Obesity claims another life

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for indzman
indzman

27736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By indzman
Member since 2006 • 27736 Posts

ARTICLE

Weight-loss surgery could not save world's fattest man Keith Martin 44 ( London), who died from pneumonia following a lengthy battle with his weight.

While i felt sad he dying early, i got amazed reading about his daily intake of food.

"Unemployed Mr Martin admitted much of the weight had come from eating huge amounts of super-cheap fast food.

He would gorge on 20,000 calories a day - almost 10 times the recommended amount - having six-egg fry-ups for breakfast then pizzas, kebabs, Chinese takeaways and Big Macs for lunch and dinner all washed down with six pints of coffee and two litres of fizzy drinks.

He'd also snack on sandwiches, chocolate, crisps, sweets and biscuits."

WTF !!!

Who on earth could have saved him ???

Thoughts on obesity OT? :)

Avatar image for killerk1ng
KillerK1ng

135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#2 KillerK1ng
Member since 2014 • 135 Posts

Its a crazy amount of food how can someone consume that much?

Avatar image for always_explicit
always_explicit

3379

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 always_explicit
Member since 2007 • 3379 Posts

Unemployed male eats himself into a condition whereby he cant function normally. Taxpayer foots bill for costly operation to give man second chance at life. Man dies.

The tragedy here is that there are people who think the taxpayer should foot the bill for these surgeries. I disagree.

This man would have been able to claim several benefits including (self inflicted) disability, which no doubt afforded him a disposable income in which to gorge himself on this huge amount of food. Its always sad when somebody dies but unfortunately I fully believe this outcome would have come as no real surprise to the deceased nor did it surprise me.

Avatar image for ShepardCommandr
ShepardCommandr

4939

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By ShepardCommandr
Member since 2013 • 4939 Posts

good riddance

The earth is now a better place.

Avatar image for Renevent42
Renevent42

6654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 Renevent42
Member since 2010 • 6654 Posts

Being that he was unemployed, how in the world could he afford to eat that much? Also, I don't have a lot of sympathy for this type of person. People are starving all over the world and this lazy man ate himself to death? Boo hoo.

Avatar image for GazaAli
GazaAli

25216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 GazaAli
Member since 2007 • 25216 Posts

@always_explicit said:

Unemployed male eats himself into a condition whereby he cant function normally. Taxpayer foots bill for costly operation to give man second chance at life. Man dies.

The tragedy here is that there are people who think the taxpayer should foot the bill for these surgeries. I disagree.

This man would have been able to claim several benefits including (self inflicted) disability, which no doubt afforded him a disposable income in which to gorge himself on this huge amount of food. Its always sad when somebody dies but unfortunately I fully believe this outcome would have come as no real surprise to the deceased nor did it surprise me.

While the gist of your post is generally speaking isn't erroneous or mistaken, what it suggests however is, and quite absurdly too. What do you suggest should have happened instead? Chances are, if an individual allows himself to inhabit such a pitiful form and to just degenerate to such a state where he basically can't look after himself no amount of "correctional measures" would have done anything. The only thing that might have worked is psychological support and psychotherapy. I'm not arguing against the logic of your post as I do agree that he was depleting resources while offering nothing in return. But what should the government or society in general do in such a scenario? Leave him to starve or deny him medical care in an hour of need? Any social arrangement of substantial volume and depth would at some point or another find itself facing a scenario where it has to defy logic and go against a strictly utilitarian rationalization just so that it wouldn't be morally burdened in some way, its just how things are.

Avatar image for ferrari2001
ferrari2001

17772

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#7 ferrari2001
Member since 2008 • 17772 Posts

Obesity, like smoking is just a short route to suicide. The amount of people that kill themselves through unhealthy habits is incredible. Smoking now causes increased healthcare premiums, I think obesity as well should increase healthcare premiums. It's a major problem and something needs to be done to help combat people's obsession with eating far to much food.

