each of us to choose consciously what we need to do: watch less television, avoid junk food, and play or work out every day, for example. I accept that all this is easily said, but not done. The responsibility and the outcome squarely rests on the individual, his parent and his doctor.
The NEJM would have none of this. It would want everyone to be deprived of their choices (ads and junk food) just so that some of society would benefit. It is a moot point if any of these interventions will ever work on a large scale in society.
It gets shrill as it raises its political voice:
But why should Mr. and Ms. G.’s efforts to protect their children from life-threatening illness be undermined by massive marketing campaigns from the manufacturers of junk food? Why are their children subjected to the temptation of such food in the school cafeteria and vending machines? Why don’t they have the opportunity to exercise their bodies during the school day? And why must Mr. and Ms. G. fight with their insurance company for reimbursement to cover the costs of their children’s care at the OWL clinic?
Hello, did we hear right? We are all subjected to temptation. I want to be subjected to temptation: do I have a right or not? The NEJM says no, because temptation is bad for kids, at least some kids.
Isn’t a defence against rape to the effect that “she tempted me, it wasn’t my fault!”? So where is the concept of free will here? Where is the parental or school responsibility for the health of the children? Who, gentlemen, are going to pay for those ‘opportunities’ that you demand?
Every modern health problem seems to inspire Statist solutions, irrespective of the fact that State control in anything has not worked anywhere as well as capitalist solutions. Unfortunately, people living in First World countries and occupying prestigious chairs in the NEJM have not (possibly) seen the ground reality of Socialism in healthcare. They need look no further than India.
I wish to ask one final question to the Editors of the NEJM: Is the NEJM a leftist