Should obesity be considered a disability?

I read on a recent post:  "apparently obesity is not covered under the ADA." I don't think people that are obese should be discriminated against, however, I'm not convinced that it should be protected under the American's with Disabilities Act.  Any thoughts? 

I live in Australia so cant say much about American acts but I beleive Obseity disables you from living a normal life. You cant do most of the things that a normal human can and hence it is a disability.

Obesity may disable someone from a normal life, but in most cases the person can do something about it.  "Can" meaning that they have the opportunity, not that they have the will-power or desire.  Walking is free.  Eating smaller portions is free.  If fresh veggies/fruits are too expensive, canned or frozen versions will work just as well and are quite inexpensive.

So, no, obesity should not be protected under the ADA.  That should cover disabilities that truely present a hardship or prevent the person from living what we consider to be a normal life AND that they cannot change to lead a 'normal' life without tremendous expense.  The only exceptions should be for those people who have an actual medical condition that prevents them from being a healthy weight.

I agree with jenningermany. Becoming obese is the individuals fault. It's a far cry from being born without legs or any other disability. 

Well, what about smokers?  Many receive disability becouse they need oxygen, have other severe respiratory issues, heart disease, stroke, etc.  They chose to smoke thus bringing on those disabilities themselves.  The same could be said about alcoholics and drug addicts.  No easy answer!

Original Post by kladdrn:

Well, what about smokers?  Many receive disability becouse they need oxygen, have other severe respiratory issues, heart disease, stroke, etc.  They chose to smoke thus bringing on those disabilities themselves.  The same could be said about alcoholics and drug addicts.  No easy answer!

This is the point I was going to make. A lot of people are disabled because of the choices they made (and/or continue to make); smoking, drinking, motorcycling, drunk driving, etc. Doesn't mean they're any less disabled. However, I don't think the ADA requires things like giving the obese two seats in an airplane for the price of one, etc. People who need to travel with a caregiver don't get the caregiver's seat for free no matter how disabled they are.

I think you should have to have severe mobility restrictions to be considered disabled for obesity, not just be "obese" because anyone 30-40 lbs overweight is technically obese; it doesn't make them disabled.

Original Post by jenningermany:

Obesity may disable someone from a normal life, but in most cases the person can do something about it.  "Can" meaning that they have the opportunity, not that they have the will-power or desire.  Walking is free.  Eating smaller portions is free.  If fresh veggies/fruits are too expensive, canned or frozen versions will work just as well and are quite inexpensive.

So, no, obesity should not be protected under the ADA.  That should cover disabilities that truely present a hardship or prevent the person from living what we consider to be a normal life AND that they cannot change to lead a 'normal' life without tremendous expense.  The only exceptions should be for those people who have an actual medical condition that prevents them from being a healthy weight.

Is a psychiatric condition "medical"? People do get included in the ADA for psychiatric conditions that cause them physical consequences. By the time someone has mobility problems (morbid/supermorbid obesity, which are only a minority of the obese), and has tried and failed to lose weight (the vast majority fail), there might be some justification for claiming a compulsive behaviour/psychiatric disorder. It is ego-dystonic, so it's not as if they actually want to be/stay that way. And yes, we should encourage people to change their behaviours and reach a healthy weight - there are certainly a lot of examples here on CC of people who have done just that, sometimes starting off at very high weights. In the meantime, though, they do have their mobility problems and maybe we should respect that.

It's a sad reflection on our society that the obese think they will be LESS discriminated against and rejected by being considered officially disabled. Being disabled is no social prize, either.

Original Post by jenningermany:

Obesity may disable someone from a normal life, but in most cases the person can do something about it.  "Can" meaning that they have the opportunity, not that they have the will-power or desire.  Walking is free.  Eating smaller portions is free.  If fresh veggies/fruits are too expensive, canned or frozen versions will work just as well and are quite inexpensive.

So, no, obesity should not be protected under the ADA.  That should cover disabilities that truely present a hardship or prevent the person from living what we consider to be a normal life AND that they cannot change to lead a 'normal' life without tremendous expense.  The only exceptions should be for those people who have an actual medical condition that prevents them from being a healthy weight.

 Precisely.

