Posted on 02/16/2007 12:08:17 PM PST by SJackson
London (CNSNews.com) - As Britain grapples with what's been called an obesity epidemic, a leading government minister here says grossly overweight people should be denied surgery.
Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt said in a newspaper interview this week she approved of doctors refusing overweight patients knee and hip surgery, until they lose weight.
Hewitt also said smokers should have to give up the habit before they are allowed to undergo surgery such as heart bypasses under Britain's National Health Service (NHS).
Overweight patients and smokers should be given access to programs that will help them lose weight and quit smoking, she said.
The United Kingdom is officially the most overweight country in Europe. The most recent health department study projected that 13 million of the 50 million people living in England - as opposed to the entire country - would be obese by 2010.
Obesity is commonly measured by what's called the body mass index (BMI) - in the metric system, a person's weight divided by the square of their height (In the U.S., multiply weight, in pounds, by 703 and divide that number by height, in inches, squared.)
Although many doctors have argued that this is an imperfect tool because it does not take into account muscle and bone mass, a person with a BMI of 30 is generally considered to be obese.
Endless debate has focused on the causes of the problem in Britain - from fewer gym classes in schools to the availability of cheaper junk food - and the government says it is costing the National Health Service millions of dollars each year.
In response, the NHS has tried to implement a number of preventive measures, up to the point of offering free tango lessons to patients.
The health system is funded through a mandatory tax and this year, frontline hospitals are projected to have a $3 billion-plus deficit.
Colin Waine, chairman of the National Obesity Forum, said he feared the government was using its war on fat as an excuse to cut costs in the ailing NHS.
Waine told Cybercast News Service that two "health trusts" -- organizations that operate a set number of hospitals and clinics -- had already stopped all operations for patients with a BMI of 30.
He said that there was no scientific basis for denying surgery to people with that level of obesity, particularly when it came to former rugby football players and other naturally bulky men.
"If you make a decision on clinical grounds, that's fine," he said. "But if you make it for political reasons, then that's unacceptable."
In many cases, such as when the patient has severe arthritis in hips or knees, without treatment it would be difficult for a patient to stand, much less lose weight, Waine said.
Neville Rigby, director of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, said it was his personal opinion that this issue wasn't straightforward discrimination against obese people.
He said the matter basically came down to each surgeon's opinion about whether a patient is fit for surgery.
Increased weight in a patient made any operation more dangerous, and the associated respiratory problems made anesthesia more difficult to administer.
Rigby said another factor to consider was that morbidly obese patients -- those with a BMI of 40 and over -- needed more patient care than others.
Very overweight patients needed reinforced beds to be able to hold them, and sometimes needed as many as four nurses to turn them over, to prevent bed sores.
Society is growing fatter, Rigby said, and doctors inevitably will be faced more and more with the difficulty of treating overweight patients.
"As people become more obese, as we get to a higher level obesity of BMI at 40 and above, we're going to see more and more of it," he said.
A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association said it "would support good clinical practice where doctors would advise very obese patient too lose weight before surgery. This makes sense as surgery is more risky for obese people.
"However we could not support any blanket bans on surgery for financial reasons," she said. "For example there has been media coverage saying smokers and obese people would not receive treatment -- this is about saving money not about making clinical decisions based on a patient's individual situation."
The BMA is Britain's main doctors' organization.
Quick question: In MA, is it illegal for illegal aliens to impersonate citizens?
I think my head is about to explode just thinking about that one...
Simply the debasing of life that we have seen accelerate over the last 30 years.
Eventually, only certain people (liberal elitists) will be considered worthy to live.
Do you think Denzel will be cast as the lead?
Stand outside his air conditioner and smoke a cigar.
LOL
There is so much wrong with that, I don't know where to start! It does imply that there are certain benefits to doing so, however.
Can you imagine half a dozen guys doing that after hours and really stinking up his office. LOL
>>You're a fascist little twit, aren't you?<<
Heh, heh. No. I am into capitalism and the exact opposite of facism. That is, I don't think the state should have the right to tell private businesses who they HAVE TO serve. In a free, non-fascist country that would be absurd.
On a side note, I've never been called a "little twit" before. I've been called far worse by the "liberal children" on harmony-central (on a regular basis - it is almost comical), but I don't see a lot of name calling here on freerepublic.
"Now, its just a matter of time before the age limit?"
I think this is the crux of it...once the public is inured to certain exceptions, there will be more and more of them. Start on the segments that are least able to cause trouble and defend themselves (abortion has been legal for many years now - time to go after the obese, "dangerous" lifestyles such as motorcycling and parasailing, etc.). Can this be what is behind the constant push to make euthanasia (abortion, stem cells) "acceptable" in the mind of the public? This points to the idea that abortion is the high sacrament of the liberals.
Actually, it is I that is pushing for more freedom. I am thinking of the concept of providers not having to provide care - unless they can charge what it would really cost, plus a reasonable profit.
I don't think government should REQUIRE insurance companies to cover high risk without compensation, and I don't think health care facilities should be requred to perform surgery on a person where they have to work around massive globs of yellow fat to get to the problem areas, and yet charge the same price as when doing the same work on "easier" patients.
Who knew?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.