Avatar image for SaintLeonidas
SaintLeonidas

26735

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#8 SaintLeonidas
Member since 2006 • 26735 Posts

Correction, stupidity claimed another life.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

@SaintLeonidas said:

Correction, stupidity claimed another life.

While it's possible that he was stupid, it seems like addiction was a far bigger issue here.

Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
MakeMeaSammitch

4889

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 MakeMeaSammitch
Member since 2012 • 4889 Posts

Anybody seen that new episode of south park that talked about addiction?

I thought it was pretty insightful; one of the best episodes in years.

Avatar image for Netret0120
Netret0120

3594

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#11 Netret0120
Member since 2013 • 3594 Posts

He killed himself. I mean what did he expect eating all that food. For every action there is a reaction and his indulgence of food killed him at such a young age. Obesity is a major problem that needs to be tackled more bluntly.

Avatar image for Dogswithguns
Dogswithguns

11359

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#12 Dogswithguns
Member since 2007 • 11359 Posts

Addiction to food?!.. I don't understand?!

Avatar image for Kevlar101
Kevlar101

6316

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 29

User Lists: 0

#13  Edited By Kevlar101
Member since 2011 • 6316 Posts

I have no sympathy or pity for this person. Good riddance.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

@Dogswithguns said:

Addiction to food?!.. I don't understand?!

I always lol when people who don't understand how addiction works have the nerve to call others stupid for having addiction.

Avatar image for Wilfred_Owen
Wilfred_Owen

20964

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 0

#15 Wilfred_Owen
Member since 2005 • 20964 Posts
Loading Video...

Lost a real hero we did.

Avatar image for Dogswithguns
Dogswithguns

11359

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#16 Dogswithguns
Member since 2007 • 11359 Posts

@MrGeezer said:

@Dogswithguns said:

Addiction to food?!.. I don't understand?!

I always lol when people who don't understand how addiction works have the nerve to call others stupid for having addiction.

I mean people love certain foods, craving for certain foods when we're hungry. for a bowl or two, that's normal... but eating tons and tons of foods daily?!... hell, I hardly don't even have the money to order a small sized pizza for myself. lol

Avatar image for GamerNerdTalk
GamerNerdTalk

341

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 1

#17 GamerNerdTalk
Member since 2011 • 341 Posts

As sublimely retarded this 44 year old man was... He had managed to find a way to get 3 people worth of food while being unemployed... I don't condone what he did, but he had a high iq than the average

Avatar image for Master_Live
Master_Live

20510

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#18 Master_Live
Member since 2004 • 20510 Posts

@GazaAli said:

@always_explicit said:

Unemployed male eats himself into a condition whereby he cant function normally. Taxpayer foots bill for costly operation to give man second chance at life. Man dies.

The tragedy here is that there are people who think the taxpayer should foot the bill for these surgeries. I disagree.

This man would have been able to claim several benefits including (self inflicted) disability, which no doubt afforded him a disposable income in which to gorge himself on this huge amount of food. Its always sad when somebody dies but unfortunately I fully believe this outcome would have come as no real surprise to the deceased nor did it surprise me.

Leave him to starve or deny him medical care in an hour of need?

That one.

Avatar image for verbalfilth
verbalfilth

5043

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#19 verbalfilth
Member since 2006 • 5043 Posts

@Renevent42:

Unfortunately, more often than not, these people tend to have enablers around them. The kind of people who mean well, but would rather provide all the food and be done with it rather than to deal with confrontation.

Its a sad cycle.

Avatar image for PernicioEnigma
PernicioEnigma

6662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 PernicioEnigma
Member since 2010 • 6662 Posts

The contempt people here seem to have for obese people is just immature and silly. Yes it's a problem and it needs to be addressed before it gets out of hand, but I would rather not live in a society which leaves people who obviously need our help to suffer and die. People also need to understand we don't actually have as much conscious control over our behaviors as we''d like to think. Stop thinking just because it's easy for you to stay in shape and not over eat that it's easy for everyone else.

