Benefits and Bypasses.

Ana Anyone who buys a packet of cigarettes that may cause a smoking-related illness pays a chunk of tax each time and I should think it is pretty much impossible to avoid paying VAT every time anyone goes shopping or pays an energy bill. NI and income tax are automatically deducted from those who are employed. In any case, it would, of course, be impossible to organise a fair sliding scale.

That's why I deliberately didn't include VAT etc. in my post, absent, in case you hadn't noticed!

I did notice Ana but if anyone were silly enough to attempt such a sliding scale, they could hardly dismiss the most comprehensive tax in the country.

So do those who dismiss an obese woman as someone who stuffs her face and should help herself also think a teenaged girl with anorexia should just start stuffing her face and help herself and should their mothers do more to help their skinny daughters to stuff their faces ?

I wasn't dismissing her, just pointing out that stuffing one's face is a slang expression often in use (perhaps you are posher than us and wouldn't use it), and that giving her £18,000 a year in benefits to enable her to continue like that is not the answer.
The answer is that more should be done to help her. Those who are colluding with her and fetching food for her if she cannot leave her bed, should instead be trying to get her the help she needs.

I think parents of anorexic daughters are at their wits' end trying to help their daughters and I don't really think that is a kind analogy.

Choices do have to be made - and are. If your liver is destroyed by drinking you get your chance of a transplant but you are expected to kick the drink and be abstemious for a given period before you go on the transplant list and stay off it afterwards. If like George Best you start drinking again you do not get a further transplant, just palliative treatment.

I do not think any of those mentioned in the OP should be refused treatment but I do think having being warned, counselled and had it all explained, they should understand that if they develop any further ills caused by their own self-destructive behaviour they are unlikely to get high-priority treatment or rare and rationed treatment. I also think that obesity and other behaviours that are seriously harmful are often a problem of mind and body and are too often treated as physical problems only.

I think there is a real difference between an activity that is inherently dangerous in itself, smoking, over-indulgence in alcohol or food and activities like sports that are not of themselves harmful but, in the case of sports, a good way of getting the fresh air and exercise that forms part of a healthy life style but like any activity in life can lead to sports related injuries.

If we do not allow that difference where do we stop? Every year there are many thousands of people visiting A&E because of accidents caused by wearing clothes. Socks and underpants are the cause of enough accidents to be separately counted. Does that mean we should cease wearing these garments or be medically penalised if we do?

The comparison between anorexia and obesity is not unkind "rosequartz" but what you are saying is a re-enforcement of the fact that it is more socially acceptable to be anorectic than to be obese.

"Choices do have to be made - and are."

That's the point isn't it. The system is making choices, but they disingenuously pretend they aren't in order to prevent a transparent debate on the subject. It's the same ploy as with election manifestos, if you don't make explicit pledges you prevent any challenges and let everyone think that it will be someone else who is affected.

Nothing unkind in comparing anorexia with obesity caused by eating too much food, both are eating disorders , what is so unfair is the criticism of an obese woman receiving benefits but not a peep about an anorexic receiving benefits , and I do think - stuffing her face was said to mock rosequartz , no different to saying eating like a pig . I believe very obese people are desperately unhappy , never heard of comfort eating ? Similar to an alcoholic, they are very depressed and so drink more alcohol in an attempt to blot out their unhappiness , the alcohol makes them more depressed so a vicious circle

Anorexics receiving sympathy but an obese person receives mockery and scorn

According to statistics, obese people are 25% more likely to be depressed than non obese people.
So that leaves about 50% of obese people who are not depressed according to statistics.

I didn't mean that at all Greenfinch - you have misconstrued what I said.

