A right to eat oneself to death?

Pages

Link

This lady is doing everything in her power to become the world's fattest woman, with a goal of 1,000 lb., though she worries that she's burning too many calories with the little things, like walking and parenting. It sounds like she and her significant other are fetishists.

Figured I'd post this here since it's from the Cleveland Leader.

So here's the question. Does she have a right to do this to herself? She says she feels she's meant to be fat and the bigger she gets the happier she is. Yet clearly she is not going to live a long life at 1,000 pounds. In a way, she's committing suicide. Still, happiness can be a hard thing to find.

At what point is this no longer a personal choice about diet, but rather reckless endangerment of oneself? At what point - if any - should the state step in? If she ends up on public assistance to deal with her health problems, does that change the equation any?

Does anyone think she could really be healthy at 1,000 pounds when she's getting there by eating junkfood and moving as little as possible?

EDIT: Crap, the link's being pretty flaky. I think I hit the key points, other than that she was already named the fattest woman to give birth at something like 530 pounds. It had to be a c-section with 30 personnel on hand.

There isn't any difference between this woman and anorexics other than which way she is trying to go on the scale.

She wants to kill herself? Fine, whatever. She has kids? Sorry moron, your job is raising your kids not stuffing your face.

To fund her massive grocery bill, she runs a website where men pay to watch her eat fast food.

Ugh.

There will be a point where her medical expenses will become a burden on us (taxpayers) if they aren't already. That's all I care about, and have issue with. If she wants to destroy her family and kill herself I don't really care.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
To fund her massive grocery bill, she runs a website where men pay to watch her eat fast food.

Ugh.

I wish I had gotten an MBA as a second degree. This is just proof that there are underserved markets in f*&ked up things you'd never think of. The first person to get the idea, wins.

It's a testimony to our disgusting entitlement mentality in the US that we are even discussing this as a possible "right". Of all the things she could apply herself to that would benefit humanity, why would she elect to replace them all with this? Seriously. Anyone asinine enough to devote themselves to this kind of horrific spectacle needs to be ignored, not encouraged.

*Legion* wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
To fund her massive grocery bill, she runs a website where men pay to watch her eat fast food.

Ugh.

I wish I had gotten an MBA as a second degree. This is just proof that there are underserved markets in f*&ked up things you'd never think of. The first person to get the idea, wins.

The only problem is that you'd end up in the shower, sobbing and trying to scrub yourself clean after writing the business plan.

I'm going to side with the 'none of my business' side of the argument.

On a side note, I propose that we change the official forum name from Politics & Controversy to Politics & Cleveland.

OG_slinger wrote:
*Legion* wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
To fund her massive grocery bill, she runs a website where men pay to watch her eat fast food.

Ugh.

I wish I had gotten an MBA as a second degree. This is just proof that there are underserved markets in f*&ked up things you'd never think of. The first person to get the idea, wins.

The only problem is that you'd end up in the shower, sobbing and trying to scrub yourself clean after writing the business plan.

He uses Linux, so I'm pretty sure that's already a daily occurrence for him..

Quintin_Stone wrote:
To fund her massive grocery bill, she runs a website where men pay to watch her eat fast food.

Ugh.

I will pay for something like this only if she is wearing a latex bodysuit.

Hey, a 6 figure income can buy some strong soap OG.

Her life, her choice. If she wants to eat herself into oblivion, or starve her self into a skeletal death, or just drink a nice glass of bleach and lye with dinner, that is her decision. I'd be in favor of forcing a psychiatric evaluation to make sure she is of sound mind, but that's it. As long as she isn't hurting anyone, it is her decision. The kids will be affected, but the father is still around to take care of them.

I would use words like "pathetic", "disgusting", and "repugnant" to describe her, but what's the alternative? If she is indeed trying to get incredibly fat and therefore become a huge burden of society, then she sucks. The alternatives are worse--I don't want the government legislating against it, because it could have all sorts of unintended consequences.

