UK's fattest man plans to sue NHS

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**filbert**

Interesting one this. I have seen a bunch of TV trailers advertising a programme about this guy and to be honest have been fairly repelled both by his obesity but also by his loath-able self pity. Anyway, story follows:

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/221734/Britain-s-fattest-man-blames-the-NHS-for-his-obesity/

Daily Express wrote:
BRITAIN'S fattest man, who once weighed 70 stone, is planning to sue the NHS for his weight gain, it was revealed today.
Paul Mason, 50, received life-saving gastric surgery in 2009 which reduced his weight to a comparatively small 37 stone but he claims he was not given the right medical advice before it became to late.
The former postman, who consumed 20,000 calories a day, eight times as much as the average man, said he sought help from his GP after ballooning to 30 stone.
But instead of receiving help to manage his weight, he said he was told in 1996 to: 'Ride your bike more'.
His care, which cost UK taxpayers an estimated £100,000 a year and topped £1million in 2009 included a specially made reinforced ambulance to carry Mr Mason to hospital.
Mr Mason also adds that he was sent to a dietician, rather than the eating disorders specialist he had asked to see, after his weight hit 64 stone.
He told a tabloid newspaper: "I want to set a precedent so no one else has to get to the same size - and to put something back into society."
An NHS spokesman said of the purported lawsuit: "As we have not heard from Mr Mason, it would be inappropriate to speculate."
At the time of Mr Mason's operation, Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said such patients should contribute to the cost of their surgery.
He said: “Sad though it is, this is clearly unfair to other NHS users, who will bear the brunt of subsequent cuts.
“Why should some people who have done their best to stay healthy miss out on life-saving drugs when others get huge amounts spent on them?”

I guess it is yet another example of the creeping blame culture in this country. Why bother to take responsibility for your own actions when it is easier and more profitable to blame it on someone else?

**SilverMK2**

Because a lawsuit for personal gain is "putting something back" into society

I watched part of the program with the wife but had to switch channels after his constant bawling and blubbing.

If he wants to help people from getting fat, go burn down fast food outlets and takeaways...

**MeanGreenStompa**

Shoot the bastard and rend him into fertiliser for 3rd world crops.

**FITZZ**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Shoot the bastard and rend him into fertiliser for 3rd world crops.

Ninja'd...but yes,agreed MGS.

**Medium of Death**

The gluttonous ball of gak should be left to take care of himself.

Why should people have to pay for this feth-up?

Rage. Oh sweet holy rage.

**filbert**

I have to confess a certain amount of surprise at the amount of money spent on caring for this guy, all the more shocking when one considers that NICE make life and death decisions constantly over cancer drugs that could prolong people's lives yet here there is a guy draining the NHS of hundreds of thousands of pounds, not through illness but through his own gluttony and inaction.

I don't suppose this is an isolated case either. The NHS really should have a policy on withdrawing care in certain circumstances too, I feel. No use chucking good money after bad because then everyone loses out.

**The Dreadnote**

Also:

But instead of receiving help to manage his weight, he said he was told in 1996 to: 'Ride your bike more'.

Give that doctor a high-five.

**AndrewC**

I'm sorry, but everyone has the right to help and assistance, no matter what.

Having said that, how the hell did he allow himself to reach such a size? It should be the first question asked, "Did someone force you to eat this food?", well go and sue them, not the NHS.

Cheers

Andrew

**Medium of Death**

The problem is good sir filbert, that nobody would want to stick their name next to the 'Let Fatty Die' law...

AndrewC wrote:I'm sorry, but everyone has the right to help and assistance, no matter what.

Right, so this fat mess is draining resources away from others, somehow deserving more care than them?

He is essentially terminally ill. In the sense that, without medical assistance, he will die.

So be it.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Shoot the bastard and rend him into fertiliser for 3rd world crops.

Now, now. Bullets cost money. A syringe full of air into his veins should do the job.

**filbert**

AndrewC wrote:I'm sorry, but everyone has the right to help and assistance, no matter what.

Why? He reached this weight of his own volition, nothing more. And this was after he had already had gastric band treatment. At what point do you stop and say that you have to help yourself just as much as help the NHS.

AndrewC wrote:Having said that, how the hell did he allow himself to reach such a size? It should be the first question asked, "Did someone force you to eat this food?", well go and sue them, not the NHS.

