The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

I agree. I can't imagine wanting to drink these volumes of anything, never mind fizzy pop. And if it's causing them to put on so much weight, why don't they just switch to the sugar-free versions?
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Was it biologically based 50 years ago when obesity was much more rare? Does evolution happen that dramatically, that quickly?

All addictions could be said to be biologically based, but the availability of your ' drug ' of choice, along with commercial advertising pressure goes a long way to feed the need..
Click to expand...

Basically. Same as height, for example. We're taller than our ancestors despite being genetically identical. Better diet allows height to fill its potential. Same genes; different environment. We now achieve our 'natural' heights.

Weight seems to have a variation of genetic predisposition, and an environment of abundance and amplified immersive appetite stimulation allows our weight to 'fill its potential'.

Jules: ["I wouldn't go so far as to call the brother fat. I mean, he got a weight problem. What's a xxxxx gonna do? He's Samoan."]
 
Rolfe said:
And if it's causing them to put on so much weight, why don't they just switch to the sugar-free versions?
Click to expand...

Habits are hard to explain. Why can't people stop biting their nails when they know it looks terrible on the bus? Why can't my wife close kitchen cabinets when she knows the kids will smack their foreheads into them?

I think mostly the point is that we're not thinking about these things. We're not necessarily making bad 'choices' so much as coasting through activities without due attention.

This is why I'm a big advocate of environmental shaping. The idea is to become aware of one's attentional blindspots, and accomodate in advance. Present time Blutoski sets up an easier week for Future Blutoski so Future Blutoski can let his attention drift.
 
Minoosh said:
How casually Donald Trump dropped that line that the DNC hacker "could weigh 400 pounds." As if that means anything whatsoever. In his mind, 400 pounds = loser.
Click to expand...

I have a buddy who is easy 375 pounds .. 6' 6" ... and he's a very successful business man ... and surprisingly light on his feet for someone who's 60 years old ... and the BEST cook ever :)
 
There's a couple recent article that I found interesting.

A politician in Manitoba wants to make discrimination based on someone's size and weight illegal, treating it like race or gender: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-obesity-human-rights-bill-1.3796013

I wonder what that will cover, and what accommodations will be necessary.

Also, the NHS has started rationing non-essential surgeries for obese and smokers:

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-09-03/obese-and-smokers-facing-nhs-surgery-ban-to-save-money/

Of course, some people are offended by this, comparing it to racial discrimination:

https://www.theguardian.com/society...s-by-denying-surgery-to-smokers-and-the-obese

But I doubt anyone is offended by discriminating against smokers.
 
rustypouch said:
There's a couple recent article that I found interesting.

A politician in Manitoba wants to make discrimination based on someone's size and weight illegal, treating it like race or gender: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-obesity-human-rights-bill-1.3796013
Click to expand...

So, an employer must ignore the facts, which include:

More sick days than non-obese.
Higher danger of staff member dying, creating considerable cost.
Destruction of furniture, or needing to buy special furniture.
Evacuation procedure hindrance.

rustypouch said:
I wonder what that will cover, and what accommodations will be necessary.
Click to expand...

Whatever it takes to keep tubbo employed.

As above - if the 300+ lb employee is too fat for your office chairs and desks, you'll be buying new ones.

rustypouch said:
Also, the NHS has started rationing non-essential surgeries for obese and smokers:
Click to expand...

Well hallelujah!

Finally, someone has accepted that incessantly and unnecessarily shoving food into your face is as much your fault as smoking.
 
rustypouch said:
There's a couple recent article that I found interesting.

A politician in Manitoba wants to make discrimination based on someone's size and weight illegal, treating it like race or gender: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-obesity-human-rights-bill-1.3796013

I wonder what that will cover, and what accommodations will be necessary.

Also, the NHS has started rationing non-essential surgeries for obese and smokers:

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-09-03/obese-and-smokers-facing-nhs-surgery-ban-to-save-money/

Of course, some people are offended by this, comparing it to racial discrimination:

https://www.theguardian.com/society...s-by-denying-surgery-to-smokers-and-the-obese

But I doubt anyone is offended by discriminating against smokers.
Click to expand...

I am, for one. It's an old debate that is discussed in standard medical ethics books for generations. Other examples are refusing liver transplants to alcoholics and refusing to treat STDs or screenable birth defects.
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
I don't see a problem with moving alcoholics to the bottom of the list..

