obesity as a disability is very damaging for the truely disabled

[twoopsie]

So now the EU says that obisity can be treated as a disability.

Sets a worrying precedence. Does anyone remember that episode of the Simpsons.

Before people start flaming me with genuine medical reasons for obesity, these are a very small minority but obviously do exist and the obesity is a side affect, not the aliment.

""would a consequence be that obese people then get disability allowance (benefits)?""

DLA is now PIP and is based on how the person is affected by their condition whilst carrying out daily tasks and this will continue for at least three months.

This ruling will have no impact on benefits.

""Are there any other mental conditions that are classified as disabilities?""

Yes lots come under the umbrella of "disability" and if that MH condition substantialy impacts on the individuals ability to carry out daily activities, then they may be entitled to PIP.

Whilst having a diagnosis initially directs the person to the right place, most Clinics treat the whole person.

Disability is moving away from pure medical diagnosis and the plan being around medical treatments.

I think that what a lot of people outside of Social Care, or without disabilities in their family, don't realise/understand.

Disability is not a value judgement.

It's simply a definition of whether a physical or mental condition (such as an illness or an injury) damages or limits a person's physical or mental abilities.

That's the basic definition, and then when people start looking at the causes and sources of the barriers, it's useful to start thinking of those as a society caused dis-enablement, which society also has the power to remove. Ie a ramp up to a library/ work building etc

Some people extend that to say all disability is socially rooted, and that's where the debate is. I personally don't agree with that as it all starts with the physical or mental health condition so does come back to a health issue. But I do agree that the major barriers are caused by societies reactions to illness/ difference/ disability, so putting society at the centre means that disability isn't ignored by society... Anyway, it's all gets a bit esoteric and not relevant at that point.

But at no point in the definition is a value judgement, or a reference to how the condition was caused. It's not about whether the disability is socially approved, whether you want to give sympathy, benefits, lock them away, or leave people to starve. That is a completely separate discussion. It's not factually correct to conflate the two, and it's rather disgusting to read.

So by all means have those discussions. But don't confuse that with the definition of disability itself

I posted about this last night but a different aspect, it didn't go too well.

"". If most people in wheelchairs or who are blind were told they could " cure " themselves with a lifestyle change I imagine they would -""

You would probably be surprised by how many people could stop themselves from going blind/deaf, or ending up in wheelchairs, by changing their lifestyles when they first come into touch with Professionals, both medical and in addiction services.

Judging by the threads about what people are eating around Christmas, very few people are guarding against Strokes/Heart Conditions.

Yeah, Birds, but too be fair what I (and probably most people) eat over Christmas bears very little resemblance to what I eat over the rest of the year: more booze, more sugar, more cream.

If I ate like that all year, then I would have heart and weight issues...

I don't think the law says fat people get disability pay. They're saying you can't fire or hire based on weight alone. If a job requires you to lift 50lbs consistently through the day, then you need to be able to do that regardless of any disabilities in order to get hired. Anything that has physical criteria has to be met, just as anything with mental criteria has to be met.

Miscellaneous, there are a number of value judgments written into the Equality Act 2010. The following things are not protected characteristics even if there is a "physical or mental impairment and the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities":

"Certain conditions are not to be regarded as impairments for the purposes of the Act. These are:
• addiction to, or dependency on, alcohol, nicotine, or any other substance (other than in consequence of the substance being medically prescribed);
• the condition known as seasonal allergic rhinitis (e.g. hayfever), except where it aggravates the effect of another condition;
• tendency to set fires;
• tendency to steal;
• tendency to physical or sexual abuse of other persons;
• exhibitionism;
• voyeurism."

Excluding alcoholism from disability legislation is a value judgment, and there is a clear analogy with obesity (note that I am not saying that substance abuse is the same as obesity). The government also said that they thought people requiring reasonable adjustments due to hay fever was, arbitrarily but perhaps correctly, "taking the piss".

