Benefits and Bypasses.

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.

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

"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.

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. 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?

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.

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 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.

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

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.

I think 'stuff your face' is just a slang expression and not offensive. This evening I had dinner then stuffed my face with a piece of cake which I did not need but it was left over from the weekend and I couldn't bear to waste it.
However, tomorrow I will make allowances for that and not stuff my face.

What about those who have not paid full or any taxes (I'm only referring to NI and income tax here)? Would there have to be a sliding scale?

Would it not be unreasonable and, possibly illegal – to withhold treatment for so-called self-inflicted illnesses while still expecting those suffering from them to pay full taxes?

GT the point I was trying to make is the difference between self inflicted conditions that break the bank, and the ones that have a much smaller effect on the budget, because that's the answer to the questions about where do you draw the line.

Only saw the last 20 minutes but that was depressing enough. So many people seem unable to differentiate between opinion and fact. A doctor who tells you to stop smoking isn't expressing an opinion, he's stating a fact. So many people also seem to think that doctors are just trying to stop them enjoying themselves. If the doctor told my MiL anything about her ailments her reaction was always "That's just what he says"

But you did ask a general question at the end of your post and many of us did not understand that you had required us to watch the programme. You should have said that only those who watched are qualified to respond

GT

A/I have no problem with arguing apart from the fact that I do, in point of fact, have other things to do in life which are either more important or more interesting.

B/I also do not see why divergent opinions should lead to an 'argument' rather than reasoned debate. The very use of the word supports my decision not to participate further in this thread.

C/I was commenting on a specific programme with a specific group of people which a great number of posters on this thread did not appear to see.

D/ People did not appear to see the programme and then responded in generalities which were not necessarily appropriate to the individuals shown in the programme.

Perhaps comments should be reserved until posters have actually seen the subject matter

Crun - I think you are missing the point . The discussion some of us were having was about self inflicted illness/injury and for some of us the unacceptability of using that as a method of deciding who should receive free health care. And some of us have made the point that dealing with issues of overeating, drinking too much, smoking etc require action at the micro and macro level. At the micro/ individual level, it's hugely complex to help people to change their behaviour and habits as the causes are usually multi- factorial. At the macro/ policy level have you seen how well organised various industries etc are in ensuring that governments do not take effective action?

It is a very complex argument, I do agree, however, it is never good to inflict ill health on yourself without thinking of the consequences, or without caring about the consequences.

I think the worse part of the programme for me was when the girl that was pregnant, was smoking!!

durhamjen your post Wed 08-Apr-15 16:36:37

Thank goodness for that!

I didn't see the programme, but I do think other people such as a parent, social carers or a GP could help by not helping someone to help themselves to so much food that they become like that and have to claim sickness benefits.
Was this the young girl from Wales where they had to remove a wall from the house because they couldn't get her out when she needed to go to hospital? Quite honestly, that is child abuse, I know she is now an adult but she didn't get like that overnight.

I think people are missing the point in trying to micro-manage every single accident, or cause of accident. Have a look here, the conditions that are so significant that they risk bankrupting the NHS are all ones that can be addressed by eating, drinking, and smoking less, and exercising more. By comparison all the accidents, including those of “idiots who go mountain climbing” only account for a few percent of the total, so there’s not much point in arguing about whether they count as self inflicted. Many people regard cyclists as looneys for running the gauntlet of the traffic, but the benefit they gain from exercise adds seven times as many life-years as they lose to traffic accidents and pollution put together. On the other hand there aren’t any health benefits at all to be gained from smoking.

People fret over the tiny risks that are outside their control, whilst ignoring the huge risks that they have the power to reduce. Like those who desert the railways for the much more dangerous roads after a train crash makes the headlines.

I do agree KatyK

I did feel a little sorry for the large girl, when she cried, I do believe they want the help, they want to get better, they just do not have the skills to do so.

The large girls Mother did not help much either, did she, I think she should be stricter with her, I know she is a grown women, but there must be something she could do like stop making her white bread stodge sandwich's

Yes perhaps my expression 'stuffed their faces' was a bit much. I do understand that people have needs but if you have been told by a doctor to eat less before your op, then at least you could try a little bit. I'm not saying it's easy.

Addiction must be a terrible thing, they have no control over their own lives. You would think that some bright spark would have found something that would help with addictions

I do appreciate that it must first come from the individual to want to stop what ever it is they are addicted to, but the alcoholic on the show did genuinely want and need help, just not the right kind of help was offered aswell as the medical side they need some other kind of help.

Character building, life coach, I do not know, but something!