Has anyone heard of Susanne Eman?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I'm sorry, i didn't find your argument of: 'whatever makes you happy' very appealing, especially when I applied that to Hitler

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.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

A body isn't a person. It doesn't deserve respect or disrespect. Somebody hurting themselves is a victimless crime.

Not strictly true in a state where one has state funded welfare, like the UK. The NHS is spending countless millions on treating complications as a result of obesity. The medical victim is the person making themselves obese. But financially we're all suffering as a result.

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.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Not strictly true in a state where one has state funded welfare, like the UK. The NHS is spending countless millions on treating complications as a result of obesity. The medical victim is the person making themselves obese. But financially we're all suffering as a result.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

No. It's more like you go to an "all you can eat" buffet. According to the agreement, you're entitled to eat whatever you want and as much as you want with the $9.99 you paid. And let's say that you ate twice as much as the average person in the restaurant which led to a shortage of Mac n cheese and also a loss to the business. Was the customer behaving badly? No. He was just taking what is entitled to him because of the 9.99 he paid. If the business didn't like it, perhaps they shouldn't call themselves an "all you can eat " restaurant.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

No. It's more like you go to an "all you can eat" buffet. According to the agreement, you're entitled to eat whatever you want and as much as you want with the $9.99 you paid. And let's say that you ate twice as much as the average person in the restaurant which led to a shortage of Mac n cheese and also a loss to the business. Was the customer behaving badly? No. He was just taking what is entitled to him because of the 9.99 he paid. If the business didn't like it, perhaps they shouldn't call themselves an "all you can eat " restaurant.

So autonomous agents don't have any control over their actions?

And I mean autonomous because otherwise everyone would be stuffing their faces with food and getting 'free(tax contribution) healthcare'.

Your original point was that it was a victimless crime, but that should it be a crime, it's the structure that's the problem and not the individual. But that can't be resolved because if it were the structure then there would surely be uniform abuse across the board. Individuals would be irrelevant to the conclusion.

I can't see it myself. I think these kind of folk need to take responsibility for their actions and the resulting damage they do , directly and indirectly, on others. Which they definitely do, I think we can get some measure of agreement on that.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

So autonomous agents don't have any control over their actions?

And I mean autonomous because otherwise everyone would be stuffing their faces with food and getting 'free(tax contribution) healthcare'.

No. I'm not saying that. I just don't see how the individual is wrong when they're following the rules of the game.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I will agree that the system is flawed in that palliative care is still given despite self infliction (often cumulative ), and that perhaps people should pay out their own pocket.

But I think the duty of card at POC is a fundamental ethical and moral aspect of an enlightened human society that needs to be maintained. The cost might be high, and indeed we as a society need to do everything within reason to limit the impact, but I would never want it to be erased.

[LastPoet]

Oh man, I'm gonna hear 1 & 1/2 hell about this: Who's going to pay the crane and truck to carry her to the coroner then?