Is obesity a disability?

[ViolentPanda]

Placing obesity in the same (discursive) category as for example epidemics such as polio or flu; in doing so you construct the obese as dangerous vectors of contagion who need controlling, you place authority in the hands of various doctors and of medical practice, and you limit the solutions to the problems of obesity to medical ones, be they physical or psychological (e.g. gastric band surgery or psychotherapy).

All of which would be fine and dandy if overweight people were just genetically, metabolically or psychologically damaged drains on the public purse...but they aren't. They are people like me, like you and like JV. That is people embedded in a complex and at times bewildering tangle of economic, cultural and social processes; a tangle which sees some of us putting on weight to a point where we are called obese.

Louis MacNeice

Better-said than I managed!

 

[ViolentPanda]

You keep claiming this, but I don't think anybody thinks of obesity as being in any way similar to an infectious disease, even when newspapers talk about obesity epidemics. I haven't seen queues of people down the GP surgery queuing patiently for their anti-obesity jab every winter. And why would it limit solutions of the problems of obesity to medical ones? There's plenty of information out there for people without them having to resort to gastric bands or psychotherapy.

And yet when the media reports obesity, which set of perceptions does the treatment (by the media) of obese people fit most closely to - that they're afflicted and require medical treatment (be that gastric banding, psychotherapy or some new wonder drug), or that they're individuals with complex social and medical histories as to how/why they're obese, and need to be addressed as such?
In my experience - as a hypertensive diabetic with physical disabilities whose doctors acknowledge that I can only undertake very limited exercise - the latter is the default position, and as long as it remains so, obesity will continue to be viewed as a purely medical issue.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Therefore implying that anyone who doesn't follow a similar path is choosing to be lazy through phrases such as 'additional commitments' and 'hard work'.

And your whole post yet again reeks of superiority and a holier-than-thou attitude despite your protestations to the contrary.

If you want to read that into it, fine. (You seem to think no-one is responsible for their weight, unless I'm reading you wrong.) But I just can't accept that, for many, even those with long-ish working hours, families, etc, there isn't an element of personal choice and responsibility to weight, just as, for most of us, there's an element of choice in how much alcohol (an addictive substance to some) we consume. That's not to absolve the govt, corporations, etc of their responsibilities in making it easier for people to be healthy. I don't think I can say any more on the subject, really. So I won't.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

As I've said several times on this thread, and many times on other threads, I spent years on a calorie-controlled diet and an exercise regime (5-6 miles fast walking a day; about 15 miles of cycling up and down a valley per day; 2 hours of circuit training every weekday night at my boxing club) that made Mr. Vodka's regime look like a wimp option, and that just about kept my weight stable. So often it isn't about willpower, it's about a complex set of medical and social influences on the individual obese person. If Vodka can't understand that, it's because he doesn't want to.

Nope, I understand completely that some people have medical issues that make it far harder for them than others to maintain a healthy weight. I've already said that.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Like a little nodding dog on the parcel shelf of a car.

Trust you to have a nodding dog that shakes its head in disagreement.

How you name a phenomenon informs how you think about it.

I think about it in terms of how it is damaging people's health and potentially shortening their lives.

In the case of referring to obesity as an epidemic, that can mean that the social factors militating for obesity get disregarded in favour of the purely medical issues, so we get "solutions" like Xenical and Olestra, or gastric bypass/control surgery. Thing is, unless you attack both sides of the problem, then the problem will always be with you. Now, that might be good news for surgeons and pharmaceuticals companies, but it isn't good news for people as a whole.

Referring to it as an epidemic can also add a sense of urgency to the debate about how best to alleviate the social factors that contribute to obesity as well as the medical 'solutions' that are also being created. But, yes, thinks don't look too rosy in the near future.

 

[Jezebelle]

Sensibly, too, in many cases, as the "register" was used to help calculate part of local authority grant aid, and was usually so far off of the actual number of disabled people that the LA almost always got under-funded.

I agree it was a positive move to drop the register. It was do to with the introduction of the DDA in 95. Its definition covers many people with long-term health conditions, which would not conventionally be seen as 'disability' and unlikely to be registered as such. Since then, the legislation has further extended the meaning of disability. The focus is on adverse effects rather than clinical conditions and medical concepts. For instance, it's no longer necessary to name a precise mental health condition, which is recognised by a respected body of medical opinion.

 

[equationgirl]

If you want to read that into it, fine. (You seem to think no-one is responsible for their weight, unless I'm reading you wrong.) But I just can't accept that, for many, even those with long-ish working hours, families, etc, there isn't an element of personal choice and responsibility to weight, just as, for most of us, there's an element of choice in how much alcohol (an addictive substance to some) we consume. That's not to absolve the govt, corporations, etc of their responsibilities in making it easier for people to be healthy. I don't think I can say any more on the subject, really. So I won't.

Show me where on this thread I have said no-one is responsible for their weight. Show me the post or apologise.

