NHS Treatment for Obesity?

[0iD]

Yes it's been covered here before, but as it's in the news again i thought I'd bring it up again.

Access to weight-loss operations on the NHS is "inconsistent and unethical", the Royal College of Surgeons has said.

The RCS says some patients who meet the criteria for stomach surgery of England and Wales health watchdog NICE have to wait until they become even more obese.

It estimates the 4,300 operations such as gastric band fittings carried out by the NHS last year met only 2% of need.

The NHS Confederation said primary care trusts had to balance local needs and priorities while planning services.

Now this is NOT going to turn into a thread against overweight people, so no ridicule, name calling etc. Just a reasoned debate as to whether treatment for Obesity should be freely available or not.

NHS obesity operation access inconsistent, surgeons say
Top obesity drug sibutramine being withdrawn

[abaxas]

Refusal to treat other illness is one of the best way to get people to lose weight.

It worked for smoker, it'll work for people 'too fat'.

[Bluecube]

Overweight people are responsible for their own wellbeing. If they're fat then it's their fault for eating crap and not exercising. Taxpayers should not have to pay because these people can't get off their arses and sort themselves out.

[jim]

I think it's ridiculous to be honest, a complete waste of taxpayers' money.

If someone conclusively proves that obesity is a result of a gene or a virus, then fine - I'll change my stance. As things stand, when we're talking about very obvious things like excessive consumption of alcohol, cigarettes and calories (i.e. not something less clear like salt intake), I don't think everyone should have to pay for it.

[Allen]

Now this is NOT going to turn into a thread against overweight people, so no ridicule, name calling etc.

Overweight people are responsible for their own wellbeing. If they're fat then it's their fault for eating crap and not exercising. Taxpayers should not have to pay because these people can't get off their arses and sort themselves out.

That lasted all of 2 posts.....

Yes Bluecube, because all overweight people are lazy and there's never any medical or psychological reason behind eating disorders!

I think it would be better to spend the money helping people with the reasons why they are overweight, rather than these "quick fixes".

[eshrules]

whilst I think this thread is already headed in one direction, I do feel that those genuinenly obese should be offered treatment on the NHS.

I don't see how we can justifably deny 'fat treatment', when we're supporting smokers who are quitting and recovering alcoholics, both of which could (arguably) be compared to obesity in that it's self-inflicted/caused. (yes, I know, smoking and alcholism aren't the same, I've lived with both and I understand...I'm generalising for the purpose of this argument)

I do think that we need a standard of asessment in place and I do think those who don't qualify for operations should be awarded support of some description, surely stating to someone "get more obese first" is simply worsening the situation?

[TooNice]

@Allen: The other way rings true too. I am not against some people having it done, but it should be last resort and only when the overweight person has shown genuine effort, yet could not overcome some underlying medical cause (if the cause is psychological, then that needs to be sorted first).

[kalniel]

All the arguments about wasting tax payers money are bunk. These operations SAVE tax payers money because the people treated then have far healthier lives and are much less of a burden on the system. In three years it pays for itself.

Whether it's something we should surgically 'correct' is another debate, but there shouldn't be any problem on the money front.

[Mblaster]

I think it would be better to spend the money helping people with the reasons why they are overweight, rather than these "quick fixes".

I'm agreed here, surgery is really not necessary to loose weight (bar some very extreme circumstances). What happened to eating less and doing some exercise? Better off spending the money on educating people and providing equipment to aid exercise IMO.

[floppybootstomp]

Oi! YFB! Don't step into my canoe, it will sink.

I was going to attempt a funnee and say a good cure for obesity is poverty but that's not true is it?

Poverty means a poor carbohydrate laden diet which leads to weight gain usually.

Mind you, extreme poverty as experienced in some so-called third world countries certainly causes weight loss. Death even.

Some people are just naturally porkers. Other overweight people are just greedy bastids and bloaters.

I'm lucky I guess, all my life been thin and have eaten as much as I want.

Other people are not so lucky.

If NHS treatment cures obesity and the obese person stays cured, then it's worth the money cos it will be less of a drain on the NHS when overweight person doesn't develop heart disease and diabetes, just to name a couple of nasties.

[petrefax]

whilst i have no particular affinity with the fat, i don't beleive any restrictions should be placed upon NHS treatment, be it drug addiction, smoking, obesity or alcohol related injuries. the ethos of the NHS is treatment for all, not just those who fit within what is currently viewed as acceptable by society for treatment

if restrictions are applied to the above, how about applying the same to sports injuries.

nobody is forced to participate in sport, its either a pastime / hobby for amateurs or a career choice for professionals, but either way, nobody is forced (or as is the case with drug/alcohol/tobacco issues, addicted) to participating in sport

how about not treating people who "wear slippy shoes"

once again, its a choice, you don't have to wear shoes which don't have a substantial amount of grip on them but if you don't you may fall over & injure yourself

calls for non treatment of certain groups is the "me, me, me" generation speaking once again, this, IMVHFO boils down to "i'm not fat / don't smoke / don't drink...etc..therefore i am not benefitting from people of this ilk being treated for free"

treatment for all, or scrap the NHS since it no longer fulfills its purpose.

