“The Notion that We Should All Look the Same is Hatred”
posted by Frank Pasquale
So argued Marilynn Wann (author of Fat?So!) in response to a recent bill introduced in the Mississippi legislature to ban the obese from being served in “any food establishment that is required to obtain a permit from the State Department of Health . . . that 12 operates primarily in an enclosed facility and that has five (5) or more seats for customers.” Wann believed that Miss. House Bill 282 would amount to size discrimination.
I find the bill bizarre–less a constructive solution than an effort to stigmatize. Kelly Hills offers some measured commentary on the anti-obesity push generally:
[Some of the obese] are comfortable with their weight, and don’t appreciate being “bullied” by society to adhere to an ideal they don’t believe is accurate. These folks often espouse the motto “healthy regardless of weight”, placing an emphasis on health outside of weight. After all, the reasoning goes, if someone is 65 lbs overweight, but perfectly healthy otherwise, what business is it of anyone just what that weight is? People come in all sizes, and as long as the individual is healthy, what that size is shouldn’t matter to anyone.
The anti-obesity movement has to be predicated on a “duty to be healthy“–and some would say that focus on the individual itself is a controversial priority of health reform, given that there is so much that can be done to change social structures that would lead to better health outcomes. As Michael Pollan has noted, changes to the farm bill could probably do more to improve America’s eating habits than individual stigmatization. The context of food choices–not cultivation of willpower–is key.
Hat Tip: Medical Humanities Blog.
February 11, 2008 at 10:13 am
Posted in: Bioethics, Health Law
Print This Post
Responses (4)
Howard Wasserman - February 11, 2008 at 12:13 pm
This seems underinclusive to the point of being irrational. Obesity is only one manifestation of poor health and only one indicator that someone is in poor health; it is not the only one. So an obese person (and how is that defined) cannot order the 72-oz steak, but a thin guy with high blood pressure, a stressful job, and a family history of heart disease can.
Frank - February 11, 2008 at 12:36 pm
There have been some interesting “irrational basis” test cases in the South lately. I think the Institute for Justice launched a challenge to Louisiana’s florist-training requirement. The state board actually defended it on the grounds that a badly tied bouquet could ruin a wedding! see
http://www.reason.com/news/show/35591.html
Daniel S. Goldberg - February 11, 2008 at 2:29 pm
“some would say that focus on the individual itself is a controversial priority of health reform, given that there is so much that can be done to change social structures that would lead to better health outcomes.”
Some, indeed!
“The context of food choices–not cultivation of willpower–is key.”
And in that you have neatly summed up the entire problem with so-called health promotion in general. We’d be better off practicing social medicine. Much better off, in fact.
Hazard - February 12, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Louisiana – the home of that famous rat. basis case, Kotch and the Board of River Port Pilot Commissioners, 330 U.S. 552 (1947). Oh for the days of the Kingfish.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/330/552/case.html
Leave a Reply