Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Or do you mean, it doesn't tend to impact someone's life too much, in the main?
that is what i mean
like mental ill health or IBS - not everyone who has those conditions is disabled.
You’re disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.
you'd be surprised at how few things obese people can actually do without doing themselves harm; their size is enough to put strain on their bodies functioning correctly before you even factor in trying to be mobile
of course there are plenty of obese people who see their size as no obstacle and manage to live 'full' lives. to deny that being obese affects your mobility and quality of life is ridiculous, is what i'm saying.
How much consensus is there from public health organisations on what 'obesity' is? The WHO definition doesn't necessarily tally up with how national services consider it, so it's not hugely productive to talk about 'obese people' as some homogenous group.
obviously this is something in itself to argue (lol, bmi). personally, i've always considered 'obese' to be synonymous with being 'overweight' enough that it becomes a 'disability' in itself and maybe that's where i'm going wrong because people define obese, overweight and disability differently.
maybe don't take me seriously because this is all coming from someone who is both increasingly overweight due to physical, mental and neurological disabilities and their treatments and has/had people in her family that have been both disabled and obese at the same time.
and not because i've got an abnormal amount of muscle or anything, but because i eat/ate too much. doesnt affect my mobility or anything though
i wrote this just as a comment on 30 being obese, not in response to your own experiences
no - no i have not
and yeah i would be very surprised if people who are obese (not super obese, or morbidly obese, but in the bracket that most obese people would be in) are having substantial negative effects on their abilities to do normal daily activities. certainly the obese people that i know have no (noticeable) problems with having a normal life.
I have had weight problems my whole life and swing drastically from overweight/obese to normal weight often in my life and I can tell you one thing for certain that being obese is in no way not a disability. It impacts your mobility to a large degree, you have no idea how much more difficult it is to move around when you're obese.
in many cases, and is clearly the way with mine, it's clearly something wrong in ma noggin. I feel great when I'm a normal size, I love being able to be more expressive and free flowing with my body movements and I think I'm much happier when I can so something like an explosive movement but despite this I always fall into the same trap of suddenly gaining weight. Right now I'm inbetween be leaning on the obese side after being incredibly overweight for a year and I can tell you one thing, the is a lot of stuff that makes me miserable, the lack of mobility makes me more depressed than anything else in my life.
it's a disability both in terms of the physical impact of the addiction (in the case of an obese person, restricted mobility) and in terms of the mental health problems that usually underpin the addiction. A point that she muddles, in that she then talks about the lack of mental health provision...
An illness can be a form of disability. I used to help people complete Disability Living Allowance forms as part of my job and, whilst it was very difficult to get DLA for alcoholics, it was by no means impossible.
I genuinely had no clue it was possible to claim DLA for alcoholism unless there was some other coinciding mental health issues, which granted there often is.
mental health and addiction are pretty-much inseparably linked, so yeah
without any other mental health issues outside of your alcoholism.
Surely someone with, say, severe asthma can claim DLA and that's an illness, isn't it?
so, if someone with severe asthma needs help getting about and with personal care, they could claim.
(Not that DLA exists for adults any more - it's Personal Independence Payment for new claimants, accuracy fans)
Didn't really get the point about over-eating re: addiction. If someone's addicted to alcohol and they can't do their job properly as a result, they'll be dismissed. If someone's addicted to eating and they can't do their job as a result, they'll be dismissed. If you're going to lump the 2 things together, you'll have to treat them the same.
It's a murky area and one which I don't really understand the nuances of. But of course being obese CAN BE a form of disability. When did the Simpsons build an episode around that? About 20 years ago?
Working out how it is treated re: employment law is a bit of a headache though.
and the impact it has on their ability to carry out everyday tasks
Although obesity certainly, culturally, stretches the `blame-free` part of that, given that weight control is seen as something that is completely within the agency of individual human beings.
How is anorexia treated on the disability scale, do you know?
anorexia - it would be the same thing. It's all to do with the impact of the illness on their everyday life. I'm not sure what the new PIP assessment says, but under DLA there would be possibly the following care needs:
- motivation to eat
- motivation to look after one's own body
- possibly physical help to carry our everyday tasks if the anorexia was leading to physical weakness / blackouts etc etc
I think it's tougher now. Historically though: if your anorexia means that you are unlikely to eat unless there's someone there persuading you to eat, then you might be able to get DLA. In the case of an anorexic teenager, a parent might need to work all evening to persuade her child to eat... this is a care need in itself.
