kittyP
Pluviophile
I would wager that the vast majority of morbid obesity is in some way linked to either a physical or psychological issue, maybe sometimes/often an undiagnosed one.
Is obesity a disability?
- Thread starter Nancy_Winks
- Start date
I would wager that the vast majority of morbid obesity is in some way linked to either a physical or psychological issue, maybe sometimes/often an undiagnosed one.
Poot
My wife thinks I work too hard
It's an interesting conversation. There is such a vast gulf of a difference between the person who becomes portly because he just loves food and the person who is lonely, afraid and seeks comfort in secretly binging. I'm not sure it's fair to claim that either one is disabled, though. Labelling people as disabled might make it much harder for people psychologically to help themselves if they want to.
el-ahrairah
forward communism, forward gerbils!
You know all the answers do you?
if only!
kittyP
Pluviophile
See I guess this is another issue. There is obesity as classified by BMI (which is not actually that big) and OBESITY as in something that effects your ability to go about your everyday life.
Nancy_Winks
Well-Known Member
Do you think obesity in itself is a disability, and should society make adjustments so obese people aren't disadvantaged?
Or does placing it in that category patronise obese people or offend people disabled by things entirely beyond their control like blindness.
The BMI thingy really is a very clunky tool, many sports people are classed as obese, proffesional rubgy players are sometimes even morbid obese. Its clunky.
Aye. In rehab they watch everyone's eating like a hawk. Because without the booze/drugs people search for another feelgood factor. Shagging too. You can get kicked out for the latter but not the former.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
has there been an update on this case since June then? Because that is when Karsten Kaltoft won his preliminary case.
Looking at that in a little more detail, it refers explicitly to extreme obesity - which will be a comparatively small subset of all those generally obese. I'm not even sure that the ruling will help Mr Kaltoft. What the ruling will do is require employers to make reasonably practicable changes in order to accommodate someones disability. It doesn't mean they have to employ them in exactly the same role. A person who lost their eyesight would make a poor lifeguard, for example.
In Kaltofts case, he lost his job as he couldn't tie up his shoelaces - which was dangerous for a childminder. It would not be reasonably practicable to hire a shoelace tier for him, or invent a machine that could so so. I suppose slip-ons might be an option. I'm not sure what effect such a ruling would have upon healthcare, it would vary from country to country I guess, and would depend upon the action the extremely obese person took to rectify the situation.
Looking at that in a little more detail, it refers explicitly to extreme obesity - which will be a comparatively small subset of all those generally obese. I'm not even sure that the ruling will help Mr Kaltoft. What the ruling will do is require employers to make reasonably practicable changes in order to accommodate someones disability. It doesn't mean they have to employ them in exactly the same role. A person who lost their eyesight would make a poor lifeguard, for example.
In Kaltofts case, he lost his job as he couldn't tie up his shoelaces - which was dangerous for a childminder. It would not be reasonably practicable to hire a shoelace tier for him, or invent a machine that could so so. I suppose slip-ons might be an option. I'm not sure what effect such a ruling would have upon healthcare, it would vary from country to country I guess, and would depend upon the action the extremely obese person took to rectify the situation.
mauvais
on reddit or something
Sure, and for many mental health disorders that might manifest to many as lifestyle problems - social anxiety, OCD, BDD etc - you can argue that self-management is part of or even the whole answer, except these days we're generally happy to accept those patients into therapy services. Not so much for the obese, I think.
It's also true for most treatments, short of being hospitalised or sectioned. For instance you'd be unlikely to get good access to treatment for PTSD etc without proactively choosing to opt-in to the process.
Yes. From the narrowed perspective of therapy availability, that makes perfect sense.
If you look at the rest of society's provision for and how it responds to what we think of as 'disability' - so the usually held idea of car parking spaces and rights to have wheelchair ramps at work etc - then on the face of it, it gets more complicated. But, if anyone wants to argue that case for e.g. employers not needing to make any arrangements to suit addicts or the obese, then you have to pick where the dividing line is, and that's difficult - plus it has ripple effects back to treatment availability again.
Nancy_Winks
Well-Known Member
If it's gonna be law tho there's got to be some objective measure like BMI I guess.
kittyP
Pluviophile
I don't know if I am being honest.
I think it's quite a complicated issue.
ETA: I think there are a lot of people out there that consider MH problems totally different to something like blindness because they think that people could and should really just sort themselves out.
