Saturday, 14 February 2015

"Dr" David Cameron

Oh boy. Just as I was talking about [neurotypical] stimming compulsion of repeating 'obesity'/'obese' manically-to anchor yourself in the feelings those terms conjure up- a story comes along [doesn't one inevitably?] illustrating that this nervous tic is becoming increasingly useful. The Guardian;
David Cameron calls on the obese to accept help or risk lose benefits.
"Help"? You're calling slimming clubs "help"? Even the Mail says;
Go on a diet or lose your benefits........ The obese, drunks and drug addicts will have to seek help or lose benefits.
Direct if nothing else. The Independent;
Obese could be ordered to 'lose weight or lose benefits' if the if the Conservatives win general election
The BBC;
Obese could lose benefits if they refuse treatment
Yeah, keep being a docile mouthpiece for your political establishment chums.

This concerns a state benefit-Employment Support Allowance [ESA]-for those judged, and I mean officially examined by a medic, too sick and/or disabled to work. This proposal aims to target roughly 100,000 people said by the PM "Dr" David Cameron, to have "treatable" conditions. Okay? Right.

Those with such "weight problems" number around 2,000. Despite making up such a small percentage of the total, 'obesity'/'obese' was at the forefront of coverage. Cameron is quoted as saying;
Some [people] have drug or alcohol problems, but refuse treatment. .......In other cases people have problems with their weight that could be addressed - but instead a life on benefits rather than work becomes the choice.
'Obesity'/'obese' seems to be an easier more emotive target than drug addicts or alcoholics. A sort of human shield in reverse, setting the mood to view (contaminate) the rest. Also 'obesity' references more people, though the targets of this are a statistically infinitesimal subset. It's also part of the idiot bourgeoise self-dramatizing love affair with faux addiction and their insistence on imposing a false consciousness on fat people.

The biggest question mark of  all is that anybody could receive sickness benefit merely for being fat. I'm going to need direct evidence of that. An excellent comment from maple5 picked up on this;
No one would be able to be signed on to ESA with the current descriptors, simply for being obese. Even those unable to walk far would not pass, as for ESA the test is for "mobilising - which incudes the use of a wheelchair. In order to claim ESA or PIP the person would have to be so obese that they were unable to care for themselves/bedbound.
If you can't get about unaided, your problem is mobility. If actual problems were dealt with it would open the way for more of the same. Unsurprisingly, the media didn't elect to pick up on this, presumably, going with their feelings-don't worry though, there's "treatment" for that.You can tell a lot by the euphemistic use of that word, and 'therapy' as in "pharmacotherapy" in place of diet/ semi-starvation.
In deciding disability, Social Security will consider obesity only if it causes or contributes to listed impairments or severely limits your functioning.
I can see a few things on that list that are easier to reverse in more enjoyable, healing ways than anything available to go to war with metabolic function. I wouldn't rule out anyone being on benefit purely for 'obesity'. I'd have to see every single diagnosis-in full, which would be a violation of privacy-to accept such dubious assertion. But even this cant surely can't survive - fat people can get sick, or be/come disabled. Unless fatness is immunity from either-the ultimate "obesity paradox".

I'd also have to cast a beady eye on the other targets, are they really simply addicted to drugs/dependent on alcohol, or do they have sickness and/or disabilities too? There seems to be the same self delusion we see in the ludicrous "obesity cost" hype.

There's of course no "treatment" for 'obesity' as it isn't sickness-ironically, if it were it might give those trained to investigate pathology more to go on. Who's actually looking for what would be needed for these people to re-set the course of their metabolic function, regardless of outcome?

Permissive punitiveness doesn't go with scientific or medical progress. It proliferates as if an intellect sapping fungus. Once allowed to get hold, it is a compulsion rolls over everything, creating a regression that becomes self perpetuating. Eventually, nobody knows anything but the lies that feed it. 

Similar has happened with alcoholism and drug addiction. The latter especially has been open policy. Either endure painful even life threatening withdrawal and potentially paralyzing cravings, or piss off and die. Knowing- its all your fault.

Though addiction as a metaphor is entirely cynical and not at all useful for anyone, those fat people who reach the highest weights have been placed in a similar position. The difference being that blocking hunger signalling is a pathology- whereas blocking an acquired urge for drink or drugs, isn't. Though the latter is mainly almost as futile and abstinence rather cruel and at times perilous. Which is why when your doc prescribes junk, s/he's a pains to tell you never to stop it abruptly. 

That doesn't apply to illicit drug takers though, 'cos whatev's. 

The prospect of contriving other people's death isn't enough relief for the urge to punish, punish, punish, a society tacit in this degeneracy is to be seen as the victim of it!

Real treatment requires consent. Indeed that's usually an integral part of the process, when its not based around medicaments-unless the person's a danger to themselves. This is a good reason why. So called "treatments" can be shockingly toxic and ineffectual. Missing from this is the sense that long term experience might have revealled this.

No comments:

Post a Comment