Talk

Advanced search

to think that Human Rights has a lot to answer for in this obesity related death.

(235 Posts)
meyesmyeyes Mon 22-Jun-15 15:47:20

A lot people are saying, Well why were people getting him that food? Why weren't they saying No? and why weren't the 'Carers' refusing to give him his takeaways etc.... OK, he would have sworn at them, but he couldn't get out of bed, so wouldn't have been able to harm them for not getting him his junk food.

the human rights act allows him to do what he wants-- if carers do not comply they are in the wrong and are liable to lose their jobs -- psychiatrists have to prove they do not have the capacity -- very few people come under this sadly

So surely, this poor man was failed miserably by a system that was supposed to help him?

People should have been in a position where they were able to say 'no' to him. But because of a flawed human rights system, this man has lost his life.

ilovesooty Mon 22-Jun-15 15:49:24

So this man's unfortunate circumstances and death justify abolishing the Human Rights Act?

WhetherOrNot Mon 22-Jun-15 15:53:33

But because of a flawed human rights system, this man has lost his life

No - he lost his life because he decided to eat too much.

QuiteLikely5 Mon 22-Jun-15 15:54:03

Ultimately we are responsible for ourselves. It was his responsibility over what he was eating.

Blame isn't always the answer.

QuiteLikely5 Mon 22-Jun-15 15:54:38

The HRA had nothing to do with his death.

retrocutie Mon 22-Jun-15 15:55:51

But how do they afford to eat like that?

Floggingmolly Mon 22-Jun-15 15:56:57

He was failed by the system???
He ate himself to death and presumably had the legal capacity to make that choice. Sometimes there just is no one else to blame, you know?

NerrSnerr Mon 22-Jun-15 16:01:59

Where do we draw the line? I'm 10st 2, according to my bmi I am overweight. Should a shopkeeper stop me from buying cake?

LurkingHusband Mon 22-Jun-15 16:02:58

Just a thought ....

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant..."

John Stuart Mill

elderflowerlemonade Mon 22-Jun-15 16:04:16

He'd have needed sectioning I would have thought?

AnyoneForTennis Mon 22-Jun-15 16:05:56

How can they afford to eat like that? I don't know.... But, have a feeling that he might be registered as disabled? Would he get extra money that way?

originalusernamefail Mon 22-Jun-15 16:06:00

He was an adult. Fortunately in this country grown adults in their right mind can make decisions about the health / lives even if the decision is unwise or harmful. If there were concerns about his capacity to understand the consequences of his overeating maybe he should have been sectioned (like in cases of anorexia or bulimia) but I don't think this was the case. It's very sad but he made his choice.

fattymcfatfat Mon 22-Jun-15 16:06:22

ner is that it? before I fell pg I was about 11 and a half st. so overweight. by the time I was 13 weeks I was over 13 st. I'm 35+5 and scared to weigh myself now blush I was classed as obese sad

elderflowerlemonade Mon 22-Jun-15 16:07:32

It was an odd comment by Ner; best ignored.

KoalaDownUnder Mon 22-Jun-15 16:09:28

Any chance of a link, please? I've got no idea who you're talking about.

meyesmyeyes Mon 22-Jun-15 16:13:13

So this man's unfortunate circumstances and death justify abolishing the Human Rights Act?

Obviously not.
But it's a sad state of affairs when people are too scared to intervene (especially when it's in a patient's best interests) for fear of going against the person's 'human rights' and possibly losing their jobs as a result.

I don't know what the answer is.

I would like to hear from people, (there must be some on here), who are in a position where they are employed to 'care' for a person who is extremely overweight - especially where they are in a capacity where they cook, prepare and shop for that person as part of their job description.

What do you do?
And what do you secretly wish you could do? To help the person you are caring for.

meyesmyeyes Mon 22-Jun-15 16:14:29

Koala, Britains largest man has just died

KoalaDownUnder Mon 22-Jun-15 16:15:26

Oh, okay - thank you.

My google-fu must be very weak today!

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g Mon 22-Jun-15 16:17:22

I think Nerr was just saying what lots of others have said. Where do you draw the line between people taking responsibility for themselves, and accepting the consequences of their own decisions/actions, and intervening to save them from themselves?

We do it with smoking. It's become harder and harder to be a smoker and there's effective support available if you want to quit. To some extent we do it with drinking. But when it comes to food there are no bans or age limits, no deterrent taxes on high-fat/sugar items etc etc. So those of us with weak willpower can quite easily find ourselves getting tubbier and tubbier.

MindMaking Mon 22-Jun-15 16:17:23

I think you're a bit confused OP.

Whats with the bit in italics in your post? Is it supposed to be of some special significance? Maybe a quote from somewhere? Where?

What does the bit about the capacity of psychiatrists mean?

TheClacksAreDown Mon 22-Jun-15 16:18:16

There are many people whose death is caused by their own destructive behaviour. And there are many ways you can do this. Provided you are mentally competent then the state cannot intervene to stop you, even if the outcome is your own mortality.

MadisonMontgomery Mon 22-Jun-15 16:18:40

Of course if he is deemed to be in his right mind he can eat whatever he wants - but people who are anorexic etc receive treatment and are fed, would someone who overeats to this extent not be classed as having an eating disorder, and therefore should receive treatment?

mommy2ash Mon 22-Jun-15 16:18:45

People risk their own health all the time you can't force people to live as you want them to.

LurkingHusband Mon 22-Jun-15 16:19:30

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

– C. S. Lewis

cookiefiend Mon 22-Jun-15 16:20:00

When people require carers there are many ethical issues like this- can you assist them to buy alcohol, cigarettes, drugs or sex? Do you force them to buy healthy food? I think though if you were the individual being cared for that you would prefer your choices were respected. There are no laws against junk food so why prevent him from having it?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now