As I and many others have repeatedly said, it's not just about one factor or another, not just about limiting food and/or exercising a lot, regardless of family commitments. It's multi-factored and extremely variable. So while you have found a regime that suits you, it won't work as well for everyone and for some won't work at all. That's not avoiding personal responsibility in the slightest. And I'm not even going to go into what I do to try and offset the issues of weight gain with long-term painkiller use but given that my clothes size has remained fairly static for a few years, I must be doing something right (just not the same as you).

And you can shove your passive-aggressive smiley up your arse too - funny how you try and use smilies to make you seem friendly when you're actually being judgmental.

If you learnt from these threads it would be one thing, but you clearly don't.

 

[kenny g]

And you can shove your passive-aggressive smiley up your arse too

Oi! Leave the poor smiley alone.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Show me where on this thread I have said no-one is responsible for their weight. Show me the post or apologise.

So some people are kinda responsible for their weight and some people aren't? I have absolutely no idea why you're arguing with me. I've clearly stated there are all sorts of situations and varying degrees of responsibility. We seem to (sort of) agree but you want aggro anyway.

 

[kenny g]

We seem to (sort of) agree but you want aggro anyway.

And any attempt to not be aggressive is in fact passive aggressive. It's enough to drive one to the cookie jar.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Look, if you're back here for another troll I'd advise not going ahead with it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

And any attempt to not be aggressive is in fact passive aggressive. It's enough to drive one to the cookie jar.

Not done the decent thing yet, Kenny?

Shame.

 

[equationgirl]

So some people are kinda responsible for their weight and some people aren't? I have absolutely no idea why you're arguing with me. I've clearly stated there are all sorts of situations and varying degrees of responsibility. We seem to (sort of) agree but you want aggro anyway.

Show me the post where I have said no-one is responsible for their weight, or apologise please.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm asking you to back up your assertion. Which so far you have failed to do. Again.

Shocker.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Whatever it is, it's pretty expensive.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ion-weight-on-global-economy/article21665240/

 

[Lemon Eddy]

Whatever it is, it's pretty expensive.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ion-weight-on-global-economy/article21665240/

That report is highly questionable:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/23/stop_telling_porky_pies_about_obesity/

 

[Epona]

I absolutely fucking hate this idea that people are somehow responsible in full or in part for any medical problems they have. I have a genetic disorder, does that mean my parents should be strung up for having reproduced and unknowingly created someone with health issues?

I really really hate this culture of blame that seems to be current right now. If you don't know what it is like to walk a mile in another persons' shoes, then shut the fuck up.

 

[Lemon Eddy]

Sorry, should have pasted an excerpt from the link I gave. Here's the main point:

"it's a well known point in healthcare circles that fatty lardbuckets do not cost the health service money. Nor, as a matter of fact, do topers nor smokers.

Sure, all get medical treatment because they've paid their taxes - in the case of the smokers and boozers, a lot more taxes than teetotal nonsmokers, though the fatties get their pies tax-free - and why shouldn't they? And, true, some of that medical treatment will be for things brought on by their gorging, swilling and fuming. But the NHS treats someone for life. And if that life is shorter as a result of personal habits then healthcare needs to be supplied for a lower number of years.

This could go either way of course: perhaps the treatment costs are higher than that saved by not spending in those extra years? But that's not actually how it pans out:

Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.

The same is even more true of smokers:

Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers.

This is something that Professor Doll noted around and about the time that he proved the connection between lung cancer and the cancer sticks. Those cancer sufferers tend to die an early and cheap death meaning many years of not having to give them hip replacements nor care for them in their senile years."

In short, rather than claiming obese people are a drain on society's resources, they are actually far less so than thin/healthy people over time. Society should actually be encouraging people to be fat, smoke and drink so they take up even less resources, whilst paying more in tax revenue back to the country.

See, that's why I dislike health freaks. They're just selfish.

 

[Citizen66]

though the fatties get their pies tax-free - and why shouldn't they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18244171

 

[kenny g]

Sorry, should have pasted an excerpt from the link I gave. Here's the main point:

"it's a well known point in healthcare circles that fatty lardbuckets do not cost the health service money. Nor, as a matter of fact, do topers nor smokers.

Sure, all get medical treatment because they've paid their taxes - in the case of the smokers and boozers, a lot more taxes than teetotal nonsmokers, though the fatties get their pies tax-free - and why shouldn't they? And, true, some of that medical treatment will be for things brought on by their gorging, swilling and fuming. But the NHS treats someone for life. And if that life is shorter as a result of personal habits then healthcare needs to be supplied for a lower number of years.

This could go either way of course: perhaps the treatment costs are higher than that saved by not spending in those extra years? But that's not actually how it pans out:

Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.

The same is even more true of smokers:

Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers.

This is something that Professor Doll noted around and about the time that he proved the connection between lung cancer and the cancer sticks. Those cancer sufferers tend to die an early and cheap death meaning many years of not having to give them hip replacements nor care for them in their senile years."

