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

[meyesmyeyes]

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.

I wonder how it starts?

At some point in the carers would have started, he wouldn't always have had them. Maybe his mum was cooking for him before? That might tie in to the weight gain after her death if she was limiting what he ate.

Maybe just ban carers from cooking for obese people (I know, it'll never work) so that at least people don't get so fat they can't move because they have to get up to cook/shop or at the very least answer the door for the take away.

I suspect he must have had some condition or other requiring temporary carers, lack of even the smallest bit of exercise while recovering meant weight grew, carers became permanent and a viscous circle developed.

As you can see I don't know much about it so please don't just slag me off and insult me for not understanding how it starts.

This was no ones fault, but the gentleman in question

As I have agreed.

But. when I read stories like this, it makes me wish that something more could have been done.
There is nothing wrong with feeling like that.

It is a sad, tragic waste of life - and in one so young.

Snort at idea that being disabled allows you to support a lifestyle of masses of food!

I'm dusabled and its massively financially draining beyond any benefit

The gentleman I care for is obese.

So at the most we can suggest he has smaller portions/walks more/eats out less.

If he chooses to not engage with these suggestions, then there is nothing more we can do.

Don't be mislead, carers/support workers are the lowest ant in the chain, we have no say. All we can do is report what we see/find and wait for something to happen. Push our boss maybe, but we can't refuse to cook or anything.

Well actually that last statement isn't true, depending on the level of support required then we can't refuse to cook. (In my case I can and do if he is heightened, however he is capable of cooking for himself.)

This was no ones fault, but the gentleman in question

Agreed. I'm sure he had whole teams of people trying everything they could to help.

I think there is a difference in lifestyle between people who are disabled and living in the community with carers, usually having come from some kind of assisted living/heavily reliant on carers, and the disabled whom to all intents and purposes live a "normal" life iyswim?

How about the government steps in with all over weight people. Lets make it illegal for you to buy chocolate unless you step on the scales at the check out. A bit like when you get IDed for alcohol.

Lets take this a step further. How about the government steps in with all women who refuse to have a smear. They are to be banned from getting access to the pill, or other contraceptives until they comply with health messages.

Lets say that all elderly people over 70 who have a third fall automatically have to sell their homes move into a care home or sheltered accommodation as they are incapable of looking after themselves anymore.

Let say that you no longer quality for free health care unless you give up smoking.

Let say that its compulsory for women to have a scan and if there are any anomalies found they have to under go an abortion.

Lets say that doctors and midwives have the right to make any decision they like without consulting a woman in labour. They can perform any procedure they feel is appropriate without consent. Pain relief is at the discretion and on the orders of a doctor or midwife only.

I could go on. You get the idea.

The principle of the human rights act is that its an individual right to live the way they want even if this doesn't comply with health care messages. And quite really do, because the implications of taking away the right to choose or the need to consent are pretty horrifying.

You choose to slag off the Human Rights Act because you read too much right wing crap and haven't a clue what it protects us all from.

As long as a person has capacity they are free to make decisions about their own health and the emphasis is to prove otherwise rather than assume that reckless behaviour means you lack capacity.

This whole thread is gross. I hope you are troll.

Is this MN or the Sun

This man made some dreadful life choices. Lots of people do that, but few of them are as visually arresting as this, so it's clear why he ended up all over the tabloids.

If he'd been unable to work or look after himself because of excessive drinking, would his carers have been obliged to assist him with buying more alcohol?

At the risk of being flamed, I do think this is an issue that involves the rest of us. We have a welfare state (just about, still) and a tax-funded healthcare system. That means when people need a lot of looking after, the rest of us chip in through the tax system to cover the cost. Most of us are only too happy to do that in most cases, not least because who knows when it might not be our turn.

I think it's only natural to feel less comfortable about paying for somebody to carry on with a self-chosen lifestyle that is so utterly destructive. The problem is it's not really any more palatable to take their freedom of choice away either.

I'd be surprised if preparing him a salad or buying him low fat cooking spray would help. That sort of general nutrition and cooking approach has a place and could be helpful for some people, but it wouldn't even scratch the surface in a case such as this.

I've seen first hand how NHS weight loss support works (in my area, as this of course makes a huge difference as to what's available). I'm very overweight; no major health issues at the moment. Several years ago I was diagnosed with an eating disorder and was told I would need psychiatric help, but would likely never make it to the top of the waiting list (I haven't). An excellent GP with an interest in the subject helped a lot and my weight has been stable for a couple of years: he's now retired.

I was referred to a weight management pilot program, which involved weekly exercise sessions (passing a ball, jogging on the spot etc. in an office), nutrition advice, and a couple of very brief CBT sessions. As someone who exercises at classes regularly and eats 'normally' most of the time, it wasn't hugely helpful. The staff were wonderful and did what they could with very little resource, but they told me that the program was really for people who had struggled to lose weight after having children, or an operation, or just hadn't learned about healthy eating. They were unable to offer the sort of treatment I required for my particular situation and so removed me from the program.