Avatar image for always_explicit
always_explicit

3379

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#21 always_explicit
Member since 2007 • 3379 Posts

@GazaAli said:

@always_explicit said:

Unemployed male eats himself into a condition whereby he cant function normally. Taxpayer foots bill for costly operation to give man second chance at life. Man dies.

The tragedy here is that there are people who think the taxpayer should foot the bill for these surgeries. I disagree.

This man would have been able to claim several benefits including (self inflicted) disability, which no doubt afforded him a disposable income in which to gorge himself on this huge amount of food. Its always sad when somebody dies but unfortunately I fully believe this outcome would have come as no real surprise to the deceased nor did it surprise me.

While the gist of your post is generally speaking isn't erroneous or mistaken, what it suggests however is, and quite absurdly too. What do you suggest should have happened instead? Chances are, if an individual allows himself to inhabit such a pitiful form and to just degenerate to such a state where he basically can't look after himself no amount of "correctional measures" would have done anything. The only thing that might have worked is psychological support and psychotherapy. I'm not arguing against the logic of your post as I do agree that he was depleting resources while offering nothing in return. But what should the government or society in general do in such a scenario? Leave him to starve or deny him medical care in an hour of need? Any social arrangement of substantial volume and depth would at some point or another find itself facing a scenario where it has to defy logic and go against a strictly utilitarian rationalization just so that it wouldn't be morally burdened in some way, its just how things are.

Well Im not going to pretend im qualified to diagnose proposed medical treatments but the fact is this man was given the medical help he required to get himself back on track, yet he died anyway due to other conditions, which his weight contributed to. I didnt offer any suggestions in my post as to what could/should have happened instead because I dont have the answers to those questions. I believe (somewhat naively perhaps) that when this man reached say... morbid obesity, some of those benefits which allowed him the disposable income to spend on food should have been cut off, or significantly reduced or at very least monitored to ensure that he was only able to purchase the required amount of food to sustain an average man.

If you give a hugely overweight man that clearly cannot control his dietary habits a huge disability check allowing him to get food delivered to his house to further enhance his problem then the outcome is always going to be unpleasant. Yes this would have required some expenditure to monitor but ultimately I think its a healthier way to approach the situation.

I see giving a big fat man a disposable income as the equivalent to stoking a fire nobody wants to burn. I wouldnt give a heroin addict a £50 pound note every day and expect him not to spend it on a fix. Either you construct a system whereby you monitor their expenditure or your cease to fund their lifestyle altogether through social benefits. Benefits should be reserved for those who are unable to survive on their income (or lack thereof) it shouldnt be allowed to subsidise their inability to make sensible decisions. I appreciate controlling what other people do with their money could be a slippery slope but I think as this money is ...as the name suggests... a benefit....it should be used as such.

Its an aid to assist quality of life, not fund peoples poor lifestyle choices.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

@PernicioEnigma said:

The contempt people here seem to have for obese people is just immature and silly. Yes it's a problem and it needs to be addressed before it gets out of hand, but I would rather not live in a society which leaves people who obviously need our help to suffer and die. People also need to understand we don't actually have as much conscious control over our behaviors as we''d like to think. Stop thinking just because it's easy for you to stay in shape and not over eat that it's easy for everyone else.

I think this is especially true when looking at extreme cases like this. If someone dies from health complications caused from just being slightly obese, that's one thing. But when someone feels the uncontrollable urge to gorge themselves on this much food, then there's something clearly wrong with them more than just being "stupid". It's sort of like those people who swallow metal objects like spoons and bottle caps. When you're talking about something that ridiculous, you're clearly looking at someone who is legitimately sick in the head. I don't feel right pointing and laughing at that shit.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

@always_explicit said:

Well Im not going to pretend im qualified to diagnose proposed medical treatments but the fact is this man was given the medical help he required to get himself back on track, yet he died anyway due to other conditions, which his weight contributed to. I didnt offer any suggestions in my post as to what could/should have happened instead because I dont have the answers to those questions. I believe (somewhat naively perhaps) that when this man reached say... morbid obesity, some of those benefits which allowed him the disposable income to spend on food should have been cut off, or significantly reduced or at very least monitored to ensure that he was only able to purchase the required amount of food to sustain an average man.

