to think tackling obesity by sending people to the back of the NHS queue is bonkers?

[ICBINEG]

I have been obese. When you are obese you know perfectly well the damage you are doing, you know the extra hassle it entails on a day to day basis, you know the humiliation, you know that you aren't doing justice to your kids, and you know you are going to die early, and be ill and in pain.

I had all the motivation in the world to change.

What difference is it supposed to make that the NHS are preparing to treat the obese like second class citizens, if the motivation of an early painful death and missing their kids growing up isn't enough?

The actual net result of not treating the injuries of people who are obese is that there will be yet another hurdle to them getting back on their feet and being able to exercise etc.

AIBU to think this plan is a massive fail that utterly misses the point of why people don't change their lifestyles?

compo I agree....but that isn't what this was about. It was about giving preferential treatment to people at the gps.

I'm obese at 12st something, 5'4" and size 16. I gave birth 4 months ago. I'll go and shoot myself now to save the NHS some cash.

I wonder if the philosophy extends to anorexics who have the temerity to seek treatment when their organs start packing in?

Surely anyone that makes themselves in need on NHS help, knowing full well what they are doing should be put to the back. Its competly unfair that people who really need the NHS through no fault of there own have such long waiting times because of peoplel who have eaten, smoked or drunk too much or used drugs, now need the NHS!

Its an interesting take on the NHS.

A friend of mine has had countless broken bones, two surgeries to shorten lingaments and tendens, several hundred hours of physio.

All because he plays rugby.

Great to know that eating disorders are so well understood :-(

That wasn't my point, ToTeach. I meant (as someone who lost a friend to anorexia) that one's intake of food and the reasons thereof, shouldn't be a limiting factor in the availability of NHS treatment.

Define through no fault of their own.

I've read the DM article. Apparently, if I've been to the gym and purchased fruit and veg, I should get priority but I don't, so fuck it, I need to wait. I can't go the gym as I can't afford it and I'm disabled anyway, so there's not much I can do. I eat a lot fruit and veg but I'm overweight (trying to lose). This policy would affect those on very low incomes. Hell, not even on very low incomes but many people cannot afford the gym. Should I go to the back of queue when trying to get an appt for my condition purely because I'm overweight even though my condition has fuck all to do with my weight and I was actually diagnosed when I was a low-healthy weight?

Are there any illnesses where the risk of getting them has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle? Because I'm having a hard time thinking of any off the top of my head.

I'm ignoring things like freak accidents on the grounds that sufferers of those would be going to A&E rather than the GP surgery....

PurpleStorm Autoimmune disorders, of which there are many.

Yes crashdoll. We're not on a low income but the gym is a luxury we can't afford. Factor in a baby and preschooler who don't self-settle at bedtime and wake through the night, and I've got very limited opportunity for exercise (with the best will in the world, I had to let a friend down last night after she'd already left to meet me for a run because DS woke and I couldn't console him). Add to that the exhaustion, and I think I'm doing well to have completed two runs and a resistance workout in the last eights days. I really can't do more at the moment so will in all likelihood remain (just) obese until my DCs' routine improves. Tiredness and a lack of time for food preparation don't tend to make for the healthiest diet either.

Link to the DM article mentioned by crashdoll

I wonder if GP's are going to offer free or subsidised gym membership to their low income obese patients? And what about patients who exercise outside the gym? I have a friend who spends about 2 hours a day walking her dog, but never sets foot in a gym. Would all that dog walking not count as exercise?

I'm trying to imagine how the triage system would GP.

Patient: Can I see the doctor please? My psoriasis has flared up.
Receptionist: Do you go the gym?
Patient: Yes
Receptionist: Do you buy and eat 5 portions of fruit and veg per day?
Patient: Erm yes
Receptionist: Is your BMI within the healthy weight range?
Patient: Give me a second, let me go and check.....
.............
Patient: Yes!
Receptionist: Ok, you can have an appointment today at 3 pm but the doctor will only see you if you can provide proof. That will be a shopping receipt, gym membership card and we will have to verify your weight.
Patient: Oh fuck this, I'll just keep scratching day and night till I bleed, who needs sleep anyway?

