In the UK you can change sex or ask for assisted suicide at the expense of the health system, but if you are obese and you need a hip prosthesis or knee, risks that the hospital refuses the intervention. The fight against obesity thus becomes a masked cut to welfare and economic discrimination against the weakest classes.
In Great Britain you have the right to change sex at the expense of the public health service and if you want to accelerate your departure from the world, the law allows you to obtain “sweet death” against the state. However, if you are obese, hospitals can refuse to implant you a hip or knee prosthesis because it is your fault if you have walking problems: you had to eat less. A drug addict can obtain medical assistance and also some drugs to contain addiction, who is fat is not.
Mind you: I don’t want to make the defense of those who are overweight of several kilos. Obesity is a disease and should be treatedbefore cardiovascular disorders, diabetes and other complications intervene. However, the social stigma that affects the ciccioni is becoming unbearable, not only because the thinness has been in fashion for some time (on the catwalks anorexia often parades and on social media the boys challenge each other with diet), but because an economic stigma joins it. The Obese cost, because together with the extra pounds they carry an infinite number of pathologies behind. In addition to the aforementioned metabolic problems, respiratory diseases, neoplasms, osteoarticular problems are added and all this is borne by the health system, that is, of the community. The treatments are not free, we know. However, as I said, the state in Great Britain (as in Italy) pays interventions to change sex and preventive care for what experts call “gender relocation”. And at the same time the public coffers support the request for those who, having certain requirements, want to obtain the so -called assisted suicide, that is, to be helped by the health personnel to put an end to his life.
How come to change sex or “commit suicide” is possible at the expense of the state and to be implanted a hip or knee prosthesis if you are obese right?
The explanation provided is that, if someone voluntarily chooses to swallow, then he has to pay the consequences, that is, he must know that the state will not assist him. The more or less concept is as follows: do you want to hurt you ripping with food, without taking care of the pounds that increase? Do as well, but after not come to complain and, above all, do not ask for help from the public health service, which is universal, in the sense that everyone assists, but is not made to remedy self -injurious behavior. This said, it would seem a motivation that has to do with morality, a way to teach citizens how to feed and behave. However, the state should not have an ethical function: it can enforce the laws, defend the constitutional principles, to guarantee everyone a common treatment from the point of view of education, the administration of justice, of care. Certainly, a liberal state does not have the task of discriminating people based on what they eat: if citizens must not be divided by race, sex or religion, even more so, it should not be evaluated for the portions or quality of the food they swallow. If everyone is the same before the law, even more so they should be on the scale, regardless of where the bar is placed.
The reality is that behind apparent health issues, the war unleashed against obesity, more than taking care of the balance problems, has the objective of the budget. Cutting the expenses to treat those who are fat means saving and since the obese are certainly more than the people who choose to change sex or to resort to assisted suicide, give up surgical interventions based on weight saves a lot of money. And with the excuse of “educating” citizens to eat less and better the state puts consciousness in place. In reality, the war on fat is a tax on the less wealthy classes, because it is among people in low socio -economic conditions that there is an increase in obesity: they eat what in jargon is called junk food, or junk food.
Therefore, if you go to the root of things, you find that there is nothing ethical and educational in refusing the prostheses to fat. There is only one cut to the welfare system, a way to download costs on the poorest classes. Anti -fat, anti -wine, anti smoking campaigns, more than health, pay attention to money. And with the increase in excise duties or the reduction of care, the state – in this case Great Britain – thinks about how to earn us.
