Fat women and babies - something to chew on...

[marty]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5296200.stm

I suppose you've all seen this by now so I'd like your opnions.

My own feeling is that the NHS has been side-tracked by various non-health issues over the past few decades such as sex-changes/boob jobs etc.

I don't feel that anyone is 'entitled' to have a child and, whilst it is sad when someone is told they are unable to have children, it shouldn't be up to the taxpayer to foot the bill. Being infertile is not a health issue or a life-threatening condition. I also feel that there are plenty of unwanted children in the world who should be adopted...

[englishangel]

I am with YOU though I might have felt differently if I had been unable to have my own.

I always said if I didn't get pregnant I wouldn't take even the first step to find out why. In the event I didn't have to anyway.

I was 31 at the time.

[midget]

I agree. Why should taxpayers fund someone's lifestyle choice?

[cj]

Just to play devil's advocate, should the next step be to disallow smokers the treatments for illnesses or health problems that have been caused/exacerbated by their choice of habit?

[englishangel]

In the future, I think yes.

Currently it is difficult because when people over (say) 60 started smoking they were not as aware of the damage it could cause.

By the time I was in my teens we were well aware though.

Did anyone see Casualty on Saturday when this dilemma was shown. a woman had been refused a knee replacement because of her weight?

[cj]

This is a major issue that is going to affect the future of the nation for some time. We have to start the debate on health and lifestyle at some point without being accused of ageism, fatism, anti-libertarianism (and any other 'anti-thingy' and 'whatever-ism'!). The NHS is not doing now what it was set up to do. So, does it need to change its remit? Does the government have to rethink what they are responsible for, both morally and economically? And should we, the hoi polloi, have to be made (via sanctions of some sort) to assess our lives to understand the long term agenda? Or will things take their natural course without interference?

[icomefromalanddownunder]

I haven't seen the original article/s, therefore don't know precisely how they were worded, and won't comment specifically.

However, I used to work in a lab which overlooked a balcony where potential IVF couples attending the hospital where I worked would gather for a fag and junk food fix. I have been overweight my entire life, so am not speaking from the perspective of Gymnast Barbie when I write that some of these couples were of a size that led me to contemplate whether their failure to conceive was due more to a physical problem than a physiological one. Without going into too much detail, I just couldn't see how the sperm deposition mechanism could actually reach it's target. I confess that I also used to wonder whether we truly wanted them to dilute the gene pool.

One of the female obstetricians at the hospital ran a weight loss program for her overweight clients. Nothing particularly strenuous - mainly mild floor exercises, and some diet advice. Can't remember the stats, but she had a reasonably high conception rate in these women without any other medical intervention: they lost weight, they were able to conceive.

[jtaylor]

With world-wide population growth such a huge problem, why are we helping ANYONE have children?
Might be a bit harsh, but it's seems somewhat non-joined-up thinking to be worried about population growth and then help people to have kids.....

[englishangel]

I can only agree with Caroline (Icomefrom.......). I have always fought the urge to eat too much (a losing battle at the moment) but if my knee/hip/whatever gave way I would quite understand that it was due to my greed.

Incidentally my husband and I fluctuate in weight together (though he was skinny as a youngster) but our kids have BMIs of 16.7, 17.4 and 18.7. Apart from one of their friends who is quite a big lad most of the people they bring home are of moderate or even slim size.

[J.R.]

Nice one, Marty !!

At my age, I don't give a sh1t. My breeding days are long gone.

HOWEVER.............................

It was nice being able to vote for Fiona, again.

She sends her regards, and says she doesn't mind 'a bit of chewing', as long as you're very gentle. More of a nibble, please !

[Rory]

I find this whole topic very unsettling.
Because someone else is making a judgement call about what is good and what isn't.
For example I smoke and drink a bit - and if I get ill, I might go to hospital and expect treatment. Then some clever clogs says - Ah - you chose to smoke and you knew it was bad for you so Sod Off - we're not going to treat you.
OK - I don't like sports - I think that they are dangerous - so if you break your leg playing football, or break your neck playing rugby, then UNLUCKY - you chose to play a dangerous game - its your fault so we wont treat you.
Mountain climbing - forget rescue teams coming out in bad weather - you should have checked. Die up there in the cold.
Dont cross the road - you might get hit by a car.
You run a marathon to raise money for a heart clinic - but then have a heart attack because you're not fit. The doctor finds out you used to smoke and lets you die.

Where does it end.

