|
The UK Sun has a delightful article this morning detailing how a morbidly obese 23-year-old man has been involuntarily committed by East Sussex social services. The man, Chris Leppard, first turned up on the bureaucrats' radar screen after appearing on a BBC documentary last month, and they've been hounding him ever since. (The Sun neglects to mention the topic of the documentary, but I think we can make an educated guess that it had something to do with fat people.)
According to The Sun, "The authorities used powers normally used to detain mentally ill people who might harm themselves or others." The paper gives Chris' weight as 31 stone, which I think works out to about 434 lbs or 197 kg. The social services unit sent four men to detain Chris at the house where he lives with his Mum. The Sun says Chris didn't want to go with them, but I would think that if he truly chose not to go that would pretty much put the matter to rest.
The whole crazy story puts me in mind of a recent news article about the legendary East Tennessee Melungeon, Mahalia Mullins, aka "Big Haley":
I guess fat Limeys have a whole lot to learn about civil disobedience.In the mid-1800s, Mullins lived in a cabin on Newman's Ridge in Sneedville. It was widely known that she made and sold some of the best moonshine in those parts.
Many stories have been told through the years focusing on this particular aspect of her life. Had Mullins' size not been an issue, she almost certainly would not have earned such an infamous place in most history written about Melungeons.
Mullins was obese, weighing an estimated 500 or more pounds.
When a young deputy, who had been sent to arrest Mullins for selling illegal alcohol, appeared before the judge without her in tow, he was said to have told the judge in a most serious manner, "
She's catchable, but not fetchable. "Apparently, when the deputy went to Mullins' cabin she was, by all accounts, most amicable. She did not refuse to give herself up. They simply could not get her out of the cabin-Mullins was too large to fit through the narrow cabin door.
She spent the rest of her life under house arrest inside of her cabin. They most likely weren't too concerned about her being a flight risk.
Besides, Mullins was not a thief or a murderer. She was a widow and mother trying to support her children. Making moonshine was a common occupation, albeit illegal, for many mountain folks back then.
There is no difference between outlawing suicide and institutionalizing those who are clearly too mentally ill to take care of themselves. In both cases society is asserting a right to prevent individuals from harming themselves.
As someone with libertarian leanings, I am not sure if such laws are a good idea (I am leaning towards seeing the point of some such laws). Regardless, I don't want any arguing about the following: That really fat people are mentally ill. Thats because they are incapable of eating less despite the fact that it will kill them. It's tragic, sure, but that does not alter the fact that obesity is a symptom of mental illness.
Posted by: Stefan Geens on February 22, 2005 09:19 PMI'm interested in what Sterling's argument against that is besides "you're kidding." It seems pretty clear that their behaviour will result in self harm--indeed, for the cited case, it has already--and if they're doing it on purpose, then that's a valid symptom of mental ill-health.
Posted by: Aidan Kehoe on February 22, 2005 11:36 PMif i was president i would create the department of fat police, who would drive around in hummers with big nets catching all the fatties, and take them to warehouses that would be filled with treadmills that would be hooked up to the power grid. the fatties would have to walk off their weight and generate electricity. they are in effect hoarding precious energy, energy being a key issue that has a direct impact on our national security, at the same time they are a burden on our health care system. this program would more than pay for itself, in fact it would supply cheap power to our nation all while addressing the obesity epidemic.
Posted by: if i was president on February 22, 2005 11:46 PMStefan, some people are incapable of quitting cigarettes or booze even though they know it will kill them. Are you for coercive institutionalization? Are you for destroying the village in order to save it?
Posted by: Jame on February 23, 2005 01:27 AMMy argument, Aidan, is that it's none of your goddamn business, or the state's goddamned business, if somebody is fat. If he can't help it then it's up to his friends and family to intervene, but even that would assuredly not include involuntary commitment. Where do any of you get the idea that you have any right whatsoever to tell this fat bastard how to live his life?