Gosh, I'm remembering why I moved away from giving benefits advice. Grim :/
you need 8 points to get standard rate PIP. You'd probably get 2 points for 'Needs prompting to be able to either prepare or cook a simple meal' and 4 points for 'Needs prompting to be able to take nutrition' but you'd need something else. maybe 'Needs supervision, prompting or assistance to be able to manage therapy that takes no more than 3.5 hours a week' for another 2 points if they needed to attend CBT or something.
in conjunction with the idea they seek treatment for their alcoholism.
I mean, I'd hope so. But turning up to work drunk is gross misconduct in a large number of organisations so... I don't know how easily the two things are reconciled.
The point the article makes is about `making necessary adjustments` which is woolily defined enough as it is. Not sure what constitutes `making necessary adjustments` re: alcoholism.
you might be required to have social events which are supportive to recovering addicts/ not put pressure on someone to drink or be around drunk people if it would mean a recovering addict would be at a disadvantage. you might also be required to make arrangements for time off to attend follow-up treatment/rehab/ meetings.
you need to tell your employer about your disability so that they can make reasonable adjustments so you'd need to tell them that you were receiving treatment for alcoholism in the first place.
But what happens when a known alcoholic repeatedly turns up to work drunk and is unable to perform their tasks as a result. This would be gross misconduct and, ergo, a sackable offence. Would the employee be able to take the employer to a tribunal citing a lack of `making necessary adjustments` in this context?
it's about reasonable (not 'necessary') adjustments:
http://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/disability-discrimination/employment/#the duty to make
if someone was repeatedly turning up to work drunk , unable to perform key functions of their job, despite reasonable adjustments being made then yes they might get sacked.
sorry I don't know why I kept incessantly typing `necessary` when I knew I should have been typing `reasonable`. Weird.
All sounds pretty reasonable. With obesity rates only going to be heading one way (in the UK at least) can see this becoming an increasing issue for employers.
and more about whether or not legal classification as a disability, with all that confers, is the most productive, most helpful and most practicable means of fighting an endemic public health crisis.
and what they tell us their everyday lived experience is like. if your size is affecting your ability to do everyday things like (like the guy who struggled to tie shoe laces which was a requirement of his job apparently) then you're going to need things to be adapted (which is one of the main reasons why we have disability related legislation - to require reasonable adjustments). if people are being discriminated against because of it, then I don't really see how that isn't also disablist too (another aim of the legislation being to stop direct discrimination).I don't know if this writer actually realises that many people are already 'legally' classed as disabled because of their weight.
to categorise people as first and foremost a public health problem (rather than try to meet their needs and give them the same rights as everyone else) is also pretty dodgy, no offence.
saying all that, I don't think the medical and legal classifications of disability are necessarily the be all and end all. if people personally define as disabled because of a condition which I don't have, then im not really gonna argue with them.
'to categorise people as first and foremost a public health problem ... is also pretty dodgy, no offence.'
No offence taken, mostly because at no point did I do this- you've inferred it, and not reasonably. Obesity IS a public health problem but I'd be very reluctant to talk about an imagined homogenous group of 'obese people'. Which is precisely why I responded to georgiabeth above this to pose a question on that matter.
"I guess the issue is less about whether or not obesity is an impairment (to be a bit fluffy)
and more about whether or not legal classification as a disability, with all that confers, is the most productive, most helpful and most practicable means of fighting an endemic public health crisis.
I don't really get what you did mean then. You questioned whether classifying some obese people as disabled was the best way to tackle "an endemic public health crisis". So you weren't talking about whether classifying some obese people as disabled would help realise their full social rights, improve their standard of living or reduce discrimination. Which is obviously more important and kinda the whole point of talking in terms of disability.
"but I'd be very reluctant to talk about an imagined homogenous group of 'obese people'."
well yeah but I don't think anyone was labouring under this type of broad label. In the same way I wouldn't talk about people with mental health problems as an "imagined homogenous group". But many of them are still disabled. Don't really see how it's so different for weight/size related disablement.
is in fact the same thing as (or rather includes) enabling people to realise their full social rights, improve their standard of living and reduce discrimination. Which it is, in my opinion, given that obesity not only creates vulnerability, but is a function and consequence of it.
I feel it's disingenious for you to say I 'questioned' a particular approach given most people would take that to mean that I offered scrutiny or criticism, but perhaps I'm inferring there.
cause you just kinda seemed to put it out there then said "Personally, idk" so it wasn't really clear what your opinion actually was.
