Weight Loss Is Not a Substitute for Healthcare: Part 1- The Basics

https://weightandhealthcare.substack.com/p/weight-loss-is-not-a-substitute-for

"The idea that higher-weight people can reach whatever weight healthcare wants them to in order to access care is questionable at best (and we’ll discuss that later,) but even if they could, the idea that people do or do not deserve care based on their body size is still horrifying and is still at the root of suffering and even death for higher-weight people.

This has been going on for a long-time - from holding healthcare hostage for a weight loss ransom, to recommending weight loss surgeries for type 2 diabetes in higher-weight patients (when thin patients with the same diagnosis and labs are not asked to take the major risks and life changes of those surgeries), to tools and equipment that aren’t properly rated for higher-weight patients, and more.

That said, with the advent of the new generation of GLP-1 weight loss drugs (and their relentless marketing as “miracle” weight loss drugs), I’ve been seeing and hearing about this even more, with providers, facilities, and insurance companies treating these drugs as a substitute for providing proper care to higher-weight people.

I want to be clear that I take a firm view of bodily autonomy in general as well as specific to this situation, I would never shame or blame a patient who attempted to lose weight in order to access healthcare or for whatever their reasons or sincerely held beliefs about weight loss might be. I also take a firm view of what constitutes the ethical, evidence-based practice of healthcare, including informed consent, and that’s where we run into an issue with this substitution of weight loss for healthcare.

One clear and obvious example is BMI-based denials of care. This happens when a patient is told that they cannot have a procedure they need or want (for example joint surgeries, spinal surgeries, or gender affirming care) unless or until they reach a certain BMI or percentage of weight loss.

Rather than creating healthcare for the patients who exist, the suggestion is that higher-weight patients don’t deserve care unless and until they become thinner patients. This also quickly becomes a matter of privilege and resources - a patient’s access to care can determine their fate - some patients can get a procedure and/or accommodation at a BMI at which another patient will be denied. Those with better insurance, the resources and ability to travel etc. have a better chance of accessing care.

The other issue is with accommodation. This occurs when higher-weight patients don’t have access to the same things that thinner patients have. This includes everything from a chair they can sit in, imaging equipment, a bed in the emergency room or hospital, a table in the cath lab, an overbed and/or hoyer lift and/or appropriate staffing ratio to help providers move patients in ways that keep both safe, and more.

Higher-weight patients can face a healthcare system that was not built for them. This can also be life or death. I was advocating for a patient meeting with a cardiologist at a very highly-regarded cardiology center. The cardiologist told that patient that if she did have a heart attack, the table in the cath lab was not appropriately weight-rated for the patient and there would be “nothing to do” but medically manage and “watch.” (The facility has since acquired tables rated for higher weight.)

For those who can’t access appropriate, accommodating care, the recommendation is often to lose weight. And I’m using the term “recommendation” loosely here because at this point the patient's healthcare is being held hostage for a weight loss ransom. We have to start and keep asking questions about the ethics of this, the potential coercion (and the ramifications for patients and providers when, for example, a surgeons is being begged by a patient to give them a weight loss surgery that the surgeon knows the patient doesn’t want to have.

We have to ask questions about an attitude that the provider/facility/insurance will not treat the patient who exists and needs treatment, and will only treat a hypothetical patient that they believe/hope this patient might possibly become (after enduring difficult and sometimes risky interventions). And if the patient will not subject themselves to the risks of (trying) to become that (thinner) patient, healthcare will allow the patient to suffer and even die and blame the patient.

Certainly the paternalistic and coercive nature of this is a huge issue here, but even if someone believes that weight loss is an appropriate substitute for care or accommodation, there would be some questions they would need to answer around both the denial and delay of care."

#MaskUp #WearAMask #CovidRealist #CovidIsAirbone #LongCovid #YallMasking #DisabledLiberation #DisabilityJustice

Weight Loss Is Not a Substitute for Healthcare: Part 1- The Basics

https://weightandhealthcare.substack.com/p/weight-loss-is-not-a-substitute-for

"The idea that higher-weight people can reach whatever weight healthcare wants them to in order to access care is questionable at best (and we’ll discuss that later,) but even if they could, the idea that people do or do not deserve care based on their body size is still horrifying and is still at the root of suffering and even death for higher-weight people.

This has been going on for a long-time - from holding healthcare hostage for a weight loss ransom, to recommending weight loss surgeries for type 2 diabetes in higher-weight patients (when thin patients with the same diagnosis and labs are not asked to take the major risks and life changes of those surgeries), to tools and equipment that aren’t properly rated for higher-weight patients, and more.