I am not saying any of these things is necessarily right or wrong (although perhaps it is right to stop voyeurs and flashers claiming disability rights!), but the idea that disability legislation does not make value judgments about conditions that may cause disability is simply not true.

Incidentally, the legislation also goes the other way and automatically deems certain conditions to be disabilities, like MS, HIV and cancer. So parliament decided that no one should question the idea that certain conditions are disabilities, and that no one should question that certain questions aren't disabilities.

I know some people think that being labelled disabled is some kind of privalege or instant passport to an endless flow of dosh and complete job security. It isn't. It really really isn't.

It's also not a homogenous mass of people. It's certainly not a club where other members want to vet the newbies to see if they've met the required level of misery or physical difference.

I find the whole debate around worthy and unworthy disability rather distasteful. But the government I'm sure would be delighted.

As someone else said earlier, I can see the hope would be in punishing and isolating the 'wrongly disabled', that they'd get off their lazy arses and get back to work, but they won't, they'll just die.

I find it reminiscent of the reactions I had when I first become disabled. Especially from my work, who instantly wanted to fire me as I wasn't pretty or fabulous anymore and clients wouldn't want any vile reality to taint their engagement with anyone from my company. It was incredibly hurtful and damaging.

I was told that if I just stopped whining, joined a gym and went on a diet, I'd be fine. That I 'felt poorly' because I was fat. I wasn't obese, but I wasn't the beautiful size 10 I had been, that's what happens when your body is deteriorating around you, when you're too ill to shop or cook, too ill to eat, to sit up or chew. You end up not eating right. I was bullied and harried and pressured, and to my shame, I believed them, and ignored the rather quieter voice of the doctors who were trying not to scare me, and trying to be positive. And I just tried to carry on, and tried to exercise more etc. I felt to blame. I felt ugly and rejected and I should indeed just try harder to be well.

I ended up not being able to walk at all. Not being able to function at all.

So I wonder if you'd say I'm 'not worthy' because I was fat? Or 'not worthy' because my actions contributed to the deterioration in my condition?

As a disabled person I am actually angry that you believe disabilities should be somehow divided into the self-inflicted ones and the ones that are through no fault whatsoever of the disabled person.

As I posted on another thread it reminds me of the Brass Eye sketch "good Aids, Bad Aids".

Many disabilities have some relation to individual's lifestyle. Smokers and ex-smokers with severe lung disease and runners who can end up with arthritis in the knees and hips are two examples.

My disability is mainly genetic, however it was triggered when I chose to work illegal night shifts as a doctor. The sleep deprivation triggered a manic psychosis for which I was detained under a Section of the MHA. So I guess, in part, it could be said it is my fault that I am disabled.

My husband was born blind though a genetic disability, so really we could be blaming MIL and FIL for having kids when FIL was blind as was DH's gran.

It really angers me, as a "truly disabled" person that you think lifestyle choices should be considered a factor when defining what a disability is. What a lot of bullshit. Take your judgemental morally superior attitude and clear off.

I saw somebody on TV being lifted through a hole in their house by a crane. That's disabled. I can't think of another way of describing it.

Did I say this?

"the idea that disability legislation does not make value judgments about conditions that may cause disability is simply not true"

Reread my first post please.

Take your judgemental morally superior attitude and clear off.

I've started and deleted several replies to this thread, so do mind if I just save myself the effort and pinch yours raltheraffe?

I am not meaning to be confrontational, Miscellaneous, although I know this is an emotive topic. Believe me, I did read your post. You said:

*"Disability is not a value judgement. It's simply a definition of whether a physical or mental condition (such as an illness or an injury) damages or limits a person's physical or mental abilities....

...But at no point in the definition is a value judgement, or a reference to how the condition was caused. It's not about whether the disability is socially approved, whether you want to give sympathy, benefits, lock them away, or leave people to starve. That is a completely separate discussion. It's not factually correct to conflate the two, and it's rather disgusting to read.

