I do object to the medical approaches to obesity, depression etc. it seems a very "un-medical" way to approach the problem and, I'm sorry to say, very American. In many of these cases people do themselves harm through their own actions or inactions - using medicine or surgery to "solve" these problems is curing the symptoms rather than the cause.
Having the freedom to do what we want doesn't free us from the consequences of our actions...
As a counterpoint, I enjoy skiing. My enjoyment of skiing has directly lead to a fairly serious leg injury. Fortunately surgery completely "cured" this and I was back skiing next season, ready to potentially do more harm to myself as if nothing had happened. Did the doctors do the right thing fixing up my leg or should they have let me walk with a limp for the rest of my life as a consequence of my actions?
It's an interesting moral question; there are definitely shades of grey.
The way I've always seen this analogy is that if your going back every year and breaking a leg then, clearly, there is less and less moral obligation to fix it for you (beyond setting it etc.) so that you can ski again.
Or in other words: if you find over and over again you can't ski (by breaking a leg) refusing to take the hint should be discouraged :D
Now lets take obesity; if someone thinks medical work will help them get healthy again then fair enough (it could even be the piece of phsycology needed to fix their attitude if the problem proves to be non-medically caused). But if they are back in 12 months time with the same problem then there is the same lowering of moral imperative to provide help. If nothing else it is likely a temporary solution again and, so, other forms of treatment/help should be encouraged (I'd even argue it is morally better to suggest other ideas first in such circumstances)
Good point. Its definitely not black and white... but I'd lean on the side of leaving you limping unfortunately. I wonder though - would you ski anyway, if the doctors didn't exist? I'd suspect so...
I "feel" that there is some difference between the injury type situation and the self inflected harm of depression or obesity though - its possible to ski without any injuries, but its not possible to put on loads of weight, or take a depressed approach to life without suffering the consequences. I guess I am more inclined to feel sorry for you because the risk from skiing is such that you might have avoided the injury if the situation were more favorable... its more "unlucky" than "inevitable".
Thanks for the wealth of information with which to undo my supposed ignorance...
I never said its a choice anyway, just that behaviour can cause it... whether its intentional or not is another story, and I'm not going to claim that all depression is not physiological - I'm sure there are real hormonal/neurological problems which lead to depression. My personal experience however is that change in behaviour solved my own depression... so in at least one case it is true. My doctor prescribed me pills and his attitude towards it was unhelpful, despite being very sympathetic and supportive - a good slap round the face about my attitude would have been much more effective.
I should probably add that I'm pretty fat, bordering on obese perhaps, but I don't consciously over eat...
I do object to the medical approaches to obesity, depression etc. it seems a very "un-medical" way to approach the problem and, I'm sorry to say, very American. In many of these cases people do themselves harm through their own actions or inactions - using medicine or surgery to "solve" these problems is curing the symptoms rather than the cause.
Having the freedom to do what we want doesn't free us from the consequences of our actions...