That said, with the advent of the new generation of GLP-1 weight loss drugs (and their relentless marketing as “miracle” weight loss drugs), I’ve been seeing and hearing about this even more, with providers, facilities, and insurance companies treating these drugs as a substitute for providing proper care to higher-weight people.

I want to be clear that I take a firm view of bodily autonomy in general as well as specific to this situation, I would never shame or blame a patient who attempted to lose weight in order to access healthcare or for whatever their reasons or sincerely held beliefs about weight loss might be. I also take a firm view of what constitutes the ethical, evidence-based practice of healthcare, including informed consent, and that’s where we run into an issue with this substitution of weight loss for healthcare.

One clear and obvious example is BMI-based denials of care. This happens when a patient is told that they cannot have a procedure they need or want (for example joint surgeries, spinal surgeries, or gender affirming care) unless or until they reach a certain BMI or percentage of weight loss.

Rather than creating healthcare for the patients who exist, the suggestion is that higher-weight patients don’t deserve care unless and until they become thinner patients. This also quickly becomes a matter of privilege and resources - a patient’s access to care can determine their fate - some patients can get a procedure and/or accommodation at a BMI at which another patient will be denied. Those with better insurance, the resources and ability to travel etc. have a better chance of accessing care.

The other issue is with accommodation. This occurs when higher-weight patients don’t have access to the same things that thinner patients have. This includes everything from a chair they can sit in, imaging equipment, a bed in the emergency room or hospital, a table in the cath lab, an overbed and/or hoyer lift and/or appropriate staffing ratio to help providers move patients in ways that keep both safe, and more.

Higher-weight patients can face a healthcare system that was not built for them. This can also be life or death. I was advocating for a patient meeting with a cardiologist at a very highly-regarded cardiology center. The cardiologist told that patient that if she did have a heart attack, the table in the cath lab was not appropriately weight-rated for the patient and there would be “nothing to do” but medically manage and “watch.” (The facility has since acquired tables rated for higher weight.)

For those who can’t access appropriate, accommodating care, the recommendation is often to lose weight. And I’m using the term “recommendation” loosely here because at this point the patient's healthcare is being held hostage for a weight loss ransom. We have to start and keep asking questions about the ethics of this, the potential coercion (and the ramifications for patients and providers when, for example, a surgeons is being begged by a patient to give them a weight loss surgery that the surgeon knows the patient doesn’t want to have.

We have to ask questions about an attitude that the provider/facility/insurance will not treat the patient who exists and needs treatment, and will only treat a hypothetical patient that they believe/hope this patient might possibly become (after enduring difficult and sometimes risky interventions). And if the patient will not subject themselves to the risks of (trying) to become that (thinner) patient, healthcare will allow the patient to suffer and even die and blame the patient.

Certainly the paternalistic and coercive nature of this is a huge issue here, but even if someone believes that weight loss is an appropriate substitute for care or accommodation, there would be some questions they would need to answer around both the denial and delay of care."

#MaskUp #WearAMask #CovidRealist #CovidIsAirbone #LongCovid #YallMasking #DisabledLiberation #DisabilityJustice

WHY PROGRESSIVES AND LEFTISTS NEEDED TO WEAR A MASK SINCE YESTERDAY
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bl0DsT8khogQ_TOOYjBlor8TBj7N6A72dDwL2sLQRzs/edit?tab=t.0

I can now say, year four into the C19 pandemic, that I’ve had enough conversations with supposed progressives and revolutionaries about the importance of masking. Person after person, always the same talking points, always the same polite concern followed with dismissal and apathy. I am one of many who are tired of people not being honest with themselves and not committing to their claimed values. These conversations have become so repetitive, so artificial that I resort to typing my own automatic response to common talking points rather than wasting my time doing one-on-one. It should concern all anti-capitalists that, when confronted about masking and accessibility, visibly fall back on the same replies as right-wingers. While the latter may sound more crude and unapologetic, the premises are identical.

It is crucial to self-reflect on one’s own actions and whether they align with one’s values, because so many have tolerated cognitive dissonances and let them translate into material harm. Some have chosen it knowingly, which begs the question of how serious an individual is about the human rights and liberation of all peoples.

1. But we are social creatures, we have to see each other’s faces. Many essential settings don’t carry a social cost to wearing a mask, namely places like malls, grocery shops, public transit, pharmacies, movie theaters, concerts, conferences and clinics. A vast majority of activities can be carried out with a mask across the face. It makes sense to become a link in the chain to block transmission wherever possible, to protect the wellbeing of performers and workers. Any human being is vulnerable to Covid-19, some are simply more vulnerable, but this virus and its long-term effects don’t discriminate.

#MaskUp #WearAMask #CovidRealist #CovidIsAirbone #LongCovid #YallMasking #DisabledLiberation #DisabilityJustice

.