I happen to know a guy who makes Chris look average - he's a friend of the family. My grandparents died when he was about 18, and we gave my grandfather's car to him as a lure to get him to lose weight. See, he couldn't fit behind the wheel at his then-current weight, which was around 450. Eventually he dieted down to about 390 and was able to drive the car (though it listed to port). His weight went back up when he got a truck, but seems to have stabilized around 550 or so pounds, from what I've been told. He's about 6'3". He's married, and I think has a kid on the way - he's making progress. But it's his life.
Posted by: Sterling on February 23, 2005 05:36 AMJame, I'm not necessarily saying that the morbidly obese or the guy who gets alcohol poisoning daily or the serious heroin addict should be locked up, I'm saying they're mentally ill: Their brain is not doing its job of insuring the body's viability. This is a low-level failure, not to be confused with say, the (fictional) example of that French movie La Grande Bouffe, where the characters decide to eat themselves to death out of a philosophical principle and through sheer bloody will. Same would go for Hunter S. - I can think of reasons why people might want to commit suicide that involve higher order mental processes overriding lower-level survival instincts.
But in the case of morbid obesity, something deeper is messing with the survival instinct, even more so than with drugs, cigarettes or alcohol -- these latter three are man-made and specifically designed to home in on our pleasure centers, physical costs be damned. Eating food, however, is something we've always done -- let's not pretend that obesity is a lifestyle choice, it's a brain malfunction.
What should society do in response to such self-destructive people? It if intends to pay for the consequences (hospitalization, medicine, lost productivity) It can try to ban the practice (suicide, drugs), stigmatise it (laugh at fat people) or restrict its use (no indoor smoking). Or it could try to cure the causes. Or it could decide not to pay for the consequences.
But what about private individuals? Well, if a company can force its employees to quit smoking or else be fired (to save on health insurance costs), I see no reason why a company shouldn't fire overly obese people for exactly the same reason. If you're response is to say that it's harder for obese people to lose weight than for smokers to quit, then I would suggest that is because obesity is a deeper kind of mental problem, as discussed above.
So, Stefan, you are not at all interested in this little part of the story:
"Chris, of Hastings, East Sussex, suffers from an incurable condition called Prader-Willi Syndrome. It means he canít tell when his stomach is full and could eat so much that it will kill him."
He's not slow, he's not thick, and from what his mother says he is hardly unaware of the proble. So what does the govt do? they give no warning, give no clue, give no criteria, no encouragement, no support. Nah, they'll just watch a TV programme, call him mental, and lock him up. Very libertarian. Very progressive.
Posted by: murray on February 23, 2005 10:19 PMNo I didn't read the story. I was too busy constructing my rant.
Posted by: Stefan Geens on February 23, 2005 11:24 PM"suffers from an incurable condition called Prader-Willi Syndrome"
whatever. if you eat more than one cheeseburger in one sitting, youre a fat fuck. you dont need to feel full to know that.
Posted by: boo fuckin hoo on February 23, 2005 11:44 PMStefan,
I think you are wrongly conflating disease with mental illness. And if someone has a disease it's their business how they handle it, provided they're not harming others by being diseased.
I've never heard of a company being able to fire an employee because they smoke at home. I'm not doubting you - I'm surprised that the company can get away with it, although I can see how some courts in the US might go along with the insurance argument. (Did this occur in the US?) But I think it's ridiculous. My company pays for my travel insurance; does that mean I should never go on holiday, lest I become injured and therefore drive up everyone's rates?
Also I'm not sure the very fat consider their obesity as threatening death. People can live for what seems like a long time being fat - ill, yes, with a sad, diminished life, but it's theirs. I think they're pathetic, and can't imagine why anyone would let themselves grow into such horror, but where do you draw the line?
There are plenty of fat and happy people; if they go from 300 pounds to 301 pounds, call the insane asylum? No one starts off wanting to be fat, and yet many people are. So either everyone's got some form of madness or there are other or additional factors behind it.
Also I never suggested quitting ciggies was harder or easier than losing weight; I suggested they were similar. I'm sure many of the morbidly obese do try diets and their weight fluctuates, just like some people quit smoking for a few months before they give in again.