I agree with trustwomen...

i'm not sure why this is such a debate.  obesity in and of itself is not a disability, but some of the conditions it can lead to are.  but those disabilities and diseases are already established as such. 

what i don't get is why anyone would want the disability tag attached to obesity when it isn't necessarily disabling. 

to me this seems more about politics than human rights.  it's like that segment of the gay community that denies bisexuality; they don't like it because it weakens their position.

Original Post by kladdrn:

Well, what about smokers?  Many receive disability becouse they need oxygen, have other severe respiratory issues, heart disease, stroke, etc.  They chose to smoke thus bringing on those disabilities themselves.  The same could be said about alcoholics and drug addicts.  No easy answer!

Any condition brought on by choice shouldn't be considered the same way, imho. Smoking is another choice with known consquences/risk factors. Those that are willing to take the risk should consider that. The consquences that surface are something that could've been avoided for free.  Perhaps if they started before the known risk factors, the tabacco companies should pay those customers disability because of the addiction.  Nothing beyond that should be paid to them by anybody.  However, obesity is sometimes not the person's fault, which is very rare.  If they were born with diabetes from their parents, or born with some condition.  They should qualify for some assistance.  But general obesity from overeating or lack of self control, no.

The only exception to my view is universal health care.  I am a strong supporter of universal health care, and believe if we had that, everybody should get care for their needs.  But that would be for their health care, not for receiving a free disability check.  No, I don't want to have a conversation about health care, I'd make a thread for that if I wanted to.  Just saying that would be the only time I'd feel it to be okay.

Original Post by enchantingimage:

The only exception to my view is universal health care.  I am a strong supporter of universal health care, and believe if we had that, everybody should get care for their needs.  But that would be for their health care, not for receiving a free disability check.  No, I don't want to have a conversation about health care, I'd make a thread for that if I wanted to.  Just saying that would be the only time I'd feel it to be okay.

why?  because the money to pay for universal health care magically appears out of the ether?  whether through insurance premiums, taxes, or more direct consumer costs, we all pay. 

if you really think people should be responsible for the consequences of their health-relate decisions, there are two ways to do that: (a) make them pay for health care out of their own pockets, or (b) if they can't pay, let them suffer and die without care.

i don't agree with either of those options. maybe that's because i know i'm capable of making my own mistakes.

I'm pretty sure that the only time anyone qualifies for a disability cheque is when they have significant impairments to work. If someone is so large that they really can't leave their house and go to work (the standard is pretty high for disability cheques, usually) I consider them just as disabled as someone who is suffering from major depression and can't get a job, or so stricken with COPD from smoking that they can't get a job.

Giving people direct financial assistance to live is part and parcel of the social safety net that includes free health care. You can't have one but not the other; if people can't work but can't get money to live, where do they wind up? In hospitals or prisons, and both of those cost far more than giving them a cheque to survive would have cost. Let's keep in mind that social assistance is not exactly a lucrative, glamorous way to live.

Obesity in itself shouldn't be a disability -- heck I'm "obese" but I'm far from disabled - I can work, I can choose to eat better and exercise more and get myself out of this catagory- I've done it before I'll do it again.  I know people who I would consider disabled and would think they should get government asstance but don't qualify and then there are some who qualify and think I wonder how they afforded the attorney to get them qualified. 

It wasn't too long ago that alcoholism and depression weren't considered diseases either.

In 1962 my mom was working for the US postal service fell on the job and broke her back - she is permanately disabled in that she can never do that job again- every year the government sends her to specialists just trying to get one of them to say she is no longer disabled so they won't have to pay her the check anymore. 

Disability is a gray area.  But obesity in and of itself is not - its the degree of obesity and the other conditions it will bring on that cause the true disability. 

Original Post by dbackerfan:

Disability is a gray area.  But obesity in and of itself is not - its the degree of obesity and the other conditions it will bring on that cause the true disability. 

Exactly. The vast majority of obese people are quite functional.

I still say it's significant, and telling, that those who aren't functional consider it a step UP to be considered disabled.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

i'm not sure why this is such a debate.  obesity in and of itself is not a disability, but some of the conditions it can lead to are.  but those disabilities and diseases are already established as such. 

what i don't get is why anyone would want the disability tag attached to obesity when it isn't necessarily disabling. 

to me this seems more about politics than human rights.  it's like that segment of the gay community that denies bisexuality; they don't like it because it weakens their position.

