November 29, 2003
"BIG"OTRY? (via The Wife):
As Obesity Rises, Health Care Indignities Multiply (RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA and GRANT GLICKSON, 11/29/03, NY Times)
When Mark Rosenthal suffered a stroke, he was too heavy and wide for a stretcher, so he made the jarring, bouncing dash to the hospital lying on an ambulance floor. The ride injured his back, and he felt as if his own weight would suffocate him. At the hospital, doctors wanted to give him an M.R.I. scan, but he could not fit into the machine.But in that ordeal last June, Mr. Rosenthal's gravest humiliation came from something as simple as having to go to the bathroom. He was in no shape to walk to the cramped bathroom — he might not have been able to fit, anyway — and the hospital's portable commodes and bedpans could not hold his 450 pounds. So, he recalled, hospital workers told him to go in his bed, on himself, saying they would clean it up afterward.
"I just cried," said Mr. Rosenthal, 51, the treasurer of District Council 37, the New York City employees' union. "I refused to eat anything for six or seven days, hoping I wouldn't have to go again."
Obesity is the fastest-growing major health problem in the United States. In 2000, 31 percent of American adults were obese, up from 23 percent in 1990 and 13 percent in 1960, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
And those, like Mr. Rosenthal, who are classified as "morbidly obese" tripled in number in just a decade, to 2.2 percent of the population in 2000.
The perils of morbid obesity are not limited to life-threatening ailments like Type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure; merely getting the health care other people take for granted is beyond their reach.
Severely overweight people cannot fit into standard wheelchairs, waiting-room armchairs, blood pressure cuffs, hospital beds and gowns, or M.R.I. and CAT scan machines.
X-rays often cannot penetrate far enough into their bodies to produce useful images, and wall-mounted toilets snap off under their weight.
For the morbidly obese, trips to doctors or hospitals are more reminders that they literally do not fit, like paying for two seats on a plane, hunting for clothes, or enduring people's curiosity and derision. The indignities mean that obese people, who need medical treatment more than most, often refuse to seek it.
Lose some freakin' weight, huh? Posted by Orrin Judd at November 29, 2003 4:27 PM
I love the way 'obesity' is now some marauding threat disconnected from human agency. "Oh no, obesity caught me while I was in the carpark and shoved three boxes of dougnuts down my throat! We need legislation to combat Obesity!'
Now if we can do something about the morbidly liberal...
I feel bad for the guy and he is obviously embarassed and humiliated by this whole experience. Let's hope he can lose a couple hundred pounds because he ain't going to be around in 5-7 years.
Posted by: pchuck at November 29, 2003 7:16 PMIsn't this just natural selection in action?
Posted by: jd watson at November 29, 2003 11:02 PMI would like to see just one law passed to help fight morbid obesity: A statute giving insurance companies carte blanche to deny the hugely obese coverage.
Posted by: Jason Johnson at November 29, 2003 11:34 PMA recent study showed the rate of obesity rising fastest among the observantly religious.
Less recently, gluttony was declared a deadly sin.
That is as good an example of irony as one is likely to find.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 30, 2003 8:32 AMFor rural folk, that is probably a true statement; however, there really isn't any irony at the prevelance of one 'sin' among the purportedly religious - wouldn't you expect to find them all?
BTW, the most ironic thing I have seen about obesity lately is at the Wal-Mart in my in-laws hometown in central PA: 300, 400, and even 500 lb. patrons in their personal mechanized carts, waiting in line, followed by traditional Mennonites. It is a strange juxtaposition.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 30, 2003 5:02 PM"I just cried," said Mr. Rosenthal, the treasurer of District Council 37, the New York City employees union.
You can't make this stuff up.
Jeff:
Are you suggesting religion leads to obesity as well as hypocrisy?
Posted by: Peter B at December 1, 2003 4:48 AMPeter:
I'm not suggesting anything--the results speak for themselves.
Food and fellowship.
Posted by: jefferson park at December 1, 2003 1:20 PMReligion suffers from hypocrisy very well, because man wants to think himself better than he is. And no matter the specific strictures, he will wriggle his way to deceit.
Likewise, atheism suffers from hypocrisy very well, because man wants to define himself as beyond good and evil, and this he will do despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.
So welcome to the human race.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 1, 2003 11:18 PMJim:
Irony and hypocrisy are not the same. I was talking about irony.
It would only be hypocritical if the religiously obese were to complain about the eating habits of porcine atheists.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at December 2, 2003 6:51 AMJeff:
The obesity you're speaking of is by and large a function of scio-economics and the ethnic make-up of the religious community in America.
Posted by: OJ at December 2, 2003 7:38 AMJeff:
Yes, they are too busy caring for their families and scrounging to pay for their dutiful lives to afford personal trainers or dream about how to make it to 140.
Posted by: Peter B at December 2, 2003 8:33 AMNow, that's just snarky.
Obesity is socio-economic? That'll get you in some hot water. I once heard a public radio piece in rural SC about how the tri-county area (Darlington, Florence, etc.) had the highest rate of illness among African-American women because their diet consisted primarily of fatback, cornbread, and cola (or something stronger). The locals protested because it was just not fair! And this was before smoking was under general attack.
I doubt if the social connections with religion & church make people fat (as in keeping up with Mrs. Stout), but I do know that telling someone from your church to lose weight becomes a much more serious discussion than first bargained for.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 2, 2003 10:10 AMOJ, Peter:
My statement was merely a combination of two factually correct observations that, taken together, and without any kind of value judgment on my part whatsoever, are ironic.
Sorry to disappoint you, but that's all there is to it.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at December 2, 2003 8:35 PMJeff:
Yes, but it's an interesting observation, one which should be, and is, easily explicable.
Posted by: oj at December 2, 2003 11:20 PM