So by all means have those discussions. But don't confuse that with the definition of disability itself"*

This isn't correct. Parliament made value judgments in deciding who qualifies for rights as a disabled person, and that is embedded in the statutory definition of "disability". That may be something you disagree with, but the idea of excluding certain conditions from the definition of "disability" as a matter of policy is not new, so we mustn't pretend that it is.

If you think there is another reason for excluding drug and alcohol abuse from the definition of "disability" that cannot be described as a value judgment, then I am wrong. But I don't think there is.

I fully agree that by going down this route, parliament was on thin ice. Obesity is probably the most obvious area the question would come up (because obesity can be caused by lots of physical and mental impairments that may or not of themselves constitute "disability" as defined) and this was all totally foreseeable.

Not trying to agree or disagree with your underlying point about the rights and wrongs of excluding obesity as a disability (I am undecided on this), but we should not pretend that there are no value judgments in the law already or that this is something entirely new.

Yes and thank you limitedperiodonly

With hindsight I wish I had never worked the illegal shifts, but back in 1999 medicine was very different from how it is now. There was no EWTD and if you did not suck it up and do the crazy 80 hour shifts you would get the sack.

Last week I found out that I may have Asperger's syndrome and am going for a formal assessment on Monday for that. At least with the Asperger's I cannot blame myself for it in any way as I had Aspie traits from when I was a child.

Having worked as a doctor I would say the vast majority of illnesses I dealt with were due in some part to lifestyle.

I absolutely detest the idea of blaming a disabled person for the part they may have played in the disability.

"". If most people in wheelchairs or who are blind were told they could " cure " themselves with a lifestyle change I imagine they would -""

ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT! DH is blind and with his specific type of blindness there is a cure on the horizon. It is currently being tested on rodents and getting good results.

DH has said if the trials work and the drug gets prescribed on the NHS there is NO WAY WHATSOEVER he will take it.

Please do not try and imagine how disabled people think. You have no idea what it is like to live with a disability and I find your comments distasteful and naive.

YABU. Not only in the scaremongering you're doing on misrepresenting the report, but by the ableist comments that serve only to create more hate towards disabled people and fat people and more division and leads only to more misery and dehumanization for both. This rhetoric literally created good vs bad disabled people mindset that leads to greater health problems, harm, and death of many.

People with "true" disability (whatever you want that incredibly divisive ableist concept to mean) can be overweight/fat. Obviously. Mobility disabilities create a real problem with moving and making food. Many mental health problems may cause the same. Fat people may become disabled for a long list of reasons, some related to weight, just as I am at risk of a number of conditions having been underweight for most of my life.

There is a well recognised problem shown in multiple studies that fat people are far far more likely to be dismissed and misdiagnosed by medical professionals about their disabilities than the rest of us. This has caused great harm and many deaths. Fat people are more likely to be harmed and die as a result of the bias these professionals and others have than from any condition linked to weight.

As an underweight disabled person, I find the desire to divide "real" disabled people from "fake", usually fat, disabled people has led only to pain for all of us. Fat disabled people face greater discrimination due to a society that treats many disabilities and being fat as character flaws to dehumanize us. I'm quite pleased about the recognition of the need for protection for them.

Anyone who tries to creating deserving and undeserving disabled people, or wants to throw my fat counterparts aside as 'damaging' the rest of us disabled people, is an ableist person who needs pulled up on how it is able people's judgement that causes me damage, not that some people are disabled by their weight. We need to challenge all ableism and size hate, it's not just about those who fit into some messed up 'good' idea.

Well said TheSporkforeatingkyriarchy an excellent comment.

Yes, agree with Misc and ral and Spork.

Spork, thank you for articulating so much better than I, what I was trying to express upthread.

I'm also disabled, BTW. And skinny.

With hindsight I wish I had never worked the illegal shifts, but back in 1999 medicine was very different from how it is now. There was no EWTD and if you did not suck it up and do the crazy 80 hour shifts you would get the sack

I'm glad medicine has changed raltheraffe - if it has.

I remember that sentiment in older people who did my job: 'We served our time so you serve it too.'

