Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Jun-12-14, 18:00
leemack's Avatar
leemack leemack is offline
NEVER GIVING UP!
Posts: 5,030
 
Plan: no sugar/grains LCHF IF
Stats: 478/354/200 Female 5' 9"
BF:excessive!!
Progress: 45%
Location: UK
Default Obesity is not a disability

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-addiction-food




Quote:
Overeating is an addiction – if the EU court labels it otherwise, it will be a monumental act of denial


Is obesity a disability or a choice gone awry? Danish child-minder Karsten Kaltoft was fired from his job because he was too overweight – at 25 stone – to tie a child's shoe laces. He is suing for discrimination. His case will he heard by the European court of justice in Luxembourg today. If Kaltoft is successful, the ruling will be binding throughout the EU. Employers will be required to treat overweight employees as disabled and therefore requiring special treatment – priority parking, for instance, and sturdy furniture – and they will be unable to fire them for being overweight. (I will not say "fat". Eating disorder professionals do not say fat because they know that compulsive eating and anorexia are twins, and dependent on self-hatred to thrive.) The right will scream that this is special treatment for "fat" people – they probably will say "fat", not being eating disorder professionals, or even particularly kindly – who choose to be "fat" even if now they regret it, and have to be cut from their homes by emergency workers. On your bike, and so forth. Eat some kale.

This is a story about addiction. Sugar is more dangerous than the drugs we are taught to fear. Of course it is harder to wrestle with sugar – who can live without food? We eat three times more sugar than we did 50 years ago. It is obviously addictive, and marketed at children by cartoon characters and other grotesques. These overweight children, of which a too-large proportion are poor, because bad food is cheap and swift and delicious, will grow to be overweight adults, and these overweight adults will die too young.

Why is there no government ban on sugar advertising, you may ask? Don't be stupid. Dave Lewis, an executive at Unilever – which sells, among other things, Solero, Cornetto, Pot Noodle, Magnum and Viennetta, as well as Carte D'Or, Ben & Jerry's, Wall's, Peperami and Marmite – chaired the Conservatives' public health commission. McDonald's and Coca-Cola sponsored the London Olympics, an act so cynical and destructive it seemed deliberately designed to kill satire, among other things. McDonald's, particularly, is gifted in marketing duplicity. Its "restaurant" in the Olympic park was decorated with words like "succulent" blown up to obesity to mislead. Now it is giving fruit away with Happy Meals: children, embrace the pious maker of the McFlurry! Embrace your saviour!

What to do? The problem, as always when discussing addiction, is denial: the government's denial, which is ideological; the people's denial, which is comprehensive; and the addict's denial, which is lethal. (The food industry's denial is mere professional profiteering, and to be expected.) Since I do not expect the government to emerge from denial any time soon, or the food industry ever, let us move to the addict's denial. Denial, at least partially – and here I address the hateful puddle of "libertarian" pundits and lobbyists directly, even as they sharpen their pencils to denounce Kaltoft as his own destroyer – is the reason overweight people sometimes need the walls of their homes broken down, and the reason why they continue to overeat when they can no longer bend down to tie a shoelace, or rise to face a mirror. Denial fuels some elements of the fat acceptance movement, which is right when it says that overweight people suffer discrimination, and wrong when it says there is no physical threat from overeating. Denial is both the essential element of addiction and the reason that non-addicts often misunderstand and despise the condition. If the addict says it is a choice to overeat, who are you, or I, to disagree?

