Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Are We Obligated to Be Healthy?

There is an internet forum for people that have had gastric bypass surgery that I participate on.  Today on that forum there was a lively discussion about whether or not it is OK for people to be fat.  A few people said it is OK for people to be fat.  Some said it's not OK, usually because fat = unhealthy (which isn't necessarily true, by the way).  A number of people said it is OK to be fat if you are healthy.  Apparently, in their minds, it is OK to be fat and healthy, and it is OK to be skinny and unhealthy, but it is not OK to be fat and unhealthy.

Which brings me to the point of this post.  Why is it not OK to be unhealthy?  I mean, I assume most people would prefer to be healthy, if given a choice.  But you know what?  Most of us don't have a choice.  I didn't choose to have major depression and PTSD.  I also did not choose to have a herniated disk in my lower back.  Mike's father, who passed away yesterday, did not choose to have cancer and diabetes and congestive heart failure.  Did we somehow fail to meet some obligation we had to society?

Oh, wait.  I'm of a normal weight now, so perhaps my failure to be healthy is forgivable.  But Mike's father was overweight, so I guess it was not OK for him to have cancer.  Does that make sense to anyone?  Because it sure doesn't to me.

Why the double standard?  Why should fat people have to be healthy while skinny people can be sick?

And who gets to define "healthy" anyway?  According to some people, if you are overweight (meaning your BMI is above 25, which means that many highly trained athletes are overweight), you are automatically unhealthy.  Doesn't matter if your blood pressure is normal, your blood sugar and cholesterol are good, you have no illness of any kind.  Overweight automatically = unhealthy.  Other people understand that BMI is not always a good indicator of health.

But again, who gets to decide who is healthy enough and who is not?  Someone on the forum said that if a person was able to take care of their kids, go to work, and pay their bills, they are healthy enough.  Well, I don't have kids, but guess what?  Sometimes I can't work.  That's why I am on Social Security disability.  Sometimes I have trouble paying my bills.  So I guess I am unhealthy and therefore not OK.

Someone else mentioned that unhealthy people are a burden to society and that's why we all have an obligation to be healthy.  So I'm a burden?  A burden, and a failure, since I'm not healthy enough to work and pay all my bills.

Well, at least I'm not fat.

3 comments:

  1. Great post once again, Kelly! It is very dangerous for people to start making determinations on who is a drain on society and who is not based on age, health, disability status, ability to work, etc. It's a slippery slope. Insurance companies already make these kinds of determinations. I hate to see it go even further. We all contribute to the good and bad things in society with what we do and say and it's pointless IMO to arbitrarily decide that healthy people are better than unhealthy - even if we assume that healthy people are healty by effort and choice which is not always the case.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This debate is getting even uglier BTW at work right now - with the huge increase in health insurance premiums me and my co-workers are facing, many people on the company forum are complaining that it's not fair that smokers pay more than nonsmokers and arguing that obese people are a drain on society and should pay more as a result and they are breaching their obligation to be healthy. This issue is really important right now for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think the problem with saying that smokers should pay more or obese people should pay more - well, one of many problems with that, actually - is where do you draw the line? People that eat fast food regularly are generally less healthy. People that eat junk food, people that don't exercise, people that don't get enough sleep, people that have unprotected sex, etc. Do you base insurance costs on some formula that takes all of that into account? How would you even make up such a formula?

    I also object to the idea that people are only "valuable" if they are "productive," as in they can have children and raise them or they can work and earn money.

    ReplyDelete