It was our badge of pride.

The difference was that in my job no one died because someone was tired or inexperienced and too afraid to call a consultant off the golf course or in private practice for advice or too arrogant to take the advice of a senior nurse/colleague.

But it's never occurred to me before now that the practitioner might have also suffered long term damage because of the system.

And if I haven't made it clear, the competition between the worthy disabled and the unworthy is revolting.

I also find it's indulged in by people who are as fit as a fucking flea.

But those people who are as fit as a flea are just a moment and a few mortgage payments from an accident, or a lifestyle incident or an illness.

Be careful of what you wish for, you people.

I was gonna write a comment, but spork has it all covered.

Btw I was skinny when i became ill. Do you realise how many people already see an overweight person in a wheelchair and think "maybe if she exercised more, she wouldnt need that"

OP, 'truly disabled' is a really offensive choice of words. I work in disability rights and the notion of the deserving and undeserving disabled is a real political hot potato atm and has real life implications, and is underpining the ATOS/ PIP approach to assistance. Please educate yourself on Disability politic and culture and choose your words carefully!

[[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Disability-Rights-Wrongs-Tom-Shakespeare/dp/041534719X www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/0333945670/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=569136327&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=041534719X&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=04TTZSJ8KEY02Q10FEVZ these are accessible texts on the issues]]

In nursing I see a lot of morbidly obese people (I mainly work with hip & knee joint replacement patients.

It's beyond doubt that especially the morbidly obese people become disabled by their obesity - for example they have illnesses that can be caused or exacerbated by disability & the obesity itself can interfere with the ADLs (Activities of Daily Living).

When you see a person whose knees can't take their weight without severe pain, who suffers bilateral leg cellulitis, shortness of breath on mobilising, high blood sugars in type 2 diabetes causing all kinds of damage, sores in the creases of their body such as under breasts, under the stomach, in the groins etc. who can't wipe their own bottom or bend down to pick something up, or who can't sit themselves up in bed - well, to me that person is disabled.

What is the answer? Obesity has very complex causes so the solutions are also complex.

Overeating is a major cause of obesity for example but why do people overeat and what can stop them? Overeating can be caused by yes, plain greed, but also by an addictive personality, by wanting to eat to ease loneliness & boredom, by bingeing (an eating disorder), by poor education in nutrition etc etc.
Overeating is not simply cured by diets - the obese person has to Want to give up overeating before trying to diet, just like smokers & drinkers have to be in the right place mentally before giving up their habits.
Overeating has social & psychological causes that need to be looked at before a diet can be truly successful.

Also it could be said that disabilities themselves can cause obesity.
For example it's very hard for the person with poor mobility caused by stroke, MS, bad arthritis or other conditions to stay very slim as they don't burn off the calories they take in.
Medications can cause obesity - such as steroids, some anti-convulsants (like epilim) and some meds for mental illness such as risperidone.
Hypothyroidism means that the person can have very few calories before gaining weight.
And also depression caused by disabilities can lead to a person overeating.

So is obesity itself a disability? I'm undecided on that but I can see that it can definitely cause or be caused by disabilities; and these disabilities should be made allowances for by employers.

Marmite I wonder if in part this whole thread is a result of the bad press disabled people have been getting since the coalition came into power.

As he walks with a cane, DH is visibly disabled. Occasionally people shout sp*z and crip at him, we have always had that. However after the coalition came into power, a new insult has started: "benefits faker". This is now the commonest insult he gets. We go shopping and all of a sudden people who do not even know us are shouting abuse at us claiming DH can see and he does this act for the benefits. He has been diagnosed by a consultant eye doctor and he is genuinely blind. It is really quite upsetting being shouted at in this manner and it never used to happen.

As for me I am very scared about Monday. I have known about the bipolar for 15 years but all of a sudden they now think I am ASD. I am not sure whether being given the ASD badge will be a good thing or a bad thing. I am looking forward to a definitive answer but do not know how to handle the news if it comes back I have it. Very scared.