The solution is dull, slow and not in the law. Mental health provision is scandalously small; misunderstanding of addiction is endemic; responsible advertising is a fantasy; food is over-processed; society is unequal; cruelty is rife. I have much sympathy for Kaltoft, but I do not think that calling him disabled will lengthen his life or help him to not eat himself to death. I think it is more likely that a friendly ruling will compound his denial and enrage the rest. (The disability advocacy charity Scope asked its Facebook and Twitter followers if obesity is a disability. The response was negative). It would be state-sponsored, continent-wide denial; it would be madness.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Jun-12-14, 18:04
CaliMatt CaliMatt is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 87
 
Plan: Strict Induction
Stats: 200/195/180 Male 6 ft 3 in.
BF:
Progress: 25%
Default

Obesity isn't a disability, it often is an excuse.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Jun-12-14, 18:28
Judynyc's Avatar
Judynyc Judynyc is offline
Attitude is a Choice
Posts: 30,111
 
Plan: No sugar, flour, wheat
Stats: 228.4/209.0/170 Female 5'6"
BF:stl/too/mch
Progress: 33%
Location: NYC
Default

Quote:
What to do? The problem, as always when discussing addiction, is denial: the government's denial, which is ideological; the people's denial, which is comprehensive; and the addict's denial, which is lethal. (The food industry's denial is mere professional profiteering, and to be expected.) Since I do not expect the government to emerge from denial any time soon, or the food industry ever, let us move to the addict's denial. Denial, at least partially – and here I address the hateful puddle of "libertarian" pundits and lobbyists directly, even as they sharpen their pencils to denounce Kaltoft as his own destroyer – is the reason overweight people sometimes need the walls of their homes broken down, and the reason why they continue to overeat when they can no longer bend down to tie a shoelace, or rise to face a mirror. Denial fuels some elements of the fat acceptance movement, which is right when it says that overweight people suffer discrimination, and wrong when it says there is no physical threat from overeating. Denial is both the essential element of addiction and the reason that non-addicts often misunderstand and despise the condition. If the addict says it is a choice to overeat, who are you, or I, to disagree?


BINGO!
For me, it wasn't until I came out of my own denial and faced myself, was when I became able to begin to crawl my way out of the denial. It's a long road fraught with many demons but worth it in the long run.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Thu, Jun-12-14, 18:50
leemack's Avatar
leemack leemack is offline
NEVER GIVING UP!
Posts: 5,030
 
Plan: no sugar/grains LCHF IF
Stats: 478/354/200 Female 5' 9"
BF:excessive!!
Progress: 45%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliMatt
Obesity isn't a disability, it often is an excuse.


An excuse for what exactly?
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, Jun-12-14, 20:10
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
(I will not say "fat". Eating disorder professionals do not say fat because they know that compulsive eating and anorexia are twins, and dependent on self-hatred to thrive.)


So compulsive eaters all despise themselves? I could swear I just really really liked ice cream... and peanuts. Self hatred as an explanation for binging behaviour... nonsense.

I don't really understand the distinction here between a disability and an addiction. And I don`t think you have to hate yourself to develop an addiction. (In case somebody tries to explain the distinction to me, I do understand it, I just don`t agree with it).

Besides which, once a person has gained enough weight, the metabolism changes--even if `simple` addiction to food were the original cause. Damage is done, and the nature of the damage is different from person to person. Obesity might not be a disability as such--but some complications of obesity certainly are.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Jun-12-14, 20:25
Mama Sebo's Avatar
Mama Sebo Mama Sebo is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,202
 
Plan: Keto, IF
Stats: 224/136/124 Female 64 inches
BF:44%/23%/20%
Progress: 88%
Location: Kenya-teleworking Austria
Default

[QUOTE]Obesity might not be a disability as such--but some complications obesity certainly are.[QUOTE]

Bingo. Missing that point is perhaps not 'denial', although that would be aesthetically pleasing given the writer's rhetoric, it is however certainly sill attached to the ' they did it/do it to themselves' mindset. Thoughtprovoking though, at the least!
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Jun-12-14, 22:12
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. However, the question here isn't what is obesity, but at what point it disables us. In this context, anything can disable us, whether it's a disorder or an injury or simply because we're not strong enough to perform the specific motions required by the job. Many of those functions can be done with the help of tools and machines, which reduces the disability threshold so we can still perform the functions in spite of inherent limitations. But other types of jobs cannot be done this way, we still must do them with our own bodies without the help of tools or machines, and that's where we hit the wall. It's entirely possible to be too fat to perform certain functions, and we are in fact disabled by obesity.