Nancy_Winks
Well-Known Member
The rumour was that it was cos he couldn't tie the kids shoelaces wasn't it? And he disputes that.
More how the obesity affects their daily life. Obesity in and of itself isn't a disability. But it can be for some.
Nancy_Winks
Well-Known Member
That doesn't make sense? Isn't disability by definition the effects on daily life?
kittyP
Pluviophile
As has been said, BMI is a crap measure of this kinda thing.
You are right, if it was made a legal issue there would have to be some measure but I don't personally think that BMI would be any good for that.
kittyP
Pluviophile
I guess like, loosing a leg for some might actually not have that much of a detrimental effect on their every day life (after rehabilitation and a getting a good prosthetic) but for others it might ruin their lives.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
'he couldnt bend down to tie shoelaces' is what's in the report I've jsut read - so both his and the childs. If it is true he cant do so, he's screwed (imo) whatever the ruling. His state means he is unable to carry out a key part of his job. That's that - altho he could be moved to other duties.
What it would mean for employers is much more limited - "This could mean that employers could find themselves under a legal obligation to make adjustments such as providing car park spaces close to the workplace entrance for obese employees, providing special desks, or providing duties which involve reduced walking or travelling, or possibly even ensuring that healthy meal options are provided at their staff canteen." according to Irwin Mitchell solicitors
Here-in lies the problem with labels, I understand they are useful for access to treatment and preventing discrimination but ultimately the goal should always be harm reduction but would using a highly debatable measure to label someone as disabled be a useful exercise? I'm not so sure. There are numerous issues around obesity which are clearly debilitating but in-itself need not be considered a disability.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
'Normal day to day activities' according to the DDA.
Thus the person who loses their leg would have the right to demand their employer made changes to allow them to carry on working, such as the above mentioned car parking places, room/time for changing/cleaning prostheses as necessary, and the like. The legless worker wouldn't be able to demand to carry on playing as a striker for Liverpool. Maybe Tranmere.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Sadly, it appears it IS BMI. Anything over 40 according to the original ruling. Which is a bloody nonsense
Nancy_Winks
Well-Known Member
How would you measure it?
Not all obese people are bedridden. There's varying degrees of the condition.
I haven't read the article but is it basically someone arguing that they have been discriminated against on account of them having a disability? If that's the case then they're arguing obesity being a disability because I don't think there's anything in law regarding being discriminated against because you're fat. Perhaps there should be.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
There are really important issues of public policy and law related to the OP. But how this all plays out in people's lives is messy and complex, not always suited to easy definitions. I'm not obese, but maybe 20 pounds over the 'ideal'. I'm also disabled - not profoundly but enough to meet the definition (joint/back problems + fybro). My disability doesn't follow from being overweight, nor does being overweight follow from my disability - but they interact, both physically and also in terms of depression. All a complex ball of things I'm 'responsible for', things I'm not - the same for most people really.
What should you take from that jumble of everyday life? Personally, I'm not that fussed about definitions, better to fight back against thefuckers like the dwp who want to fuck us all over - 'fat/thin/disabed/able bodied'.
What should you take from that jumble of everyday life? Personally, I'm not that fussed about definitions, better to fight back against thefuckers like the dwp who want to fuck us all over - 'fat/thin/disabed/able bodied'.
Nancy_Winks
Well-Known Member
Read the OP?
Thats an extremly difficult and indeed unfair question to ask anyone. The short comings of the BMI index system is well known, but as of yet I've not seen a better system, but should we accept a flawed system because there a better one has not been created yet? I'd say this in-itself is a decent argument against classing obesity as a disability because we do not have a decent way of defining it.
What do you think about all this btw? You posited the original question, what are your thoughts on the BMI index?
I had. I have again and see you haven't linked to any article, hence my confusion about what it's all about.
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
Surely the measurement can be most simply expressed in terms of diagnosing the extent of mobility issues?
Person has mobility problems which restrict them going about their lives or they don't. Obese or not. I don't see the need for extra categories.
I'm morbidly obese. I wouldn't class a disabled, but I am developing arthritic knees, which - while doubtlessly obesity-related - are eventually going to prove to be a disability in their own right.
Person has mobility problems which restrict them going about their lives or they don't. Obese or not. I don't see the need for extra categories.
I'm morbidly obese. I wouldn't class a disabled, but I am developing arthritic knees, which - while doubtlessly obesity-related - are eventually going to prove to be a disability in their own right.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
<liked for first and second sentences, not your iffy knees>
Similar threads