I still don't really get what you mean, sorry. I would strongly argue that "addressing an endemic public health crisis" is not the same as trying to improve life for people who are already obese and disabled as a result and conferring rights to protect them. There may be some overlap in possible things you could do to address both of those issues but treating obese people as if they're a social problem that needs to be eradicated or minimised isn't the same as giving them legal protection. We're essentially talking about someone's individual rights, not broader social problems. If we're claiming that disabled people have certain rights then I don't really see how those rights could be guided by broader policy concerns around 'public health' (cause that's not really how 'rights' work).
Yours Personally, I'm DanielKelly
without addressing the individual's rights. In fact, addressing the individual's rights would be, to my mind, precisely how you resolve the broader social problem. I can't outline specifically how I'd expect a holistic approach to work though. It's surely not much of a stretch for me to think that protecting the rights of obese people would eventually have a positive impact on the issues that cause obesity though?
I do sometimes think people are talking about me when I skim read and see 'idk' but then I am massively self-obsessed.
no it's not a stretch at all - I totally agree improving how we understand weight/fat/fitness (and disability too) and generally being less judgemental and awful about 'fat' would no doubt help a lot of people to be healthier (either at the weight they're at now or at another weight).
I think it's just that normally when someone describes something as a public health issue it implies some sort of moral hazard and treatment of certain stigmatised people (fat people in this case) as 'policy problems' (docile/ignorant/costing public money to maintain) rather than people who can speak for themselves and have as much right to autonomy, dignity, choice, resources etc. as anyone else. Like people in this thread have mentioned doctors and other self-appointed "experts" who have argued that fat people need to have their autonomy restricted in order to incentivise them to lose weight. Like part of what often comes under the rubric of "public health" is essentially: let's make life less bearable for those people so that they are forced to change their life to suit me. I think the whole discourse of weight and public health is pretty problematic tbh.
I mean public health issue as in it's an issue that is important for us all to address, irrespective of our individual weights
I guess because it is something that potentially can be fixed and so people view it as a choice, not saying I agree with that view but I think that is the basis of it.
pretty oppressive way of looking at disabled people though, tbh (I realise you're not accepting this rationale, but the idea that people who have longterm mobility impairments, and other complex chronic health problems which often accompany carrying a lot of body fat, shouldn't be entitled to the same basic protection and rights as other people because their impairment is supposedly something they can "fix" about themselves (and which they have a responsibility to fix) is just incredibly insidious).
Yeah there was a doctor on BBC breakfast who was saying making reasonable adjustments for obese people would be counter productive as they need to be more active rather than less, think the example was not giving them a parking space, like they think suffering would be a source of motivation, seemed weird for a doctor to say surely they should know once a person has reached a certain point being more active isn't a choice or even possibility, just seems like wishful thinking and not dealing with the reality of a persons situation
seems to be either contemptuous or paternalistic. also they can be really bad for just generally making people feel even more crap about weight. im not even that fat (barely a UK size 14) and have been told more than once that losing a bit of weight might help my other health problems. not that being more active or eating a more balanced diet or relaxing or w/e but actually having the objective of losing body fat.
That's why I reckon some people consider it an addiction akin to alcoholism or drugs rather than a disability.
This obviously fails to take into account massive influences beyond the persons control, obesity is obviously influenced by an individuals psychological and socioeconomic state.
There also seems to be an a very worrying section of society who seem to think because obesity and other addictions are a choice they are an unwarranted drain on the NHS and should not be allowed free healthcare and support because of that. The position is made more dogmatic because they perceive the idea to be pragmatic. Worrying stuff!
the more I get the impression no one really knows what causes people to tend to be skinny or fat, but that simple points about eating less, etc. isn't helping. Not that I'm accusing you of saying that.
There was an interesting Horizon recently focusing on the genetics behind weight gain where the doctor presenting it seemed to imply strongly that there were serious biological failings in a lot of people's body's ability to determine when it was 'full', which obviously sits alongside the question of how many calories they burn daily too.
I definitely burn a LOT more calories daily than my recommended in take but I do almost zero exercise. Very lucky for me in a society that places so much value on being thin.
I think we need to address huge gaps in inequality, ethics of food manufacturers, nutritional education, towards body image before we get anywhere.
Whenever I hear the government harp on about it I think about how they're just trying to save money in the short term without analyzing why it's happening, and about how people only seem to matter if they're happy fit production units. Which is fucking tragic.
and they see overweight people - even, perhaps particularly, people who have so much body fat that they have mobility issues - and think "why didnt they go on a diet when they were overweight but not massively so, like i did. it was hard work but if i can do it, why cant they?"
which is, i imagine, a bit like people telling people with depression to cheer up
WHY DONT YOU JUST LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE or something
It's not simply a question or not of whether obesity is a disability, but rather, whether it causes disability. And obviously, it can.