In short, rather than claiming obese people are a drain on society's resources, they are actually far less so than thin/healthy people over time. Society should actually be encouraging people to be fat, smoke and drink so they take up even less resources, whilst paying more in tax revenue back to the country.

See, that's why I dislike health freaks. They're just selfish.

Not all obese diabetics die young though. There must be senile, non-active obese diabetics demanding hip replacements out there who cost way more to support than the otherwise healthy senile.

ETA:- otherwise before healthy. Thanks Louis

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Not all obese diabetics die young though. There must be senile, non-active obese diabetics demanding hip replacements out there who cost way more to support than the healthy senile.

I realize you're just posting to get a reaction, but you could at least try for some coherence.

Louis MacNeice

 

[kenny g]

I realize you're just posting to get a reaction, but you could at least try for some coherence.

Louis MacNeice

Point taken. Edit to add "otherwise" before "healthy" then.

 

[Epona]

Walking across a road is a very dangerous thing to do, and people who walk across roads and get into trouble with an oncoming vehicle require a lot of healthcare resources to make them right. People who choose to live in places where they have to cross a road in order to get to work are being very careless about their health, when there are better, healthier, options that they could choose and better ways for them to live. People who deliberately cross roads should be reprimanded for their poor health choices and denied certain types of health care because of their poor choices in life.

 

[Epona]

Jesus H Christ, I just found out that some people are idiotic enough to go up mountains, sometimes they even do this thing called skiing. People often need rescuing from this sort of behaviour, and cost a ton in rescue resources. The real idiocy of it is that a lot of people who end up being rescued and costing money are people who actually think they are really healthy and that their lifestyle is just fine, they are just a bit adventurous. The ones who participate in the act of skiing are risking themselves every time they strap on their skis, but they don't seem to care. Don't get me started on people who ride horses.

 

[equationgirl]

Not all obese diabetics die young though. There must be senile, non-active obese diabetics demanding hip replacements out there who cost way more to support than the otherwise healthy senile.

ETA:- otherwise before healthy. Thanks Louis

What makes them senile? Old age doesn't automatically mean senility.

 

[zippyRN]

What exactly do you mean by medicalising obesity?

some people who object to the use of testing in determining ability / disability claim that anything which aims to classify or offer treatments for things is 'medicalising' , this can also include suggesting that physical medical treatments or 'psychiatric' drugs + talking approaches are the most effective ways to deal with an issue

it's also all aobut those who want to make pathology 'normal' ...

it's the illogical conclusion of those who have extrapolated the psycho-social model and forget that both ' the medical model' and ' the psycho-social model' have generally been merged into a bio-psycho-social model - just the funding in the UK is insufficiently joined up and rather less joined than that elsewhere in the world

It's also social w**kers vs Doctors with collateral Damage in the Nurses and AHPs depending on the view of the individual making the criticiam ( i.e. they are either twoo wishy washy and don't pay enough attention to facts, science and objective assessment of behaviours and ability OR alternatively their are the running dog lackeys of the patriarchial medicla establishment becasue they don;t just rely on the fluffy and touchy feely subjective stuff)

 

[zippyRN]

Sensibly, too, in many cases, as the "register" was used to help calculate part of local authority grant aid, and was usually so far off of the actual number of disabled people that the LA almost always got under-funded.

it also contributed to the notion of the disabled as a parallel community , 'equal but different' ...

 

[equationgirl]

some people who object to the use of testing in determining ability / disability claim that anything which aims to classify or offer treatments for things is 'medicalising' , this can also include suggesting that physical medical treatments or 'psychiatric' drugs + talking approaches are the most effective ways to deal with an issue

it's also all aobut those who want to make pathology 'normal' ...

it's the illogical conclusion of those who have extrapolated the psycho-social model and forget that both ' the medical model' and ' the psycho-social model' have generally been merged into a bio-psycho-social model - just the funding in the UK is insufficiently joined up and rather less joined than that elsewhere in the world

It's also social w**kers vs Doctors with collateral Damage in the Nurses and AHPs depending on the view of the individual making the criticiam ( i.e. they are either twoo wishy washy and don't pay enough attention to facts, science and objective assessment of behaviours and ability OR alternatively their are the running dog lackeys of the patriarchial medicla establishment becasue they don;t just rely on the fluffy and touchy feely subjective stuff)

I have no idea what you mean by this post. None whatsoever.

 

[equationgirl]

it also contributed to the notion of the disabled as a parallel community , 'equal but different' ...

Which isn't a surprise when people persist in calling those with disabilities 'the disabled', thus ostracising them.

 

[zippyRN]

What makes them senile? Old age doesn't automatically mean senility.

in at least one of the accepted definitions of 'senility' it refers advanced age primarily

 

[zippyRN]

Which isn't a surprise when people persist in calling those with disabilities 'the disabled', thus ostracising them.

i see yet another thing has gone over your head ...