If you give a hugely overweight man that clearly cannot control his dietary habits a huge disability check allowing him to get food delivered to his house to further enhance his problem then the outcome is always going to be unpleasant. Yes this would have required some expenditure to monitor but ultimately I think its a healthier way to approach the situation.

I see giving a big fat man a disposable income as the equivalent to stoking a fire nobody wants to burn. I wouldnt give a heroin addict a £50 pound note every day and expect him not to spend it on a fix. Either you construct a system whereby you monitor their expenditure or your cease to fund their lifestyle altogether through social benefits. Benefits should be reserved for those who are unable to survive on their income (or lack thereof) it shouldnt be allowed to subsidise their inability to make sensible decisions. I appreciate controlling what other people do with their money could be a slippery slope but I think as this money is ...as the name suggests... a benefit....it should be used as such.

Its an aid to assist quality of life, not fund peoples poor lifestyle choices.

I sort of see where you're coming from, but think of it like this...the surgery seems to be sort of an attempt to do what you're suggesting. He's on disability because of his overeating. So you can simply hand out disability money (which he's gonna use to continue overeating), but it would be far more productive to help him stop eating so damn much. Now, there were probably some mental issues too (I'm speculating). But the point being, most civilized societies don't like to say "**** you, we're just gonna let you starve." Absent not giving him any support, there aren't many options remaining. You can just throw money at the dude, which is just REACTING to the problem without addressing the underlying cause, or you can actually use that money to do a preventative measure which will stop you from having to keep shelling out the money.

This surgery was actually closer to a preventative measure. It seems to have come too late, obviously. But if he'd gotten the surgery sooner, then from what I understand there's a very good chance that it would have prevented him from getting that obese in the first place. It's the same principle as giving out free condoms instead of just deciding to spend money AFTER people get AIDS. Granted, the comparison isn't entirely valid since gastric surgery is a lot more expensive than condoms, but still...same principle.

Avatar image for always_explicit
always_explicit

3379

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#24 always_explicit
Member since 2007 • 3379 Posts

@MrGeezer said:

@PernicioEnigma said:

The contempt people here seem to have for obese people is just immature and silly. Yes it's a problem and it needs to be addressed before it gets out of hand, but I would rather not live in a society which leaves people who obviously need our help to suffer and die. People also need to understand we don't actually have as much conscious control over our behaviors as we''d like to think. Stop thinking just because it's easy for you to stay in shape and not over eat that it's easy for everyone else.

I think this is especially true when looking at extreme cases like this. If someone dies from health complications caused from just being slightly obese, that's one thing. But when someone feels the uncontrollable urge to gorge themselves on this much food, then there's something clearly wrong with them more than just being "stupid". It's sort of like those people who swallow metal objects like spoons and bottle caps. When you're talking about something that ridiculous, you're clearly looking at someone who is legitimately sick in the head. I don't feel right pointing and laughing at that shit.

I totally agree the "point and laugh" mentality people adopt is laughable. I wouldnt ever deny these people help its what makes living as part of an accepting society such a pleasant ideal. It isnt stupidity and it absolutely is an illness. I think we need to get out of the habit of helping people lose weight after the fact and start constructing a society that restricts people ability to get themselves into these situations. Im not overly conservative, im not proposing dietary control for all....but in extreme cases like this it may well be a worthwhile measure. Nobody gets to that size over night and I think we as a modern society have an obligation to do our very best to ensure these cases are incredibly rare. Looking at obesity statistics this man is only in the news because he ticked the fattest man alive box...he certainly isnt alone in being the only incredibly overweight man in need of help.

Education education education, followed by swift action.

