If you haven’t read about the vegetarian couple who were denied adoption on the Greek island of Crete, well now’s your chance. Apparently this one has been making the rounds in the vegetarian blogs and news sites because they find it utterly appalling that these prospective parents might be denied adoption based upon dietary reasons.
Apparently the city’s welfare services cited the concern that the parents would foist the dietary restrictions on the child, a reasonable concern under the circumstances, when the University of Crete medical school recommended a diet that includes meat. The decision was made because they believed it would not be in the best interests of the child to be placed in a home where meat is not provided as a dietary option.
In this instance I don’t believe the action taken by the city was too extreme. After all, even though there are many proponents of a vegetarian diet, the mainstream medical world acknowledges meat as an essential food group. Health Canada, for instance, recommends a diet that includes meat although it suggests meat alternatives such as beans, lentils and tofu. Health Canada also recommends two servings of fish every week, and lean meats with no fat or salt.
That isn’t to say that a child would be unhealthy on a vegetarian diet. But I think it would be reasonable to ask whether the adoptive parents intend to include the child in their dietary regimen, and to prove that they understand the dietary requirements of children and the meat substitutes required to get proper nutrition. This point cannot be overstated, as children can develop Vitamin B12 deficiencies by not eating the right proteins.
So, why should adoptive parents should be forced to explain their dietary choices when birth parents aren’t required to do so? On the surface it may seem like an intrusion. After all, some parents would probably fail the criteria of raising their own children by government standards. But it’s reasonable to conclude that the state will attempt to find as suitable a home for a ward of the state as possible. Fortunately, the state is not yet able to enforce dietary compliance for children not under their care. (Though this is no doubt worthy of a futuristic movie).
I’m not sure why a parent would want to raise a child solely on vegetables anyway. It’s difficult enough to get my children to eat the single leaf sprinkled atop their meals for balance, let alone a sea of greens. Subjecting yourself to this kind of torture doesn’t seem worth any potential benefit to the child.
Having said that, I don’t think parents should be denied adoption solely based on their own personal dietary preferences. And much is missing from the article that might be of interest. Do the parents intend to feed the child only vegetables? What are the reasons for the vegetarian diet? Are they based on ethical or health motives? The former usually comes with a willingness to forgo the needs of humans for the imagined needs of animals.
A vegan baby died in 2004 because his parents fed him nothing but soy milk and apple juice. The parents deservingly got life in prison for their extreme folly, as prosecutors noted the couple intentionally neglected their child and refused to take him to the doctor even as the baby’s body wasted away. Such extreme examples are good reason for concern, particularly with very young children.
I think if the Crete parents can have their diet approved by a medical professional, they should be allowed to adopt. Otherwise it’s reasonable to seek a couple more open to the full range of food choices.
“Health Canada, for instance, recommends a diet that includes meat although it….”.
As if anyone ever pays attention to what health canada recommends. Much like “participaction” , they are just a collection of freeloading nanny state drones.
Um… so then you think that the decision to deny adoption was the wrong one?
I am soooo unqualified to comment on this but would really like to know where I can buy one of those T shirts.
I disagree with you.
The denial of adoption is based on the assumption that the consensus nutritional advice we receive from the ‘authorities’ is accurate and beneficial.
When you consider the many times we’ve been told by these nannies (excuse me – couldn’t resist) incorrect and damaging ‘recommendations’ you realize they don’t. There are many examples but here’s one: the recommendation to switch from saturated-fat laden butter to trans-fat laden margarine (which btw is now undergoing a reversal).
One group forcing lifestyle changes on another group by any means is wrong. Period.
They would have been approved if they were a gay vegan couple.
A prime example of a nanny state gone bananas.
While I fully approve of background checks and family interviews in order to gauge the stability of the family unit and the parenting ability of these families I have a serious issue with this denial. There are many healthful ways to gain protein and vitamins with out giving meat. I know because I had a child that absolutely refused to eat meat, eggs, peanut butter. I even had to resort to hiding tofu (shudder) in their food in order to squeeze protien into their diet. Rice and beans are one other example. The fact that this family is being denied for what amounts to a ideology or life style is concerning especially on the heals of a British Judge recently ruling that “Christians” and their ethics are harmful to children.