[floppybootstomp]

whilst i have no particular affinity with the fat, i don't beleive any restrictions should be placed upon NHS treatment, be it drug addiction, smoking, obesity or alcohol related injuries. the ethos of the NHS is treatment for all, not just those who fit within what is currently viewed as acceptable by society for treatment

if restrictions are applied to the above, how about applying the same to sports injuries.

nobody is forced to participate in sport, its either a pastime / hobby for amateurs or a career choice for professionals, but either way, nobody is forced (or as is the case with drug/alcohol/tobacco issues, addicted) to participating in sport

how about not treating people who "wear slippy shoes"

once again, its a choice, you don't have to wear shoes which don't have a substantial amount of grip on them but if you don't you may fall over & injure yourself

calls for non treatment of certain groups is the "me, me, me" generation speaking once again, this, IMVHFO boils down to "i'm not fat / don't smoke / don't drink...etc..therefore i am not benefitting from people of this ilk being treated for free"

treatment for all, or scrap the NHS since it no longer fulfills its purpose.

Um, I believe the expression is 'Hear hear'

Smoking costs the NHS a fortune.

Which is why I largely agree with the Goverment's stance on banning smoking in public places.

Even though it does go against my idea of freedom, sometimes you gotta be cruel to be kind.

[badass]

Smoking costs the NHS a fortune.

Smoking's costs to the NHS are almost exactily all paid for by the tax on cigarettes.

One problem is that c**p food that's good for gaining weight and not a lot else is cheaper than fresh vegetables etc for example.
Maybe taxing the c**p and subsidising the good stuff more is the answer.
I think the NHS should continue to treat the overweight but working. Even if they pay almost nothing in income tax/NI and regardless of cost of the treatment. At least it shows they aren't completely lazy blame everyone else for their problems types.
The overweight that are using governemnt support to subsidise their lives can lose their right to sibsidy anywhere but fat farms where they simply don't get paid anything and get a healthy diet handed to them along with comfortable enough but boring living. Once they hit a reasonably healthy weight, they can go back to social housing or whatever gov't support anyone else would be entitled to.

In fact, this can work for drug abusers and alcoholics as well.
If you contribute to society, you can abuse your body because you pay NI. If you don't pay NI and you seriously abuse your body, your only rights are a roof over your head in a detox place.

I'm sure some bleeding heart type will pick loads of holes in the details, but you know the gist is right

[sadbuttrue]

Don't gastric band fittings simply limit the amount of food a person can consume? Surely that suggests no underlying genetic/medical problems. Don't we already have an excessively large army of social workers? Put them to some use instead of opting for surgery.

[eshrules]

Smoking's costs to the NHS are almost exactily all paid for by the tax on cigarettes.

One problem is that c**p food that's good for gaining weight and not a lot else is cheaper than fresh vegetables etc for example.
Maybe taxing the c**p and subsidising the good stuff more is the answer.
I think the NHS should continue to treat the overweight but working.
The overweight that are using governemnt support to subsidise their lives can lose their right to sibsidy anywhere but fat farms where they simply don't get paid anything and get a healthy diet handed to them along with comfortable enough but boring living. Once they hit a reasonably healthy weight, they can go back to social housing or whatever gov't support anyone else would be entitled to.

In fact, this can work for drug abusers and alcoholics as well.
If you contribute to society, you can abuse your body because you pay NI. If you don't pay NI and you seriously abuse your body, your only rights are a roof over your head in a detox place.

First point - this isn't a 'karmic' state and thank <insert religious figure of significance> it isn't! You can't justify the strain placed on the NHS by alcholism or smokers with the respective tax revenue generated from each? You're almost suggesting it's of insignificance, which it isn't.

second point... I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at with 'government subsidies' and 'fat farms'. One of the leading causes of obesity is poverty. If you don't have the cash to buy decent quality, varied and nutritionally balanced food, your diet and subsequently, weight/bmi/health.... suffers. Some people, believe it or not, despite working their backsides off, still find themselves below the poverty line and struggling to put the right food into their mouths. These people don't have government subsidies, so I'm curious as to what you'd do to help these people? I dislike the link you're apparently attempting to draw between being obese and being on benefits/in social housing.

The fact of the matter is, those who can pay NI, do. Those who can pay tax (most of the time), do. Those who can't, still receive health care. It's how Britain currently and always should (imho) work.

Behind each abused body is a story, a history and a reason for it's abuse, that's what we need to be focusing on and that's what we need to be working towards eliminating. Prevention is better than cure

[0iD]

Behind each abused body is a story, a history and a reason for it's abuse, that's what we need to be focusing on and that's what we need to be working towards eliminating. Prevention is better than cure

QFT

Treat the cause, not the symptom here & maybe it'll free some cash to go toward, say, dementia care for instance.