Avatar image for always_explicit
always_explicit

3379

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 always_explicit
Member since 2007 • 3379 Posts

@MrGeezer said:

@always_explicit said:

Well Im not going to pretend im qualified to diagnose proposed medical treatments but the fact is this man was given the medical help he required to get himself back on track, yet he died anyway due to other conditions, which his weight contributed to. I didnt offer any suggestions in my post as to what could/should have happened instead because I dont have the answers to those questions. I believe (somewhat naively perhaps) that when this man reached say... morbid obesity, some of those benefits which allowed him the disposable income to spend on food should have been cut off, or significantly reduced or at very least monitored to ensure that he was only able to purchase the required amount of food to sustain an average man.

If you give a hugely overweight man that clearly cannot control his dietary habits a huge disability check allowing him to get food delivered to his house to further enhance his problem then the outcome is always going to be unpleasant. Yes this would have required some expenditure to monitor but ultimately I think its a healthier way to approach the situation.

I see giving a big fat man a disposable income as the equivalent to stoking a fire nobody wants to burn. I wouldnt give a heroin addict a £50 pound note every day and expect him not to spend it on a fix. Either you construct a system whereby you monitor their expenditure or your cease to fund their lifestyle altogether through social benefits. Benefits should be reserved for those who are unable to survive on their income (or lack thereof) it shouldnt be allowed to subsidise their inability to make sensible decisions. I appreciate controlling what other people do with their money could be a slippery slope but I think as this money is ...as the name suggests... a benefit....it should be used as such.

Its an aid to assist quality of life, not fund peoples poor lifestyle choices.

I sort of see where you're coming from, but think of it like this...the surgery seems to be sort of an attempt to do what you're suggesting. He's on disability because of his overeating. So you can simply hand out disability money (which he's gonna use to continue overeating), but it would be far more productive to help him stop eating so damn much. Now, there were probably some mental issues too (I'm speculating). But the point being, most civilized societies don't like to say "**** you, we're just gonna let you starve." Absent not giving him any support, there aren't many options remaining. You can just throw money at the dude, which is just REACTING to the problem without addressing the underlying cause, or you can actually use that money to do a preventative measure which will stop you from having to keep shelling out the money.

This surgery was actually closer to a preventative measure. It seems to have come too late, obviously. But if he'd gotten the surgery sooner, then from what I understand there's a very good chance that it would have prevented him from getting that obese in the first place. It's the same principle as giving out free condoms instead of just deciding to spend money AFTER people get AIDS. Granted, the comparison isn't entirely valid since gastric surgery is a lot more expensive than condoms, but still...same principle.

Seems like we are both on different sides of the same coin in that we value the importance of preventative measures far earlier in the chain of events than in this case (death).

I agree that surgery earlier may well have saved this mans life, I just feel that in a more general sense, casting an eye on exactly how these people spend their money would be a significant improvement on what we are currently doing, which is just giving it to them and hoping for the best. Kinda makes me sick that such a first world problem even exists. As you said however I think this is a mental health issue and mental health isnt a first world problem. Its a universal problem affecting all colours and creeds. I just hope the right people in the right place read these stories and aim for a resolution. I dont feel like I have any right to judge this man but equally, It all stinks of "too little too late" syndrome. Its a cultural norm to jump on the we should have done this and we should have done that bandwagon, but ultimately we need to tackle obesity from childhood and identify those who require a little bit support regarding their mentality towards food.

I have no doubt in the world if we asked this man if he was mentally ill he would have said yes. If someone asks that question and the answer is yes then we as a society have an obligation to help imho.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

@always_explicit said:

Seems like we are both on different sides of the same coin in that we value the importance of preventative measures far earlier in the chain of events than in this case (death).

I agree that surgery earlier may well have saved this mans life, I just feel that in a more general sense, casting an eye on exactly how these people spend their money would be a significant improvement on what we are currently doing, which is just giving it to them and hoping for the best. Kinda makes me sick that such a first world problem even exists. As you said however I think this is a mental health issue and mental health isnt a first world problem. Its a universal problem affecting all colours and creeds. I just hope the right people in the right place read these stories and aim for a resolution. I dont feel like I have any right to judge this man but equally, It all stinks of "too little too late" syndrome. Its a cultural norm to jump on the we should have done this and we should have done that bandwagon, but ultimately we need to tackle obesity from childhood and identify those who require a little bit support regarding their mentality towards food.