Whether what causes obesity is a disability or not is a completely different question.
because the only person explicitly stating that obesity is not a disability in that article is the subeditor who wrote the headline.
It's definitely a disability of sorts, but it's not the kind of thing that's classically considered a disability.
On a side note (but somewhat related), this was a very interesting feature on the science and marketing behind the junk food/snack industry which was published last year. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
and ate everything in the restaurant and they had to close the restaurant.
You can certainly be disabled by being obese, and I think there is also a strong argument that being obese can be a symptom of other, underlying disabilities. At the same time, you can also be obese and suffer little to no health complaints- especially if you're young.
I sometimes wonder if debates like this are essentially unhelpful. My own experiences show that it's really tough to define disability- often people with seemingly identical impairments struggle in different ways, for myriad reasons.
Instead the focus should be on helping the individual do what's best for them/to make their lives easier. Something that doesn't really happen enough in this world.
I suppose some of it comes down to the fact that it affects everyone differently there are some people who are technically obese but appear to be manage fine with their weight. But again this could just be down to how others perceive them.
Also whilst the article has seized on sugar addiction as being one of the root causes of obesity there's a fair amount of discrepancy/lack of knowledge regarding what actually causes obesity.
I've stopped having dinner around the time they do because the noises her digestive tract make when she's eating are difficult to cope with. It's like being sat next to someone walking across a bog. And she won't shut the fuck up about food. Like we'll be in the living room on our devices and she'll say "Ooh! Vanilla chocolate brownies" apropos nothing. At least once or twice a day this happens. My housemate introduced her to bakewell tarts (she's Canadian) and now she actually wants to GO to Bakewell. So they have. I'm told Bakewell's a nice place but I don't think they've got gingerbread walls and marzipan roads so fuck knows what they're going to do. She's otherwise a nice person but I am beginning to look forward to seeing her shamble out of the front door because it's become an endurance.
Anyways yeah, being fat is a disability/disease/something that should be recognised as a problem some people cannot help etc etc
we'll be in the living room on our devices
this isn't a thread to fat shame people
Going off the OP it felt like the best choice available.
Especially if you care about them. (speaking from experience)
No idea why I posted this tbh
Most bakers there have signs up saying that. They do Bakewell Puddings, which are pretty nice.
think they're a yorkshire thing.
Had my first from Betty's the other week. BLoody lovely.
got carried away on regional cakes and pastries
I enjoyed it.
I'm sure you talk about lots of things that bore the socks off some people.
I have to hear people talking about sport ALL THE TIME and I hardly ever* complain about it.
*ok only 40% of the time
and tbh any time I'm talking about anything 70% of my brain is going towards worrying that I'm boring my audience. I feel sorry for people who are genuinely obsessed, but being around them for an extended period of time is a struggle.
it's world cup day, you fat fucks
yesterday. Someone I used to work with who I recall was not particularly happy with her own weight.
People are just so fucking discompassionate (is that a word?) and MEAN spirited, it's really frustrating and depressing.
for people who post images like that.
but that doesn't stop it being a disability. Blame doesn't come in to it. If you put it down to that, many disabilities could be the fault of the person themselves - accidents, diabetes for example, or the fault of another person.
for your problems, rather than taking responsibility for your gluttony and avarice.
You can always blame something else for your own failings, but in the end, its probably you.
ground up and used as a cheap alternative to sand
1/10 for the worst beach holiday ever
BEING MEAN AND NASTY.
BECAUSE they're mean and nasty?
on the understanding that they are seeking treatment, and refusing or failing in that treatment could lead to further steps being taken. Anorexics are treated differently to morbidly obese people, they aren't just insulted (usually) and told to sort their lives out and just fucking eat something are they?
you can not compare the two, really.
non of the obese people i've known have recieved support for EDs mental health teams, had full psychological analysis, diet coaching, been made inpatients and had their every move scrutinised and watched (or full-time outpatients).
people were so angry over the proposed nutritional support groups by the nhs the other week.
why is the idea that some obese people have EDs or EDNOS radical? some of them genuinely have trouble with eating.
eating disorder not otherwise specified (awaiting diagnosis or difficult to diagnose)
the only reasons i can think of the difference of attitudes to overeating and undereating are pretty horrible really
is more likely to make someone accept their predicament and base their decisions around it, rather than encouraging them to change that predicament. I lived with an alcoholic guardian for many years and 'I can't do anything about it, it's a disability' became a tiring thing to hear. My partner works in addiction counselling and she comes across that attitude quite often. Classing it as a disability tells people they don't have the power to change it, when in most cases they do.