Where and who refuses to treat STDs?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are entire continents that refuse to treat STDs (eg: most of Africa, IIRC, and until recently, China), but my example was about medical ethics topics. Everbody has a moraility opinion that puts people not like them on a lower peg for can what be considered a right versus a privilege. My feeling is that in a public health system, personal morality plays of the managers cannot justify restricting access to those who are paying for it and demonstrating need.

But politicians are not ethicists: they need to pander to the masses who need their fifteen minutes' hate. So if the masses have a prejudice, resource allocation based on moral tales is sellable.
 
If you turn yourself into a lard arse I have no problem with the kids and women first thing
 
And if you catch aids?

HPV?

Food is just as obsessive as sex.
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
And if you catch aids?

HPV?

Food is just as obsessive as sex.
Click to expand...
Then we sort it.

Food is a basic function of biology.

Energy (food), breathing, water.

To argue food is some how obsessive goes against basic physics.

The unatural ingredients might be compulsive like 8 spoon fulls of sugar, but she is hardly cocaine or smoking in addictiveness.
 
cullennz said:
If you turn yourself into a lard arse I have no problem with the kids and women first thing
Click to expand...

Well, wait... what if the kid had a genetic condition that was detectable by the parent prior to birth? (eg: Down's Syndrome complications, Tay Sach's, &c) The expense on the system was a choice, so should the patient in question also be deprioritized? What are the inputs? Personal revulsion? Popular vote?

This is the sort of exercise that gets discussed in medical ethics texts, and ultimately the conclusion is that employing moral failings of the patient as an input to allocating their care is unethical. It's using a 'medical' system as a 'moral reward' tool.

However, ethical doesn't mean illegal, and this is how we get real death panels.
 
blutoski said:
Well, wait... what if the kid had a genetic condition that was detectable by the parent prior to birth? (eg: Down's Syndrome complications, Tay Sach's, &c) The expense on the system was a choice, so should the patient in question also be deprioritized? What are the inputs? Personal revulsion? Popular vote?

This is the sort of exercise that gets discussed in medical ethics texts, and ultimately the conclusion is that employing moral failings of the patient as an input to allocating their care is unethical. It's using a 'medical' system as a 'moral reward' tool.

However, ethical doesn't mean illegal, and this is how we get real death panels.
Click to expand...
Nope.

Kids innocent
 
blutoski said:
OK, we're not billing the kid in this scenario: we'd bill the parents. Is that fair?
Click to expand...

And there are other examples.

Weight is only so popular because it's "visible" - but another important factor for health is exercise. Should the health suppliers require us to log exercise and have our access to the system prioritized according to our lifetime exercise effort?

Another is education... should more educated people be given priority over less educated people?

Another is income... should higher income people be given priority over lower income?
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
And there are other examples.

Weight is only so popular because it's "visible" - but another important factor for health is exercise. Should the health suppliers require us to log exercise and have our access to the system prioritized according to our lifetime exercise effort?

Another is education... should more educated people be given priority over less educated people?

Another is income... should higher income people be given priority over lower income?
Click to expand...

Nope
 
It also depends on the cause of the issue.

If some fattys kidneys are giving out due to over intaking *****, the little kid whose kidneys are failing because of an abnormality should get first dibs
 
cullennz said:
Nope
Click to expand...

So, I guess I'd have to ask why not... if the principle is "your choices contributed to your condition therefore you should subsidize the treatment, not me" then these should all be valid criteria for prioritizing patients' share of common resources.

In fact, probably I'd put education higher than obesity, since the correlation is stronger.

And acute conditions are more clear: speeders who need organ transplants from an accident would get a lower priority than bystanders who need organ transplant from an accident, for example.


ETA: and this is the discussion that takes entire books, it's a whole set of courses in medical school. You have your preferences, I have mine, other people have theirs. Above you expressed surprise that there were movements all around the world to exclude STDs from care plans (public and private). It's been a political platform since before I was alive. HIV being the high profile example. ("Well, they chose to do that gay stuff, why should I pay for it?"). You and I are on the same page where kids are concerned, but China denied healthcare to 2nd+ children because they were an 'unethical choice'.

Now, we're in a world where we can find all sorts of proximal causes if we make it a project. "Need antibiotics for that acute infection after dental surgery? Well, you should have flossed more."

What is revealing is where people turn their attention. Pretty much without fail, it's a demographic that's not their own.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom