Quote:
Originally Posted by kaplods
Assuming obesity is a choice (which I do not). How do we determine how much of a disability is caused or contributed to by "choice?" If a person with disabling liver disease aquired it from alcohol use or sexual contact (choices), are they not "worthy" of assistance either. What about lung cancer patients who continue to smoke? Various cancers have been attributed to life choices, do we only assist those who can prove they did not contribute to their own illness, or can prove they are now engaging only in behaviors that are optimally healthy?
I feel like obesity is just as much a choice as smoking and alcoholism. People aren't "born" fat, they either learn to get that way, they're taught bad habits, or they pick them up along the way. Then there are those that may have a higher sensitivity towards becoming obese, due to medications or genes, or whatever. Just like some may have a higher sensitivity towards becoming addicted to alcohol.
Should we assist them? Yes. Should we
continue assisting them (ie the cancer patients who continue to smoke)? IMO, if they're offered help in stopping smoking, and their cancer is treated, yet they refuse to even try, don't want the help with smoking, blow it off, then no. I think we should stop the assistance when someone is bent on destruction.
And in all such cases, I still don't think we should order businesses to cater to any of them. Businesses who can and will profit from it, will. Those who can't, can't. Whether we order it or not. They'll go out of business first. And that helps no one.