Then we may as well do away with most of the emergency services - because house fires are more often than not caused by carelessness - chip pans etc.
Going back to your point - I don't think that hospitals should interfere in fertility issues. If you can have kids - great - if you can't then you can't. It may seem sad - but look on the bright side - you save a sh1t load of money.
As for the fat / not fat issue - I simply can't understand who thinks that a thin parent is better than a fat one - what a bl**dy nerve. I know some nice fat people and some horrid thin ones.
Why are people so obsessed with weight anyway.
Oh allright - enough is enough. I'm rambling.

[Mid A 15]

I find this whole topic very unsettling.
Because someone else is making a judgement call about what is good and what isn't.
For example I smoke and drink a bit - and if I get ill, I might go to hospital and expect treatment. Then some clever clogs says - Ah - you chose to smoke and you knew it was bad for you so Sod Off - we're not going to treat you.
OK - I don't like sports - I think that they are dangerous - so if you break your leg playing football, or break your neck playing rugby, then UNLUCKY - you chose to play a dangerous game - its your fault so we wont treat you.
Mountain climbing - forget rescue teams coming out in bad weather - you should have checked. Die up there in the cold.
Dont cross the road - you might get hit by a car.
You run a marathon to raise money for a heart clinic - but then have a heart attack because you're not fit. The doctor finds out you used to smoke and lets you die.

Where does it end.

Then we may as well do away with most of the emergency services - because house fires are more often than not caused by carelessness - chip pans etc.
Going back to your point - I don't think that hospitals should interfere in fertility issues. If you can have kids - great - if you can't then you can't. It may seem sad - but look on the bright side - you save a sh1t load of money.
As for the fat / not fat issue - I simply can't understand who thinks that a thin parent is better than a fat one - what a bl**dy nerve. I know some nice fat people and some horrid thin ones.
Why are people so obsessed with weight anyway.
Oh allright - enough is enough. I'm rambling.

Spot on Rory. This health facism (that's what it is) is symptomatic of an increasingly authoritarian and interventionist approach by the State into every facet of the lives of ordinary people and should be resisted.

[J.R.]

Some very interesting points, Rory.

I smoke and drink, AND , for my sins, I'm Press Officer for Dorking Girls FC and Deputy Press Officer for Dorking Footbal Club.

One of our players picked up a nasty knock on the ankle a couple of weeks ago, and when it didn't improve after a couple of days, I persuaded him to go to A & E at East Surrey Hospital, Redhill.

He was told they don't treat sports injuries sustained whilst in the pursuit of a registered club sport !

Cancer treating drugs are supplied on a post-code lottery.

Babies are sent home with a temperature and their parents told to give him/her Calpol, then DIE of meningitis !.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE ??

MORE LIKE NATIONAL HEALTH DIS-SERVICE !!

[marty]

JR: I don't for one minute believe that a classy lass like Fiona would associate with a chap like you! As nice as you are I know you're not her type. Anyway she can't have been with you 'cos she's been locked up in the basement of my flat in Austria for the last 10 years...

Wow - the words 'can' and 'worms' spring to mind. Obviously this is quite an emotive subject and it has many connected and associated subjects.

I think the main question is: should the governement help people who have clearly brought their condition on themselves by smoking/drinking/eating etc...?

Whatever you feel the answer is to this question my point is that those who cannot conceive, whether through their own fault or not should be given help to come to terms with this psychologically. I don't believe that it is a natural 'right' to have children - you either are able or not. This doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic to infertile couples it just means I don't believe the state should pick up the tab and that some things aren't meant to be. I'd love to play for England but I'm not good enough - I don't expect anyone to compensate me or fork out lots of money as a result. As mentioned there are plenty of unwanted children who need loving homes - surely they should take priority over as-yet-unconceived children? Children conceived through IVF are often from donor sperm or eggs so the resulting offspring is not the couple's biological child anyway.

I also feel that too often people make bad life choices and then expect instant help from the taxpayer when it all goes wrong. Whilst we all make mistakes I think there are large numbers of people who relinquish personal responsibility and think the world owes them. Of course some rely on the fact that they are a taxpayer themselves as a sort of insurance policy against this. Smokers can argue (rightfully?) that the enormous amount of duty they pay on each packet of fags goes some way to paying for their ensuing hospital treatment. However I don't know how much money is actually raised from cigarette duty in total and if it covers the cost of treating smoking related diseases (does anyone know the figures??)

You can argue that someone who's condition is life-threatening (self-inflicted or otherwise) should receive some sort of care from the NHS. But is the National Health Service, not the National Lifestyle Service, so I don't like seeing taxpayers' money go towards paying for 'non-health' care.

[J.R.]

OH DEAR !

I can see this theme extending to asylum (allegedly) seekers, and all the money they seem to expect to be shoved into their greedy little hands, along with a council house and clothing vouchers, WHICH, incidently also comes from the tax payers pocket.

Do they smoke and drink ? No problem if they do !