I found this story both sad and frustrating.
We have had a similar thread as to whether people should be treated by the NHS when it is obviously a self inflicted illness, like smoking for example.
Obviously if people are ill then they of course should be treated to the best abilities of the NHS.
What I found disturbing about this is it seems is this is how he wanted to end up, as the fattest man. What he eats is why he is this big, nothing else. So his size and the obvious health issues are entirely his own doing. The care involved must cost an absolute fortune at a time when the NHS refuses in some areas to give people certain drugs, as they are deemed too expensive. Yet this man is treated at a cost of what must be thousands of pounds every week.
Is that fair? Or should the NHS treat anybody no matter what the circumstances?
I found this man to be a selfish individual who lets be fair probably has very little time left before his body or his heart give up. It is reported this guy eats calories a day fgs. Enough to feed a small army.
Should people like this get the help to get better...if they want to of course, but in this instance it seems it is a badge of honour for this guy, to have the tag he now has. Should he be treated or should any treatment stop until he makes the effort himself?
A difficult one but for me this guy has taken things past the reasonable and something should be done to help him slim down, and if he will not I find myself saying well ok, if that is how you want to live, don't expect the NHS to carry on picking up the tab. Is that right and fair....or not?
Yeah i feel sorry for him. Whatever the reason for his condition he is in a terrible state and will die soon. I think the NHS should pay for whatever necessary treatment is needed to prolong his life.
I rather liked the disclaimer form earlier lies that followed the article.
"* An article of October 14, 2009, 'Just one in six benefit claimants is genuine', suggested the number of people claiming incapacity benefit has soared from 67,000 when Labour came to power to today.
We are happy to clarify that this figure relates to the number of people who were claiming benefits for five years or more in 1997, when the number of incapacity benefit claimants was
Read more:
"
Would you feel sorry for the bloke who smokes a 100 a day cos he wants to and likes smoking and then dies of lung cancer?
Its the same thing its self inflicted and i dont see that NHS money should be wasted on such a selfish individual who set out to get into the shape he is in by eating his way through enough food each day to feed a small African nation.
I read somewhere yesterday (maybe the telegraph) that it actually costs the health service somewhere close to 100k a year to keep this guy going, money that could prolong a breast cancer patients life by 12 to 18 months with the right expensive drugs (baring in mind that is not a self inflicted condition).
If this guy needs so much money to keep going maybe he should consider selling himself for sponsorship, i am sure Burger King "home of the double WHOPPER" could use him!!!
In all seriousness though imagine the outcry when this chap finally pops his cloggs and it costs 1000s just to get him out of the house, 1000s to chop down the forest to make a coffin big enough and 1000s to hire a crane to get him to the cemetry!!!
So to clarify....your opinion is that we should continue to spend over 100 grand a year on someone who is deliberatly putting himself in this condition?
I am not saying not to treat him but.....my opinion is that if you do not want to help yourself, why should others bother?
The guy is this size simply because he eats too much...period. So like smokers ( of which I am one ) knowing the dangers involved, why should the NHS be burdened by people like this, who do not want to change.
Do we then continue to spend over 100 grand a year on one case of someone eating too much, and then on the other hand deny people drugs, because they cannot afford them?
There are thousands of people out there, maybe someones Grandparent, who is being denied treatment for Alzheimer's, because the local authority cannot or will not fund the drugs needed to help these people. I have heard the daily cost for this drug is , yet some authorities seem to have no trouble finding this kind of money for someone who is deliberatly abbusing their body, and then expects the local authority to pick the massive tab up. No wonder these same authorities cannot supply the money to an Alzheimer's patient.
Sorry but in this case sympathy is nothing more than a word in the dictionary (somewhere between shit and syphilis).
I do know a thing or two about addiction as well. Recently my quack told me that drinking was damaging my kidneys and that my blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesteral levels were all too high. So I have quit the drinking, doesn't mean I'll never drink and have a laugh again, just that the unnecassary binges have stopped and there will be long periods of total sobriety between drinks.
If your health or indeed your life is in danger you take whatever it takes to turn things round, if not then why should anyone sympathise with you?
As quoted in the article "And it emerged today that Mr Mason actually had an ambition to become the world's fattest man. He lost 20 stone in hospital three years ago but reportedly told staff he didn't really want to lose the weight."
It might sound heartless to some people but if he wants to be the fattest man in the world, let him, he will eat himself to death sooner or later. Dont waste the money on him there are people out there who want to live but have cancer and the money would be better spent on them.
The NHS is there to treat the sick....not just some of diseases are to a greater or lesser degree in some way self inflicted or made worse by our behaviour,to pick and choose which of these are treated is a denial of the NHS' foundation. Should we not treat cancer in smokers?kidney and liver diseases in drinkers?diabetes in sugar eaters? or even STD's in swingers? who draws the line? and where? or should we just treat sick people when they need treatment?
Cherry at this time I am healthy and fit.
I do not know what the future brings health wise for me, I could die on my big powerful expensive motorbike at anytime.
So I would not be a burden on the NHS from my smoking then would I ?
Now IF I was to suffer from one of the things associated with smoking when I get older, I am sure that taking things into consideration like, the ammount of years I have paid into the NHS, or the ammount of tax I have paid on every packet of fags I have ever brought, I am sure that will go a massive way towards the cost of treating me....no?
BUT....IF I was to be told I have to stop smoking or my health would deteriorate and I would die very soon, I would think I would quit. I certainly would not want to have a tag of the most fags smoked by a person.
This guy knows the risks, he knows he will die yet....he continues to stuff his face with pies until he gets to 70 stone. :shock:
This guy is ill now but refuses to help himself and that is the main issue here. IF he wanted to help himself he would have my support, but it is obvious that he does not want to, so why should he continue to get the funding?
Not at all.
I like Losty and I have obviously upset him, which does bother me.
It really is that simple. Nothing more to read into it other than that.
.... should the NHS treat anybody no matter what the circumstances?....
There is a guy in Edinburgh who is a convicted ,he needs kidney dialysis 3 times a week to keep him alive..allegedly he has threatened to and murder nurses,attacked staff and hurled racist comments at ppl just doing their job, some off the staff have refused to treat him due to safety concerns...
Now i dont know much about the chap with the eating disorder if that what it is but my sympathies are for sure with ppl such as him as opposed to patients like the above.