I meant that parents of anorexic children, from what I have seen and read, do their utmost to help their child to get well and overcome it, not always successfully.However, in many cases where a daughter/relative is obese - which I stated quite clearly also requires help - the state and relatives collude by bringing food to the bed of someone who cannot move due to their obesity. They are killing with kindness and a different type of help is needed rather than continually feeding with junk food.
I do realise that both are eating disorders but the attitude of family seems quite different in the two scenarios in many cases.

no different to saying eating like a pig well, I did eat the cake quite nicely with a fork anniebach, I didn't stick my snout into the plate. However, I didn't need it and I wasn't hungry so I was 'stuffing my face'. Just an expression!

I really can't follow the logic of your statistics soon.What are you actually saying ?

Somewhere around 25-33% of the general population get depression.
If obese people are statisically more likely to get depressed by 25% more than the general population, then roughly
1/4 of 30 is 7.
7 + 30 = 37%
Or even taking the 33% + 1/4 of 33 is 8
8 + 33 = 41%

ie not even 50%.

Given the record on treatment for mental health I have little trust in statistics on just how many people suffer with any form of depression

Or if it is depression or someone feeling 'depressed' because of circumstances.
Perhaps it is something that can never be calculated.

What is the equivalent of dyslexia with numbers?
I think I must have it.

There are a number of reasons why some parents allow their children to overeat or to eat food that is full of calories but which may well not be particularly nutritious.

These include:

That is the sort of diet they had during their own childhoods (and they may be overweight themselves).

They may have grown up seeing food as a comfort or a reward.

They may feel that denying a child extra helpings is being unkind or depriving it of love.

They may not fully understand what a balanced diet is.

They may be eating too much convenience/fast food because they have limited cooking skills.

Equally, there are a number of reasons why some children are anorexic, including:

Genuine concerns about a child's diet have led to mealtimes increasingly becoming a "power struggle".

Parents are over-controlling and children feel that denying themselves food is the only way for them to maintain some control.

There are underlying problems in the family that cause stressful mealtimes.

Parents who constantly worry about their weight and go on diets, thus creating anxiety about obesity.

However, the issue of eating disorders is, as someone else said, a very complex one and is likely to include societal factors (e.g. the intense marketing and wide availability of unhealthy foods - which are often presented as being "healthy", and the introduction in the 60's (I think) of the concept of between-meals "snacks"), and may also include certain genetic factors.

Even if parents exacerbate the problem, I find it difficult to believe that the majority of them don't care that their children's health is at risk and I feel the "blame game" is not very helpful. I don't suppose there are many (if any) parents who can honestly say their parenting was without fault.

A very good post Eleothan.You have presented a balanced and objective viewpoint with clear arguments that can surely be understood by all .It is far too easy to be black and white and suggest that parents of those suffering from anorexia do more to help than the parents of those who are obese. Anorexia I believe is often associated with middle class families whereas obesity is often associated with people who cannot afford to buy the more expensive healthy food. The issues are complex and both groups need help.

I don't agree that healthy food is more expensive.

I bought 2 large pears from Lidl yesterday. They were 61p each. That wouldn't have gone far for a family of 4 but I could have bought a large loaf or several packets of biscuits for the same price which would have filled them up but been far less healthy.

Pears? If someone's on a limited budget they're not going to be spending £1.22 on a couple of those if they've got any sense.

I meant basics such as potatoes, carrots, onions, cauliflower, bananas and apples, not overpriced unnecessary items.

Healthy food is not as expensive as junk food and certainly not as expensive as the take-aways we see consumed in these documentaries.
I was horrified to hear the gentleman, having a gastric band fitted, if he could eat bacon sandwiches after the operation. The Bariatric surgeon works at our local hospital and you have to hand it to him he believes that these operations do save the NHS money. Hopefully he is right.

Too many people associate healthy food with fashionable 'super' foods.

As Ana says basic food stuffs like root vegetables, brassicas etc etc are not expensive. Cookery books can be bought very cheaply in Charity shops. With sensible and careful shopping and cooking a family can eat far more cheaply eating healthily than living on processed meals and take-aways.

Just so Eloethan, good post