WLS as an inalienable right

Under the umbrella of "the pursuit of happiness,"  do you think that wls is an inalienable right?  If a person thinks that wls will make them happy, but experts say it won't, does that person have a right to it anyway under pursuit of happiness guidelines.  What do ya'll think?  Chris brought this up in another thread, "Thoughts to Ponder"  I thought since he brought it up, it should be at the top of the page for a while longer so more people can respond without wearing out the scroll button getting down to the end of the thread. No, I am not trying to stir up trouble, just discussion.  I think hearing lots of differing opinions is interesting.

For the sake of simplicity I have reposted my pondering thoughts post: "I don't think we can ever truely be completely happy, no matter what we do.  I do agree that losing the weight won't make you happy but I don't think that people who are wanting to have WLS to make themselves happy should be denied.  To deny them that would be denying them their right to the pursuit of happiness.  Frankly, it's none of our business why people decide to have WLS. If they come to us and ask our advice then give it freely, otherwise leave them alone. We know all too well how pig-headed and stubborn we can be about our own "plans" , what works, what we should do and shouldn't do. Telling a fat person not to have WLS because it won't fix their problems is counter-productive. They're going to go and do it just to prove you wrong because they know what's best for them and you don't know jack. Sometimes people just have to figure things out on their on. I suppose it is our duty to point them in the direction of truth through personal experience but to boldy say they cannot have surgery or they should not lose weight to make themselves happy is unjust.  I'll tell ya what when I was 240lbs I was the happiest I had ever been in my entire life. Do I attribute that to my weight-loss?? You bet your ass I do. Do I think losing the weight would have made me permanenly happy? Of course not.  My desire to lose weight is not because of health and it's not because I think it will make me happy. It's more of a combination of many things but mostly I just want to be more active, I want to fit into nice clothes, fit into booths, ride roller coasters, do activities that now I think would dislocate my knees and many other things.  Being able to do all of those things without fear and with desire would make me feel more happy about myself. And when I was 240lbs I did all those things and I was quite happy.  Now, I can't do those things. I'm not completely unhappy, no but I sure can tell a difference.  I suppose one can reach a state of being content.  Perhaps true happiness is when we quit worrying about "bad" and "evil" and start concentrating on the "good". Who knows.. I'm no philosopher that's for certain."

Thanks for reposting.  I considered doing it myself, but then it wouldn't have your picture next to it.

I'm going to approach it from another angle here, though, Chris: A lot of people think driving without a helmet feels free- and happy. But we have (in many states) helmet laws because while it might bring happiness, it also can bring brain damage-- and the cost of post-traumatic injury services-- which we ALL incur, through higher premiums and taxes. Just because a person wants  surgery doesn't mean it's a great idea for anyone who wants it.  If it *only* affected the patient, I'd say, "Mmmkay---it's your right to be stupid if you think it's best", but it doesn't. Unnecessary, ill-conceived, botched and poorly maintained surgery of any type has huge costs--financial and otherwise--for all of us. Beyond that-- I think that the medical truism,"Primum non nocere" ("First, do no harm") is an important one. Rerouting a functional system needlessly could be potentially *very* harmful. There are rarely absolutes in life. I believe that these surgeries are not right  for everyone, nor are they wrong for everyone. Any WLS is a serious and life-altering procedure that cannot be taken lightly. Because of this, I believe that your "suitability" for the surgery should be decided by you-- a very EDUCATED you-- and every medical, nutritional, psychological and ethical professional you can get your hands on. As for reaching the "state of content"-- that's critical-- but you need to understand that it slides. At 340 pounds, I felt terrific. At 368 pounds, I wanted to die. I had reached the state of content, only to find it slid out from under me as my pain and immobility increased. I do agree that there's no need to demonize people who chose either path, as long as they do so ine a manner that is thoughtful, wise, and prudent. I wish I could say that most people at OH are all of the above, but we've all seen otherwise. The best we can do is to help others to think, and therefore help themselves.