I have no doubt in the world if we asked this man if he was mentally ill he would have said yes. If someone asks that question and the answer is yes then we as a society have an obligation to help imho.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that giving this guy gastric surgery is the right idea. After all, from what I understand gastric surgery is pretty expensive so I'm assuming that it probably would be pretty shitty as a preventative measure to deal with obesity. Even though most people don't get nearly this obese, there are still a LOT of people who get obese enough to become disabled in some way, and it probably wouldn't be feasible to give them all gastric surgeries.

I'm just saying that I don't have a problem with the PRINCIPLE of giving this guy a gastric surgery, because that's more of a preventative measure and is closer to addressing the root CAUSE of the disability (still doesn't address any possible mental issues, but still...it's CLOSER to addressing the cause of the disability). And like you, I think that's what the focus should be on. Like you, I'm not really a fan of saying "**** you, we're just gonna let you starve." That's just not the kind of society that I want to live in. However, if we're going to be giving people aid, then the focus should be on prevention rather than than just sitting back and throwing out money to treat the symptoms. It's far more effective to give everyone free polio vaccines than to sit back and throw money at the people who get polio. That kind of thing.

Now, how to implement effective prevention? Beats the hell out of me. I just think that prevention is what we should be focusing on.

Avatar image for always_explicit
always_explicit

3379

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#27 always_explicit
Member since 2007 • 3379 Posts

@MrGeezer said:

@always_explicit said:

Seems like we are both on different sides of the same coin in that we value the importance of preventative measures far earlier in the chain of events than in this case (death).

I agree that surgery earlier may well have saved this mans life, I just feel that in a more general sense, casting an eye on exactly how these people spend their money would be a significant improvement on what we are currently doing, which is just giving it to them and hoping for the best. Kinda makes me sick that such a first world problem even exists. As you said however I think this is a mental health issue and mental health isnt a first world problem. Its a universal problem affecting all colours and creeds. I just hope the right people in the right place read these stories and aim for a resolution. I dont feel like I have any right to judge this man but equally, It all stinks of "too little too late" syndrome. Its a cultural norm to jump on the we should have done this and we should have done that bandwagon, but ultimately we need to tackle obesity from childhood and identify those who require a little bit support regarding their mentality towards food.

I have no doubt in the world if we asked this man if he was mentally ill he would have said yes. If someone asks that question and the answer is yes then we as a society have an obligation to help imho.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that giving this guy gastric surgery is the right idea. After all, from what I understand gastric surgery is pretty expensive so I'm assuming that it probably would be pretty shitty as a preventative measure to deal with obesity. Even though most people don't get nearly this obese, there are still a LOT of people who get obese enough to become disabled in some way, and it probably wouldn't be feasible to give them all gastric surgeries.

I'm just saying that I don't have a problem with the PRINCIPLE of giving this guy a gastric surgery, because that's more of a preventative measure and is closer to addressing the root CAUSE of the disability (still doesn't address any possible mental issues, but still...it's CLOSER to addressing the cause of the disability). And like you, I think that's what the focus should be on. Like you, I'm not really a fan of saying "**** you, we're just gonna let you starve." That's just not the kind of society that I want to live in. However, if we're going to be giving people aid, then the focus should be on prevention rather than than just sitting back and throwing out money to treat the symptoms. It's far more effective to give everyone free polio vaccines than to sit back and throw money at the people who get polio. That kind of thing.

Now, how to implement effective prevention? Beats the hell out of me. I just think that prevention is what we should be focusing on.

**** it lets just starve the bastards.

:P

Avatar image for sukraj
sukraj

27859

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#28 sukraj
Member since 2008 • 27859 Posts

I could only ever dream of eating all that stuff.