I’m kind of surprised everybody sides with the vegetarians in this case. First, because even while being a vegetarian can be just as healthy as not, you have to know what you’re doing to get the right nutrition.
Second, this is perceived as nanny state interference but in this case the state itself is in charge of the child. It makes sense that it would follow the nutritional recommendations of the day and not place the child with a couple that won’t provide a full range of food choices.
I’d be interested to know why the couple are vegetarians.
I am a confirmed carnivore and I say ” Eat vegetarians for breakfast ” and PITA mean Please eat the Tasty
Animal !
Joke out of the way, I side with the health of the child and a Vegan diet can be healthy but only if done by very well informed Vegans who are very careful with combining various vegetable to achieve a balanced diet where all essential nutrients are included in their diet ! Sloppy Vegans who don’t know what they are doing are putting their own health at risk as adults but a baby is much more at risk of any errors in feeding ” ALL ” the needed nutriants.
So should these adopted parents be allowed to adopt ? Only if they can prove they know what they are doing and are ready to compromise with strict vegan diet at least until the baby has moved on to solid food and make a commitment to have their child checked for possible nutritional deficiencies ….. one could ask if natural parents who are vegans should have to jump through all the same hoops to keep their child ? And then we could be getting into ” NANNY STATE ” territory !
Adrian – what would these authorities do with the diet currently being recommended to various First Nations groups? It’s a high protein, high fat diet with minimum carbs, and is being touted as better as it is closer to the aboriginal diet before agriculture. Apparently it is meeting with some success as being better suited to their metabolism (not used to bread and other bakery products).
That sounds interesting! They’re not used to our diet even after
a few hundred years, you can see the problems with diabetes and
obesity. It’s far better for them to eat a diet more closely
resembling the one before Europeans came here.
I would be more inclined to let them adopt with a clause to have access to the child on a regular annual basis. There are also unknown variables here, for example, milk, eggs cheeze etc.
The vegan baby that died in 2004 is a extreme example and does not fit the normal vegan portfolio. Personally I like my hamburgers, but to each their own. I get the impression that the Crete agency was on a power trip . Were the potential parents healthy and were all the other parameters normal ? If so I would have let the adoption proceed.
In Canada for sure but not in Crete. They have not yet succumbed to political correctness.
I think it’s a slippery slope to deny an adoption because the parents are vegetarian. What if the parents like to eat unhealthy deep fried foods? What if the parents like to eat junk food snacks? Those behaviours might be just as unhealthy.
What if the parents are smokers? What if they like to have a glass of beer, and might be tempted to let the little ones have a drink or two?
How do we know that just because you eat something unhealthy, you will necessarily feed crap to the children? I agree it sounds plausible, but so do all sorts of other behaviours.
I think my position is one of giving a bit of freedom here, and ensuring the adoptive children have regular health checkups. Take the kids away if they start to show signs of improper nutrition, but not on the chance that they might not receive proper nutrition.
No, Adrian, they’re not. And it isn’t that many years. Even in the 1930′s, oolichan grease was a common oil source up the coast. It’s coming back now, to the benefit of the people who can eat it (I was told that it was traditionally produced by piling oolichan fish -they come in droves at a certain time of year – into an old canoe and letting them rot. The resulting oil was either drained out from a spigot at the bottom of the canoe or by scouping it off the top. Either way, it was extremely fragrant and had a very definite taste.)
Also, there was a band out Ontario way who lived traditionally until the 1950′s. One of the latest groups to discouver the ‘benefits’ of civilization. Anyway, going back to a high-protein, high-fat, low-carb diet ha been extremely beneficial there.
Makes one wonder if the Atkens diet doesn’t do more for a lot of us than the ‘experts’ want to admit.