I don't think people are seeking to get the disability tag attached to all obese people, no? Just those with other disabilities related to their size. I suspect that some of those people are not qualifying for what little assistance is available because their size is not considered a "medical condition" but a choice? (Which is not accurate IMO, nothing that is persistently, severely ego-dystonic is a free choice).

Original Post by pgeorgian:

Original Post by enchantingimage:

The only exception to my view is universal health care.  I am a strong supporter of universal health care, and believe if we had that, everybody should get care for their needs.  But that would be for their health care, not for receiving a free disability check.  No, I don't want to have a conversation about health care, I'd make a thread for that if I wanted to.  Just saying that would be the only time I'd feel it to be okay.

why?  because the money to pay for universal health care magically appears out of the ether?  whether through insurance premiums, taxes, or more direct consumer costs, we all pay.  Healthcare isn't about collecting a check due to an inability to work. Health care shouldn't be denied due to conditions or income. It should be given due to people based on what's needed in spite of that. imo

if you really think people should be responsible for the consequences of their health-relate decisions, there are two ways to do that: (a) make them pay for health care out of their own pockets, or (b) if they can't pay, let them suffer and die without care.  Says you.

i don't agree with either of those options. maybe that's because i know i'm capable of making my own mistakes.

Living in Canada as a Canadian you're also capable of recieving healthcare. It's a lot of fluff coming someone that's capable of receiving said care. If someone needs healthcare I do believe they should be able to receive it. . .Regardless of income, pre-existing conditions, or choices.  To me it's not a matter of taxes or watching others suffer. Health care is given based on indivisual need because we're human. The humanitarian outlook.

um...enchantingimage, i think i've been fairly open about my absolute, unconditional support of universal health care and the social safety net.  i'm a socialist.  i like paying for other people's healthcare, and i especially like having access.

but you can't suggest that people are personally and individually responsible for the consequences of their choices and then cite universal health care.  those are two opposing positions.  you either believe in self-sufficiency and personal responsibility or you believe in collective responsibility and taking care of others.  you can't have it both ways.

so - what do you believe in?

Ya'll that are American do realize there is a HUGE difference between the ADA and SSDI right?  Defining terms might seriously help this conversation...

I really want to use "Let me google that for you" right now...

Original Post by trustwomen:

Original Post by pgeorgian:

i'm not sure why this is such a debate.  obesity in and of itself is not a disability, but some of the conditions it can lead to are.  but those disabilities and diseases are already established as such. 

what i don't get is why anyone would want the disability tag attached to obesity when it isn't necessarily disabling. 

to me this seems more about politics than human rights.  it's like that segment of the gay community that denies bisexuality; they don't like it because it weakens their position.

I don't think people are seeking to get the disability tag attached to all obese people, no? Just those with other disabilities related to their size. I suspect that some of those people are not qualifying for what little assistance is available because their size is not considered a "medical condition" but a choice? (Which is not accurate IMO, nothing that is persistently, severely ego-dystonic is a free choice).

well that's what i don't get.  it seems pretty clear here in canada (with the airlines, for instance) that it's the effects of obesity that constitute disabilities, not obesity itself.  but the way this thread is worded (and i don't know what the lobbyists want), it sounds like obesity itself is considered by some to be a disability.

i think there's a lot of grey area and misunderstanding.  like in substance abuse, i think the question of when habit and behaviour become disease and addiction has yet to be answered (and probably never will be answered.  there are way too many instances of people who change for it to be as black and white as it's usually conceived).

My point was rather that if you have universal health care without the remainder of a reasonable social safety net, you wind up with a lot of people staying in hospitals (or prisons) at great public expense whereas they would have been able to be more self-managing at a much lower cost with just a little cheque each month.

If someone can't work, and you don't give them money to live, they aren't just going to starve quietly. They are going to use up your public dollars in other ways that are far more expensive. The same applies to people who won't work, for that matter. I know it's tricky from a "deserving vs. undeserving" moral standpoint, but honestly that distinction is academic and completely impractical in the real world of social service provision.