My comments were only about a person being denied of having WLS because they desire it to make themselves "happy".  My point is that the true underlying reason a person wants to have WLS is irrelevant.  If the person is educated, fully knows the risks, is mentally and physically capable of enduring the process then they should not be denied.   As far as if it WLS should be an inalienable right,I'm not so sure it should; but  a person should not be denied soley on the basis of their desire to seek happiness through weight-loss via WLS.   I believe we both agree on this. I disagree on the motorcycle helmet issue though.  Going to statistics, like we do for weight-loss, wearing a helmet does not significantly increase your chance for surviving a motorcycle accident. In all of the motorcycle fatalities in 1998 more than half of them were wearing a helmet. The NHSTA estimates that helmets reduce the likelihood of a crash fatality by only 37%. That's about par with WLS regain isn't it??  Also to say that our insurance rates increase because of bikers not wearing helmets is unfounded. My motorcycle insurance is separate from my auto policies. Additionally my motorcycle policy is MUCH cheaper than my auto and my bike is worth more than 2 my autos.  Liability on my 1996 S10 alone is more than $1800 a year and my  2005 Harley runs me a little over $1000. 

In 1998, 46% of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were not wearing helmets at the time of the crash.

NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a fatality by 37% in a crash. 

Furthermore, the NHTSA does regular studies on motorcycle accidents and makes their results readily available. Many firms have done significant regression analysis on this data.  http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/goldstein/goldstein.h tml 1. Helmets are shown to have no statistically significant effect on the probability of a fatality given that a motorcycle accident has occurred. This means that based on standard statistical tests we cannot reject the claim that helmets do not affect the probability that a rider will survive a motorcycle accident.

2. The major determinants of fatality are the rider's crash speed (kinetic energy) and blood alcohol level.

Sorry, I couldn't resist on the motorcycle issue, being an avid rider myself. :) I wear a helmet because it is state law. However, my helmet is not DOT approved.  That's a whole other topic and set of statistics that I'd rather not get into. South Carolina does not have a helmet law.  I would most likely still wear my helmet there because I am not one to take that much of a risk.  Non DOT aproved helmet, sure, no helmet.... probably not... I never have understood that whole medical truism thing.  I mean *****ally decides what "harm" is??  If you cut into my chest to remove a growth does that not harm my skin and my organs? Do you think that you would have remained content at 340 lbs?  Of course a weight increase with loss of mobility and increase in pain will cause your quality of life to fluctuate.

Hi B! The short answer is no, surgery of any kind is not an inalienable right. Yes, we should be allowed by law to "pursue happiness".  No surgeon in his/her right mind would take on a bad risk for wls! Therefore, no surgeon is "required" by the Bill of Rights to perform a wls.  Even think of plastic surgery.  Ever seen that one guy who found some surgeon to reconstruct his face like a lion's? I mean, more power to him and the surgeon to agree to do this, cuz it made the guy happy. The surgeon probably made the guy say, no amount of infection or death resulting from this will cause me to sue you!   Gotta love America...I prefer to think that no reputable surgeon would do just any dumass who only wanted it for ****s and giggles.

about the ****s and giggles.  And I hope you're right.   This is just my opinion, but it seems that wls is becoming so much more common that perhaps some not-quite-as-reputable surgeons would do self-pays whether or not the patient was truly aware of all the ramifications of his or her decision.   BTW it's good to see you back, Neecee.  Sounds like your weekend was busy, yet pleasant.  It was very quiet in here over the weekend, but the Main board was rather interesting with bannings and all.

I agree, it should not be an inalienable right. I can only imagine the ramifications from that. But then again, it would help with the survival of the fittest and weed out all the wackos in this world!   So do you agree that the belief that being "thin" brings happiness should not be used as a deciding factor in the approval of WLS? Who are we to say a person cannot achieve happiness from being a twig?? "I prefer to think that no reputable surgeon would do just any dumass who only wanted it for ****s and giggles." Wow that statement sure can be taken the wrong way!