Are there any illnesses where the risk of getting them has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle? Because I'm having a hard time thinking of any off the top of my head.

Hope this is a joke. We are virtually back to the medieval idea that illness and disability were punishments. My family has a strong genetic strain of autoimmune and immune deficient diseases on one side (crohns, colitis, vasculitis). Every illness we have in my family is nothing to do with lifestyle. We don't have diabetes (type 1) but that's another good example. Cystic fibrosis, rheumatoid arthritis, sickle cell anaemia....Every genetic condition you are born with is not a result of lifestyle. And most of the ones you acquire throughout your life are not a result of lifestyle. Tonsilitis? Chickenpox? Meningitis? Thyroid conditions? These are just some of the conditions in my family or friends so just what's coming from the top of my head.

Ooh extra posts -my comment about eating disorders was in response to Midastouch, not Ineed (in fact I agree with you.)

Sorry. Didn't mean to be cause upset. Obviously I should have remembered about genetic conditions and so on.

Just all the illnesses I could think of my family and friends having are ones where lifestyle can play a part to a greater or lesser degree.

oh no, no upset at all . My family is lucky anyway - nasty things but not life-limiting things in our genetic inheritance. I just honestly think we can overplay the role we can play in protecting ourselves as a way of reassuring ourselves that we are "safe" and only those silly fat people are in danger of bad things happening to them.

Of course we can do something to reduce our risk of cancer or heart attack but we can't do an enormous amount because genetics and bad luck also play a huge part. I think it's just that we can do more about these than we can do about Parkinsons or Dementia. We go from being aware that we have some ability to reduce our risk of cancer and heart disease to thinking that we can control all our risks and therefore that people are to blame for their ill health.

Sadly life isn't fair. People get ill or fat or whatever for millions of reasons. Some of it is their fault. A huge amount of it is just what we all get for being alive.

midastouch Tue 12-Mar-13 13:57:02
"Surely anyone that makes themselves in need on NHS help, knowing full well what they are doing should be put to the back. Its competly unfair that people who really need the NHS through no fault of there own have such long waiting times because of peoplel who have eaten, smoked or drunk too much or used drugs, now need the NHS! "

So how on earth would most people know if their particular use of alcohol/coffee/salt/drugs etc had contributed to their health problems?

My MIL used to drink a fair bit of alcohol but was not an alcoholic. Should the doctor refuse to treat her diabetes, or should he treat only part of it as some of it may have been due to her habits of consumption?

Dh is a far more moderate drinker but not a teetotaller- so if he develops diabetes, should that be treated differently? Where do you draw the line?

In my case, I have a genetic disposition to high BP but also used to drink rather too much coffee during my university years. Should I or should I not be treated?

What about those whose injuries are caused by sports they chose to indulge in? Again, should it make a difference if the sport was part of a compulsory PE lesson?

And what about those whose problems have been caused by following faulty medical advice? Dd has a chronic joint condition and has damaged her joints by following medical advice which insisted that she had to "push against the pain".

DD2 needs to eat as much salt as she can physically manage - if that causes BP problems, does that mean she goes to the back of the queue, for following medical advice for one condition, which then causes/affects another?

And DD1 isn't allowed to go near a gym until she's had a load more physio because of her medical condition, as she could cause permanent damage. So she also goes to the back of the queue?

Stupid idea, no way of managing it.

Wouldn't it be nice, and I realise I'm thinking waaaay outside the box here, but wouldn't it be nice if the NHS was properly funded )the way a world class health system should be), so that we didn't have to worry about who gets treatment first? If we were provided with the resources so that there was enough for everyone to get treatment when they needed it?

A radical idea, I know...

You do have to show committment and abstention from alcohol before you are listed for a liver transplant! There is a super urgent list that is separate and any of us could end up on that if we suddenly went in to acute liver failure for some reason, but in terms of the planned waiting list there are strict criteria.