The secondary aspect of obesity is its moral implications. I think that's what the article is trying to address. It doesn't do it very well, though. So let's correct that. Does the moral aspect of obesity enter the equation when we're talking about disability? We're still disabled by obesity, regardless of how it was created in the first place. But let's say it matters how it was created. Imagine somebody trying to get disability benefits intentionally by breaking his own arm or making up a story about how he hurt his neck or something like that. Obviously, I would see this as invalidation of the disability claim, and refuse to give benefits to the claimant. OK, let's apply this same logic to obesity. Did it ever happen that somebody grew fat intentionally just so they could get disability benefits? Maybe, but I doubt that's what happened to the multitude of people who grew fat in the past 30 years. No, most of us grew fat in spite of our best efforts not to. So clearly, nobody is trying to get disability benefits by intentionally growing fat. Case closed on cheating.

We're left with weak willed individuals. Does a weak will enter the equation? I doubt we can make the case that obesity is not a disability just because the fat guy is too weak to prevent growing fatter. Being too weak is also equally unintentional. I mean, it's not like we're all running around trying to be too weak to prevent growing fatter, let alone trying to grow fatter intentionally. Any way we look at it, growing fatter is scarcely intentional. Case closed on intent.

What's left? I don't see anything else. We're left with the simple fact that it's entirely possible to be too fat to perform certain functions required by the job, hence disability. However, we're also left with the equally simple fact that certain jobs cannot be done but with our own bodies, so no tools no machines. If this is our situation, nobody is to blame. Neither the job nor we are fit for each other. If we get fired, well, get another job and that's it for that.

I've seen fat and lean people work in daycare. I remember we used to get taken care of by the lady next door. She was fat and slow, didn't matter either way. She got the job done. Not much to do with kids anyway. Feed them, fix the booboos, wash their little faces. You'd have to be utterly huge to not be able to do any of that. I don't think the guy was too fat. Maybe he was too stupid though. The old lady next door was pretty smart to be able to handle us. Let's see:
Quote:
Danish child-minder Karsten Kaltoft was fired from his job because he was too overweight – at 25 stone – to tie a child's shoe laces.

Yep, he could have picked up the kid, put him on a table or something, THEN tie his shoes. Idjit. Any mother could have told him how to do it. They do it like that all the time. They don't bend to the work, they bring the work to them. Some of those mothers are really good too, they don't even need a table, they do it right in their arms or on their lap. Smart ladies these mothers. I know a guy who weighs 450ish. He bends over and picks up stuff from the ground all day long. It's kind of his job or hobby. No, I don't think he got fired cuz he was too fat. If he could not perform his job - regardless of why he couldn't do it - that's why he got fired. On the other hand, failing to tie a kid's shoes once is hardly reason enough to fire anybody. Was that the only instance, is that the only kind of failure to perform? Sheesh, talk about severe.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Jun-12-14, 23:32
ojoj's Avatar
ojoj ojoj is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,184
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 210/126/127 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 101%
Location: South of England
Default

This whole issue really needs addressing now. It is starting to really affect our nations. Being morbidly obese is restricting and disabling. Is it self inflicted??? Well, not really when there are no boundaries or helpful (really helpful) advise given. Its not fair on those who arent obese, but at the same time its not fair when the obese arent given the correct means or information to help themselves.

I work for the NHS and I'm becoming aware that recently our department has been paying out several £1000s to have custom made, re-enforced beds, mobility scooters, shower cubicles, comodes... etc made for seriously obese patients who have become disabled due to their size. The NHSs answer????? To try to enroll these people into a gym - when they can barely function at all??????????

Its like alcoholism, except an alcoholic knows the cause of his problem, can understand and get help. Obese folk, in the main, dont know its an addiction as such and are left with silly answers and solutions.

