Has anyone heard of Susanne Eman?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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.

I quite agree. I think there needs to be a separation, and I also think that the causes of why someone is unhappy/fat (if the two go hand in hand) can only really be confronted by the person in that position. I'm not sure I can draw a workable distinction between the two, though, if I'm honest. Maybe someone else can.

That said, it's the general 'message' of 'it's ok to be big! Big is beautiful' that I think I need to clarify that I object to. And I'm not talking about the beauty or cosmetic aspect of it. Whatever floats your boat, that don't concern me.

The health costs, both to the person, their wider social circle (bracketing out what we deem that to be, or how we deem it to be affected)and society in general, are tremendous. The message that it's ok to eat whatever you want whenever you want and expect no comeback I think needs to be challenged, much like smoking was in the late 20th century.

---

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.

Is it?

"The naked girl was in front of me and I just had to kill her. Society sold me the knife, and society hadn't arrested me before now. It's society's fault"

People take responsibility for their actions, or at least should do. Nobody forces anyone to eat in excess, just like nobody forces a serial killer to put a knife against someone's throat. I refuse to accept that a system that places the care of the populace at its heart is equally responsible for the actions of people that seek to take advantage of it. Those people have made the choice, the 'system' hasn't made it for them. Voluntarism I think wins out this debate, not structuralism.