Avatar image for GazaAli
GazaAli

25216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 GazaAli
Member since 2007 • 25216 Posts

@always_explicit said:

@GazaAli said:

@always_explicit said:

Unemployed male eats himself into a condition whereby he cant function normally. Taxpayer foots bill for costly operation to give man second chance at life. Man dies.

The tragedy here is that there are people who think the taxpayer should foot the bill for these surgeries. I disagree.

This man would have been able to claim several benefits including (self inflicted) disability, which no doubt afforded him a disposable income in which to gorge himself on this huge amount of food. Its always sad when somebody dies but unfortunately I fully believe this outcome would have come as no real surprise to the deceased nor did it surprise me.

While the gist of your post is generally speaking isn't erroneous or mistaken, what it suggests however is, and quite absurdly too. What do you suggest should have happened instead? Chances are, if an individual allows himself to inhabit such a pitiful form and to just degenerate to such a state where he basically can't look after himself no amount of "correctional measures" would have done anything. The only thing that might have worked is psychological support and psychotherapy. I'm not arguing against the logic of your post as I do agree that he was depleting resources while offering nothing in return. But what should the government or society in general do in such a scenario? Leave him to starve or deny him medical care in an hour of need? Any social arrangement of substantial volume and depth would at some point or another find itself facing a scenario where it has to defy logic and go against a strictly utilitarian rationalization just so that it wouldn't be morally burdened in some way, its just how things are.

Well Im not going to pretend im qualified to diagnose proposed medical treatments but the fact is this man was given the medical help he required to get himself back on track, yet he died anyway due to other conditions, which his weight contributed to. I didnt offer any suggestions in my post as to what could/should have happened instead because I dont have the answers to those questions. I believe (somewhat naively perhaps) that when this man reached say... morbid obesity, some of those benefits which allowed him the disposable income to spend on food should have been cut off, or significantly reduced or at very least monitored to ensure that he was only able to purchase the required amount of food to sustain an average man.

If you give a hugely overweight man that clearly cannot control his dietary habits a huge disability check allowing him to get food delivered to his house to further enhance his problem then the outcome is always going to be unpleasant. Yes this would have required some expenditure to monitor but ultimately I think its a healthier way to approach the situation.

I see giving a big fat man a disposable income as the equivalent to stoking a fire nobody wants to burn. I wouldnt give a heroin addict a £50 pound note every day and expect him not to spend it on a fix. Either you construct a system whereby you monitor their expenditure or your cease to fund their lifestyle altogether through social benefits. Benefits should be reserved for those who are unable to survive on their income (or lack thereof) it shouldnt be allowed to subsidise their inability to make sensible decisions. I appreciate controlling what other people do with their money could be a slippery slope but I think as this money is ...as the name suggests... a benefit....it should be used as such.

Its an aid to assist quality of life, not fund peoples poor lifestyle choices.

There is absolutely no way any of that would work in the real world. Can you even begin to imagine the bureaucracy, resources and manpower needed for that task? The end result would show that giving this man a disability check is far less wasteful than instating the system you're proposing. Besides I doubt he received that much money. I mean he mostly relied on shit fast food so its no surprise he could sustain that high of a daily caloric intake.

Trust me I'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions rather than wasting resources but you're not looking at the issue from the right angle. Anyone who would allow themselves to degenerate to such a state is truly disabled, a complete goner. If he watched himself sinking to that lowly level while doing nothing about it then no amount of laws and monitoring would do a thing to remedy the situation. The most society or the government can do to such a human being is to either offer them psychotherapy or to simply facilitate their "transition" from the world of the living into that of the dead. There is certain practical room to control the habits of someone who abuses a chemical substance. For example you issue them food stamps instead of cash assistant. However, when someone cannot control his consumption of basic means of sustenance then there is simply nothing you can do. Its one of those downsides of a social arrangement; you'll have to bear with the broken ones knowing that they strain the system and waste resources for nothing in return.