Has anyone heard of Susanne Eman?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

And you dodged my point against you. Conceivably all our resources and time could be spent on helping others. Any time or money not spent in aid of others is "wasted". Do you agree or are there some instances where it's ok to spend time and money on yourself rather than others? When is it ok to spend time and money on yourself and when is it not? Or are you just a hypocrite?

I know this wasn't directed at me but I'll answer.

Yes and no.

I fully support welfarism, especially because I benefit from it (Diabetic myself, type 1) and because without it we'd be more like the US which is split between haves and have nots.

However, as a financial conservative, as well as a realist, one must fully accept that resources are finite. Entities such as the NHS have increasingly limited budgets, and the amount spent on immediate point of care (which is where a large % of the resources caring for very obese people go to) is diverting money away form other very important areas (research on other diseases and illnesses for example. It has to come from somewhere, money doesn't grow on trees and all that).

My main gripe is that, in the vast majority of instances, obesity is self-inflicted. There are certainly many cases where it is not (genetics, perhaps depression from an uncontrollable event such as bereavement or something), but the ones that are are draining resources from other, arguably more important areas.

An oncologist who I know was telling me about the frustrations he has whens he sees alcoholics who get liver cancer, have a transplant, and then are back in 9 months after destroying their liver again. Naturally she has a duty of care, and so would do everything she could to prevent the guy from dying (be it immediate care such as surgery, and long term palliative care and counselling), but billions are spent each year not just treating but preventing people from getting ill again. But it's not a free service to society, and indeed, people need to want to turn their lives around, and I see it as the same with obesity. I would never turn away someone who needed help, regardless of how they got into that situation. The Hippocratic oath is quite clear. But really, we have to face facts that the long term damage for society, or if that doesn't float your boat, everyone's pockets, is considerable.

There are no excuses for being morbidly obese. But if that's what folk chose to do then fine. However, people who make their kids morbidly obese, and advance the notion that it is 'ok to be big', need to be arrested for abuse, because that's exactly what it is. It might not be as immediate or obvious as a slap around the face, but the effects over the long term are indistinguishable.

So, I would disagree with you that it is a victimless crime when one hurts themselves. There are victims. They might be unseen, it might be purely financial, or more insidious, like when one person who loves to eat far too much gives the impression to their children that it's 'normal' behaviour.

I think it's important to clarify that not all fat people are fat admirers or fetishsizers or whatever you want to call them. The vast majority of fat people don't like being fat, never intended to be that way, see it as ugly, and I doubt truly could think otherwise about being fat. This is probably the case for at least 90% of obese people. Are fat people putting a strain on healthcare? Yes. Are fat admirers separated from fat people in general putting a strain on healthcare? I doubt it.

---

That's the fault of the system then. You set it up to allow the treatment of preventable illness, don't be upset when people take advantage of it.

Why can't I be upset when people take advantage of it? I can be upset, and I can object, I can fight against it.

The Hippocratic oath is quite clear, though. Nobody should be turned away from care. I'd hate to live in a society where doctors are more concerned whether someone is insured for their treatment than whether they'll pull through their illness.

But to the point, you said it was a victimless crime. I've shown that it isn't. Whether this is the fault of the 'system' I think is irrelevant.

If it is a "crime", then the "criminal" isn't the ill person, it's the system.