Reminds me of the thread from a few weeks back about the state of Utah proposing legislation criminalizing intentional miscarriage. It was an overreaction to something that happened once that could cause all sorts of issues that weren't intended.

Even in Canada, where her inevitable hefty medical expenses would ultimately be the burden of the taxpayer, I don't think we would have a right to intervene. There are hundreds of ways in which people can make stupid decisions on a consistent basis that endanger them and ultimately cost taxpayers money, and we can't regulate them all.

That being said - as a cost calculation, there are areas that we can recoup the money. Hefty taxes on cigarettes can be justified not only as a disincentive to smoke but as a recouping of inevitable health care costs as a result of long-term smoking. As a smoker, you are essentially investing in your own future health care with every pack of cigarettes bought. I can't begrudge them for that.

I wouldn't mind a similar disincentive/recouping tax for fast food and the like - although that's the start of a very slippery slope that may not be worth it in the end.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
*Legion* wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
To fund her massive grocery bill, she runs a website where men pay to watch her eat fast food.

Ugh.

I wish I had gotten an MBA as a second degree. This is just proof that there are underserved markets in f*&ked up things you'd never think of. The first person to get the idea, wins.

The only problem is that you'd end up in the shower, sobbing and trying to scrub yourself clean after writing the business plan.

He uses Linux, so I'm pretty sure that's already a daily occurrence for him..

:hump:

I'm crying because there's so many people still bound in closed-source chains that I just can't reach...

I wish I had gotten an MBA as a second degree. This is just proof that there are underserved markets in f*&ked up things you'd never think of. The first person to get the idea, wins.

Haha this reminds me of Beerfest.

1 dollar to look at it, 2 dollars to touch it, 3 dollars to watch me touch it, 5 dollars to touch it while I touch my toes, 6 dollars to touch it while I touch your toes

As Rubb Edd and NSMike postulated in another thread (which got locked), we should not bash fat people, because each one of them has a "story". They must be right, because this lady has landed herself a story alright -- in Cleveland Leader, no less.

Of course she has the right to do it. She has the right to do anything she likes to herself.

Sure, she has a right to do it, just as I have the right to think it's a dumb lifestyle choice.

It's bizarre, but this shouldn't be any different if she were, for instance, "just" a smoker. You want to smoke yourself to death, end up in the hospital with emphysema, COPD or cancer, and cost your kids their taxes and their mom? I guess that's your "right", but it doesn't make you any less of a moron.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
To fund her massive grocery bill, she runs a website where men pay to watch her eat fast food.

Ugh.

As Shawn Elliott has said, if it's on the Internet, someone has masturbated to it.

Jonman wrote:

Sure, she has a right to do it, just as I have the right to think it's a dumb lifestyle choice.

That, and not pay an undue amount on benefits/welfare for her. She gets the same level/limit of health care based on job (or potential national system), no disability benefits because she did it to herself, etc. People don't have the right to make themselves an excessive burden on support systems (that's why there are limits on total health care payouts).

I completely don't get this whole "obesity as disability" business. And I actually resent having to accommodate it. Kevin Smith can kiss my ass.

Paleocon wrote:

I completely don't get this whole "obesity as disability" business. And I actually resent having to accommodate it. Kevin Smith can kiss my ass.

Agreed. Come up with any excuse you want, weight is still a fixed equasion of (calories eaten) - (calories burned) = (calories stored/lossed). Metabolism, and some other factors, can only help this scenario (allowing some to eat anything and not gain weight, for example). You simply cannot gain weight if you intake less then or equal to what you burn over a period of time. Period.

In that vein, obesity is akin to smoking. Both are a choice, and both will kill you faster then if you didn't do them. And I know the millions of educational/socioeconomical reasons why fat may be an easier chioce, but it is still a choice. No one forces 3 double quarter pounders in your mouth. Except in seven. And that was spagetti.

Shoal07 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I completely don't get this whole "obesity as disability" business. And I actually resent having to accommodate it. Kevin Smith can kiss my ass.

