India is far poorer and have levels of poverty most westerners cannot imagine - yet they do not have a major obesity problem (though many middle class are obese) The US has higher rates of obesity and yet are more wealthy than the UK. It’s time responsibility was passed back onto the individual and that they took responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Obesity does not just rest with the poor.
Towards the end I decided to cut back - over eating was my choice and my responsibility- no one else’s - not the hotel’s, not the restaurants, not the governments, and certainly not my relative wealth.Īnd remember, there are large numbers of obese middle class and wealthy people in the UK - far more than in the 1950s. No one pressured me into eating / drinking anything. I had puddings that I didn’t have at home. I chose where to eat and what to eat and felt full all the time. I was not in poverty, I chose for the first few months to have a cooked breakfast every morning. I was put up in a hotel with breakfast and ate out at restaurants each evening. In my personal experience, last year I worked away from home for 3 months. Now whereas unacceptable levels of poverty do exist, and there are structural issues in the UK that have remained unresolved for the last 2.5 decades, and income can have an impact on obesity, in the vast majority of cases, avoiding it is down to the individual (or parents) behaviour. The statistics reported that poverty went down! This was conveniently overlooked by those campaigning against “poverty”. So despite someone becoming more wealthy, depending on economic circumstances, they could still become classed as moving into poverty! In fact, during the financial crisis in 2008, whilst hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs. What is referred to as “poverty” in reported statistics is actually relative poverty, that is income relative to the average person’s income. You mention “poverty” but I think we can all accept that the vast majority of the population are much better off than the 50s. So what has changed? Certainly social attitudes and a general feeling that if anything is wrong - it’s someone else’s fault, usually the government. We are no longer in the 1950s and yes we do have a growing problem with obesity but we are no longer anywhere near as poor. I must emphasise it’s the structure and not the staff (though junior doctors have done themselves no favours over the last few decades) that needs changing - I personally have rarely had anything but excellent service from all the staff. We should look at the structure adopted by other countries that we consider offer a better service than our NHS. Unfortunately it is now a political football and we need a non-partisan National discussion about what to replace it with. Just throwing more money at the problem is not the long term answer. Even the Labour shadow health secretary is beginning to accept this. It’s becoming more and more obvious that it’s the structure that is not fit for purpose. In real terms it’s cost now is 10x what it was in the 50s. Initially it cost 3.5% of GDP, it’s now in the region of 7%. When initially set up, the NHS cost was justified on the basis it would save more than it would cost in the medium term. I can only give my account of how it was and today I feel gratitude. I can only today feel grateful that I am here today to write this account and my son is alive. The NHS gets very bad press and people have a right to feel angry if they are in misery with pain and are afraid. Yes we were lucky when I read the awful accounts of people waiting in corridors and the awful time they have being attended to today. Yes there were down sides -I noticed like certain lavatories were out of use longer than they should have been as I had a very dodgy stomach post op. I was astonished by the attention he was given.
He was admitted to a special unit where he literally had one to one treatment. It turned out he had severe sepsis and was nearly dying. In the same year my son had to drive himself to the same hospital in a delirious state because the ambulances were busy. Eventually after finding nothing they gave me blood transfusions and in the end was able to operate - I had to wait for a space for some time as it is quite a turnover. They gave me every test they could in that they screened my whole body I would say. This meant they could not operate until they had discovered the source of the the problem. It turns out as well as needing a triple bypass I had anaemia quite badly which I was unaware of. I can only say the care I was given was outstanding. OK I was 2 hours waiting in A&E when I had unusual chest pains but once I was seen I was admitted to hospital for nearly two months.