I know I am responsible for myself and some would question why the NHS should help me when I have apparently 'chosen' to be this way. As it is, I am doing my best to manage what is a mental health condition pretty much alone, with no suitable support available from the NHS at the moment. I'm doing OK and losing weight now, and I hope I'll be able to afford to pay privately for professional support at some point. I'm sure there are plenty of other people in the same boat as I am. This guy would most certainly have needed very intensive support, way beyond nutrition advice or a 12 week subscription to Slimming World.

Don't be mislead, carers/support workers are the lowest ant in the chain, we have no say. All we can do is report what we see/find and wait for something to happen. Push our boss maybe, but we can't refuse to cook or anything.

Beeray,
I suspect that change needs to happen much higher up the chain.

I am shocked how one poster said they have to get round 10 or more clients in an evening and each client only gets about 15 minutes each!
That's not enough time.
It sounds as if the Carers are being expected to stretch themselves too much - between too many clients within too little time.

Is it to do with profits maybe?
It's not right, if it is.

People make bad decisions every day why should that be different because they have carers
You can't put dietary responsibilities into carers
I work in a hospital, much if my work us discharge planning. People frequently go against advice and do risky things. Neighbours and families frequently blame NHS staff

If he'd been unable to work or look after himself because of excessive drinking, would his carers have been obliged to assist him with buying more alcohol?

Yes. His choice. Carers are replacement arms+ legs or whatever else stops the person doing things themselves. A job I would find very difficult indeed, especially for £6 an hour.
.

I know I am responsible for myself and some would question why the NHS should help me when I have apparently 'chosen' to be this way. As it is, I am doing my best to manage what is a mental health condition pretty much alone, with no suitable support available from the NHS at the moment. I'm doing OK and losing weight now, and I hope I'll be able to afford to pay privately for professional support at some point. I'm sure there are plenty of other people in the same boat as I am.

Can'tbelievemyeyes Pleased to hear you are dowing well.

For those who think sectioning would make a difference, it wouldn't. My dd has been in a psychiatric hospital for years and has gone from 11 stone to 24 stone . There is nothing I can do and she is allowed to eat what she wants.

Meyes In my company we work slightly differently, in that its one 2 one support for 12 hours, 24hours a day. So from 8-8 the service user will have one member of staff, and then 20,00 - 0800 they will have another member of staff. So continuous support.

However, in other areas, yes carers are having to dash from patient to patient with little itme with each.

And all of NMW typically. We are incredibly hard working, and seeing some of the comments on this thread, some of which are tantamount to suggesting this gentlemans carers committed manslaughter, just make a thankless task even worse.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

But yes, most of it is profit oriented. Espeically when the care for a client has been outsourced to a private healthcare company.

Because what people don't realise is that in the community, you are subjected to rediculous levels of abuse and thats when you are doing everything the SU wants, when you dare suggest something against their first wish you are in real danger. Real, not imagined.

All this 'he should have taken responsibility for his food intake' stuff is mind boggling.
He was an addict, not someone who has a bit too much chocolate and therefore has tight jeans. Yes, albeit to something very readily availably legally but an addict.
Swap food for vodka and the situation changes.
It is sad that carers were put in the horrible position of enabling this poor man's demise, but if his poison was whisky rather than takeaways, would they really be obliged to buy it all? Or would an alchoholic not be entitled to the same support.

Thanks myeyes. Do you still think the Human Rights Act is really an issue here then, especially now that we've seen more from carers about their role?

I have read all the responses and agree that it's not as simple as saying ''well they shouldn't have given give him the food''.
Carers, I've believe, have to give/cook them the food that's requested - their hands are tied.

Also, no one thing is to blame, whether it be Human Rights (or anything else for that matter)

So, yes, I'm being unreasonable.
Thanks for the replies.
And for not flaming me too much

I still wish there was something more that could have been done to save him

Carers are replacement arms+ legs or whatever else stops the person doing things themselves. A job I would find very difficult indeed, especially for £6 an hour.

Thanks, pamish, me too.

There obviously are limits, though. If the person wanted to buy illegal drugs, presumably the carers are able to say no, they won't be doing that, on the grounds that it's illegal. But if the person says 'I want you to buy me 10 bottles of the cheapest cider' and this happens day after day and everybody knows it's destroying the person's mental and physical health, the carer is obliged to do it. There must be a health & safety implication for the carers, surely, if they're being asked to work with habitual drunks?

I suspect food was the only comfort this man had, to take that away would have been very cruel.

I'm mystified as to what the Human Rights Act has to do with this. Can you elaborate, OP?

Also, I don't understand the bit in italics in your OP. Is that supposed to be a quote from something? What is it exactly?

Health and Safety issue?

Yes.

Does anyone care ? No.

Seriously, health and safety in this type of job is a joke, and worth nothing.

Legally, the carers can't refuse to buy it and nor can they stop it being purchased.

Illegal drugs obviously the carer can refuse to be part of , and can contact the police about.

I doubt if it was a comfort. That's like saying an alcoholic only gets comfort from alcohol so it would be cruel to deprive them of it.