More unpopular opnions

Dammit Trixylou posted at the same time?

People who insist on wearing backpacks should be banned from public transport.

Well said

So it's not just me then!!

Pandora bracelets are awful

Ugg boots should be illegal

You should not be allowed any benefits if you are able to work but have never worked.

Cheese is horrid

Get out.

Jodie Marsh is not a role model.

Spending £1000 on a holiday abroad so you can sunbathe for a week is stupid & moronic.

I don't care what L'Oreal says, not everyone is worth it.

Rt

Is that really an unpopular opinion??

And some more...

Dip dyed hair is not cool. You look like you fell in a pot of tar.

Victoria Beckham needs to eat a Dominos pizza.

If you've ever seen "Snog, Marry, Avoid" EVERYONE on there says she is their role model.

I thought that was just a game people played didn't realise it was a tv programme☹️

I saw a talk this week which outlined the case for gastric banding as a feasible treatment for obesity. Type 2 diabetes is set to cripple the NHS and addressing the problem earlier to prevent onset is vastly cheaper than supporting someone through various medical and social treatments, once diabetes develops.

However, society doesn't usually accept decisions or policies based solely on cost benefits. We wouldn't accept routine gastric banding for obese patients because, at some level, society thinks people shouldn't get an "easy option", they should have to work to achieve results. Why should taxpayer money be used to help someone who has spent forty years eating McDonalds?

Ages ago, I posted a thread discussing how the economic burden of homelessness might be helped by giving free apartments to homeless people. Pilot schemes in the US have shown this to be far cheaper to the taxpayer than providing ongoing transient support for the long-term homeless. But can you imagine a society that sanctions the giving away of housing to homeless people? When working members of that society can't afford to buy their own house?

People would rather be poorer in order to ensure what they perceive as a "fairer" society.

Anyway, regarding obesity...here's an unpopular opinion:

If being obese is not simply lack of education about food choices, if it is indeed a mental health issue, then it should be considered as a mental health issue that renders the sufferer a serious risk to their own health. And they should be sectioned.

I meant gastric bands and diabetes in one lump compared to counselling in another lump.

And on the being sectioned front I've known people that have committed suicide (and failed) and not been sectioned. In fact I've known quite a few to be patched up and sent straight back out again so I doubt they would section them until they were a risk to other people and on that basis there are thousands that should be sectioned due to alcoholism first I'd imagine.

A lot of people think people should be sectiond due to alcoholism but no doctor would agree to that.

Well then, they haven't committed suicide, have they? (if a winky face is not entirely inappropriate in this conversation).

You will only be sectioned if the psych assessment demonstrates a continuing and real risk of suicide*. A girl who takes ten paracetamol after a break-up with her boyfriend is, in the absence of any other factors, unlikely to be considered an ongoing risk.

*and given that psychiatrists are notorious in the medical community for their unwillingness to come in on call, especially when they are having dinner at a nice restaurant, or have just arrived at the cinema, or even just bored at home (tries to wind up our resident psychiatrist...), the wait for formal assessment can be long, during which time, the patient may have recovered their senses or simply self-discharged.

People who demonstrate a mental incapacity so extreme that they literally eat themselves to death in a tortuous manner - apparently with no choice in the matter, they are unable to help themselves - are clearly so ill that they need sectioning. Compulsive and uncontrollable behaviour that causes harm should be dealt with by physically preventing the person from being able to cause themselves harm**

** this doesn't actually represent my view. I couldn't care less if someone wants to seriously harm themselves, as long as it doesn't affect me. Which obesity does (to a greater extent than alcoholism) because it eats up (ha!) so much public money.

Sectioning generally only occurs when there is an immediate and serious risk to life. Therefore, you couldn't section someone because of obesity or alocholism, on the basis that they are killing themselves in the long-term...

Ha ha I wish this were the case! My on-calls are horrendous. You are right though that the majority of patients, are the somewhat 'pathetic' attempts at 'suicide'.

But then if we stepped in with counselling before they get to that stage saves money, time, effort.

Actually this steps into my other unpopular idea that we need to entirely re-organise the education system, so many children are being let down by society and are growing up with low self esteem and turn to food as one of the few things they can control to empower themselves.

My next unpopular one - prisons should be for rehabiliation not punishment.

Zebra crossings should be abolished. They are the most annoying things ever!

Whereas pelicans are acceptable??

So on that basis you think everyone suffering from depression should be sectioned too? Taking things to an extreme don't you think?

You said people should be sectioned for being obese, not those 'who literally eat themselves to death in a torturous manner'. There is a big difference.

Nope. Depression can sometimes be treated using medication - that should be the first port of call. If someone's depression becomes so serious that they present as a serious risk of self-harm, then sectioning might be considered.

And yes, of course I'm taking things to the extreme. As I've already said, that's the point of the thread - to put forward provocative and amusingly unpopular opinions.

If someone is going to argue that obesity is a compulsive behaviour, the result of a mental health issue, and one which cannot be "cured" by education or help to make good choices, and one which causes the sufferer to have painful and long-term health issues and tragically early deaths, at significant cost to society, then I think it's reasonable to argue that said person should be prevented from this means of self-harm.

God bless you all.

Define it. I wasn't intending to underline a difference. In one post, I used a medical term. In another post, I used considerable artistic license to entreat others to get on side with me, by using exaggerated and deliberately blunt descriptions.

People who are obese are eating themselves to death.

Nicely done!

I couldn't even tell you the amount of teenagers I've looked after who took a few paracetamol because they had an arguement with their Mum or fell out with their boyfriend. Sigh...

I don't think they needed sectioning, although the shock might stop them from doing something so stupid again.

Actually, yeah! Pelican crossings you actually have to wait for the light to cross the road. On zebra crossings, most people just walk out without a second thought. Sometimes, people don't even look!

This is exactly it. How do you determine who to section?

I used to be obese. My BMI was around the 32 mark. And it definitely was because I was eating too much junk and not doing enough exercise. Now I'm healthy, and it's because I changed my eating habits and exercised more.

I guess the way to determine whether someone should be sectioned (if we were to actually take Footlong's suggestion seriously) would be not so much about how much they weigh, but rather whether they've tried to do anything about it.

I still, 100% believe, that if you want to - and I mean really want to - get healthy, you can do it.

People assume they can lose weight without changing their habits, and that's where the problem lies.

Anyway...

Then not unpopular and not allowed?

But people have the right of way on zebra crossings - the driver is supposed to be looking out for them. I was always taught to slow down ready to stop if someone even looked like they were approaching the crossing.

Why do you think I'm not being serious?

The way I see it, either:

1. Obesity is a choice. You know what you're doing to your body and you choose to allow that to happen. If you choose such, that's entirely up to you. But you cannot claim that "you can't help it" and you should be prepared for people to question, criticise or judge your choice.

2. Obesity is not a choice. You simply cannot help yourself. Maybe you know you don't want to overeat but you are apparently incapable of making appropriate choices for your own health. You have essentially become a danger to yourself and people who are a danger to themselves need to be protected from inflicting further damage.

If, as a society and as acceptable medical practice, can physically force an anorexic person to eat, why can't we force an obese person to not eat (or rather, eat less)?