3 ms·
Quite an absurd story. I'm amazed at the lengths the NHS will go, without assessing if their actions are causing more harm than good to the patient.
by dingo_bat 10y ago
Quite an absurd story. I'm amazed at the lengths the NHS will go, without assessing if their actions are causing more harm than good to the patient.
- donquichotte 10y agoI don't quite understand why this is being downvoted so much. The man appears to have had an addiction problem, maybe a treatment similar to the ones used to treat opioid addicts might have been more useful than building a house for him and giving him access to unlimited amounts of food.
- aaron695 10y agoCompassionate countries give people access to their drug of choice and a safe place to use it while encouraging them to quit. > and giving him access to unlimited amounts of food. I've seen no evidence of this anyway. This seems made up? Was he not just spending his pension (that many people get) in a totally legal way?
- nerdponx 10y agoI have experienced food addiction. It does not work like that.
- aaron695 10y ago> maybe a treatment similar to the ones used to treat opioid addicts This would have made it illegal for over consumption of food, illegal for supplying to much and eventually arrest if you did not comply. You would have been offered treatment, but like opioid abuse it would be far from perfect. I'm not sure it's a better world this way.
- scrollaway 10y agoHow about this paragraph then? > After turning him down several times for gastric bypass, the government eventually decided that paying for it might ultimately be cheaper than covering his existing expenses. It's messed up that someone like him was ever turned down. I want to see the circumstances and reasoning behind that.
- aaron695 10y agoI think the article mentions this. 50% chance of dying.
- test1235 10y ago> without assessing if their actions are causing more harm than good to the patient That's a baseless assumption.