Jo xxx

Last edited by ojoj : Thu, Jun-12-14 at 23:39.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Fri, Jun-13-14, 00:26
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
Maybe he was too stupid though.

Shoot me. Sometimes I'm an idjit. I should say instead, maybe he was not well-trained. Maybe he was taught to tie kid's shoes by bending down and that's it, no alternatives if that method was not possible. Then we gotta ask, how was this instance found out? Was it found out by happenstance, somebody else walked by and noticed? Did the kid ask somebody else to do it later on, and that's when it got noticed the other guy couldn't bend down? I'm trying to understand how failure to tie one kid's shoes once leads to dismissal like that. We're not talking about some life-threatening situation here. Doesn't make sense.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, Jun-13-14, 00:27
Mama Sebo's Avatar
Mama Sebo Mama Sebo is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,202
 
Plan: Keto, IF
Stats: 224/136/124 Female 64 inches
BF:44%/23%/20%
Progress: 88%
Location: Kenya-teleworking Austria
Default

Yes, yes and yes.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Fri, Jun-13-14, 10:37
64dodger 64dodger is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 312
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 251/218.2/200 Male 76 inches
BF:
Progress: 64%
Default

How else are these people in the US going to get their Disability or SSI?
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Fri, Jun-13-14, 11:12
Seejay's Avatar
Seejay Seejay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,025
 
Plan: Optimal Diet
Stats: 00/00/00 Female 62 inches
BF:
Progress: 8%
Default

Makes me wonder. What if everyone with a chronic condition would qualify as disabled? Alcoholics and substance abuse, diabetics, heart conditions, cancer in remission?

Following the money: who benefits from an increased pool of people with qualified disabilities?
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Fri, Jun-13-14, 12:29
leemack's Avatar
leemack leemack is offline
NEVER GIVING UP!
Posts: 5,030
 
Plan: no sugar/grains LCHF IF
Stats: 478/354/200 Female 5' 9"
BF:excessive!!
Progress: 45%
Location: UK
Default

In the UK, for benefit purposes, no condition qualifies you for welfare - you have to meet certain criteria, and it's quite difficult.

For employment purposes the definition of disability is much wider and it's about whether your health condition impacts your ability to work - if it does then the employer has certain obligations to the employee and applicant and restraints where firing and redundancy are concerned.

Most conditions don't automatically make a person disabled. Also having an addiction doesn't preclude being disabled - long time alcoholics and drug addicts can damage their health so much as to become disabled in the same way as a very obese person. I worked at this weight a few years ago, but now after becoming sick from other conditions my mobility has deteriorated to make working outside the home impossible.

Obesity doesn't mean you are disabled and it doesn't necessarily mean you are an addict - but you can be an addict and you can be disabled.

I think this more of a non discrimination issue, rather than an enabling issue - ensuring that employers can't just fire someone due to obesity.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Fri, Jun-13-14, 13:47
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Sort of weird legalisms here. The employers are treating the fellow as if he's physically incapable of doing his job--as if he's disabled. I saw another story on this the other day where Kaltoft denied this alleged inability to tie his shoes--and said that he himself does not consider himself disabled. He said that in the course of his job, he often sat on the floor with the kids during playtime.

Here it is. Won't copy and paste for some reason;

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/heal...sability-europe

No mention of shoe-tying here whatsoever. The employer claims he was laid off due to a declining customer-base. He had fifteen years with them. You'd think he'd have enough seniority by then to keep his job...
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Fri, Jun-13-14, 16:01
s-piper s-piper is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 694
 
Plan: LC Primal
Stats: 290/270/160 Female 5'7
BF:
Progress: 15%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 64dodger
How else are these people in the US going to get their Disability or SSI?


This comment seems really unnecessary. Especially since this story was about a case before the EU court!

As for obesity being a disability, no it isn't in and of itself a disability. However, health effects of obesity can cause one to be disabled.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 00:33.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.