Agreed. Come up with any excuse you want, weight is still a fixed equasion of (calories eaten) - (calories burned) = (calories stored/lossed). Metabolism, and some other factors, can only help this scenario (allowing some to eat anything and not gain weight, for example). You simply cannot gain weight if you intake less then or equal to what you burn over a period of time. Period.

In that vein, obesity is akin to smoking. Both are a choice, and both will kill you faster then if you didn't do them. And I know the millions of educational/socioeconomical reasons why fat may be an easier chioce, but it is still a choice. No one forces 3 double quarter pounders in your mouth. Except in seven. And that was spagetti.

Count me in on the /agree train.

Kraint wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Sure, she has a right to do it, just as I have the right to think it's a dumb lifestyle choice.

That, and not pay an undue amount on benefits/welfare for her. She gets the same level/limit of health care based on job (or potential national system), no disability benefits because she did it to herself, etc. People don't have the right to make themselves an excessive burden on support systems (that's why there are limits on total health care payouts).

Sure. But in this country, the burden on me due to this woman is minimal. No socialised healthcare, so I'm not on the hook for the inevitable medical bills as a result of her lifestyle (of course, if she works for the same company as me, then I kind of am ).

Were she and I still in England, I'd have more of an issue with this, because I *would* be on the hook for the medical costs. Here in the good 'ole US of A, she can have a beef dripping IV for all I care.

Paleocon wrote:

I completely don't get this whole "obesity as disability" business. And I actually resent having to accommodate it. Kevin Smith can kiss my ass.

I'm talking about being so big she can't walk and is home-bound, not the people who are too big for an airplane seat. She is choosing to make herself immobile, as opposed to a small percentage of people who have actual physical problems that trigger vast weight gain.

Well, riding a motorcycle probably puts me in the same risk group for healthcare costs so...eh.

Kraint wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I completely don't get this whole "obesity as disability" business. And I actually resent having to accommodate it. Kevin Smith can kiss my ass.

I'm talking about being so big she can't walk and is home-bound, not the people who are too big for an airplane seat. She is choosing to make herself immobile, as opposed to a small percentage of people who have actual physical problems that trigger vast weight gain.

In at least one way, I am less annoyed with her than I am with the Kevin Smiths. Should she decide to make herself home-bound, her impact on the infrastructure we share is actually less severe. Kevin Smith demands that airlines make seats bigger for everyone (never mind that it would double the cost of airline travel for everyone to accommodate his bad choices). This woman might be costly to the medical system, but I hardly doubt she will survive enough medical emergencies to make major changes in infrastructure necessary.

The entire discussion of whether or not she has a "right" to do this to herself trivializes actual, meaningful freedoms. So rampant is exactly this sort of discussion that it feels like we live in a society where such bad choices are celebrated as badges of "individuality". Drive a fcking big car you can't afford gas for, eat crap you know will kill you, smoke to "piss off the Man". It's all part of "celebrating liberty".

This is precisely what is wrong with America.

Paleocon wrote:

The entire discussion of whether or not she has a "right" to do this to herself trivializes actual, meaningful freedoms. So rampant is exactly this sort of discussion that it feels like we live in a society where such bad choices are celebrated as badges of "individuality". Drive a fcking big car you can't afford gas for, eat crap you know will kill you, smoke to "piss off the Man". It's all part of "celebrating liberty".

This is precisely what is wrong with America.

I bet you would be an awesome guy to have a beer with.

SallyNasty wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The entire discussion of whether or not she has a "right" to do this to herself trivializes actual, meaningful freedoms. So rampant is exactly this sort of discussion that it feels like we live in a society where such bad choices are celebrated as badges of "individuality". Drive a fcking big car you can't afford gas for, eat crap you know will kill you, smoke to "piss off the Man". It's all part of "celebrating liberty".

This is precisely what is wrong with America.

I bet you would be an awesome guy to have a beer with.

Every time I do, folks want me to run for office.

Pages