Cheers

Andrew

Because if that were the case, he would be suing himself. This is the point I am trying to make - this is self inflicted. Of course, he should be given some support and treatment but why should this guy become a literal and metaphorical black hole to chuck money into especially when it comes at the cost of other people's treatments?

**SilverMK2**

filbert wrote:Why? He reached this weight of his own volition, nothing more. And this was after he had already had gastric band treatment.

He actually got to 60+ stone before his gastric band treatment. After the treatment and at least one surgery to chop a bulge off his leg so he could stand, he lost weight to get down to 37 stone.

One thing that really annoyed me was that when he had the surgery, he found out that his health assistance benefits (or whatever they are called) were being cut so he could not have his carer with him all day and he threw a massive hissy fit and threw stuff around (from his hospital bed) and started crying (for about the 300th time during the show).

**AndrewC**

Medium of Death wrote:Right, so this fat mess is draining resources away from others, somehow deserving more care than them?

As opposed to your "It's his fault so

him!"

He is essentially terminally ill. In the sense that, without medical assistance, he will die.

So be it.

Right, so does that mean cancer victims, being terminally ill should be sent home and free up beds?

filbert wrote:Because if that were the case, he would be suing himself. This is the point I am trying to make - this is self inflicted. Of course, he should be given some support and treatment but why should this guy become a literal and metaphorical black hole to chuck money into especially when it comes at the cost of other people's treatments?

Exactly, the only person he has to blame is himself, if he doesn't want to make himself better then that's his lookout. But that does not allow anyone the right to withdraw help.

Cheers

Andrew

**filbert**

SilverMK2 wrote:
filbert wrote:Why? He reached this weight of his own volition, nothing more. And this was after he had already had gastric band treatment.

He actually got to 60+ stone before his gastric band treatment. After the treatment and at least one surgery to chop a bulge off his leg so he could stand, he lost weight to get down to 37 stone.

I stand corrected but the point still stands that he has squandered the opportunity of treatment given to him. Its akin to a cancer patient being given chemo and then starting smoking again after the treatment is finished.

Andrew C wrote:Exactly, the only person he has to blame is himself, if he doesn't want to make himself better then that's his lookout. But that does not allow anyone the right to withdraw help.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree there.

**Fifty**

Doctors are there to help with medical conditions, not lifestyle choices. Let the man eat himself to death if he likes.

**Medium of Death**

AndrewC wrote:

Right, so does that mean cancer victims, being terminally ill should be sent home and free up beds?

I'm talking about somebody who has inflicted this upon themselves, through greed. Why should so much be spent on somebody like this?

Your cancer patient statement is clearly just BS because you have nothing else to say.

**BrookM**

Wasn't this the guy who WANTED to be the fattest blob in the UK? I'd say hire a crane and hoist him back to the sea.

**filbert**

BrookM wrote:Wasn't this the guy who WANTED to be the fattest blob in the UK? I'd say hire a crane and hoist him back to the sea.

Don't think so. There was an article in the paper recently about a woman who was deliberately eating to become fat and break the record (US's fattest woman? I can't remember exactly) but not this guy.

**Gibbsey**

Thats no moon....

Anyway, so this guy get help from the NHS which is supported by taxpayer money and drains resources from the system then decided to sue NHS which costs more tax payer money....

**MeanGreenStompa**

His suing of the state, after it's attempts to help his sorry and inconceivably large ass, is a measure of the worth this creature offers as a citizen of the nation.

I therefore reiterate my previous statement.

Throw the fat fether into the streets and reclaim all possessions in order to try and claw back some of the wasted money. Perhaps that will burn off some of his fat reserves...

**AndrewC**

Medium of Death wrote:I'm talking about somebody who has inflicted this upon themselves, through greed. Why should so much be spent on somebody like this?

Your cancer patient statement is clearly just BS because you have nothing else to say.

Unlike your calm reasoned response?

So lets tell all the abulance crews to avoid Sauchihall Street or Rose Street on a weekend then. Or all the lung cancer patients. "Smoker?, sorry self inflicted just go home."

Andrew

**Medium of Death**

AndrewC wrote:So lets tell all the abulance crews to avoid Sauchihall Street or Rose Street on a weekend then.

I'm OK with this.

In other news, Sauchiehall: Socky-Hall, Sucky-Hall or Sou-Chy-Hall? You Decide...

Fun Facts about that odd named street

**Gibbsey**

AndrewC wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:I'm talking about somebody who has inflicted this upon themselves, through greed. Why should so much be spent on somebody like this?

Your cancer patient statement is clearly just BS because you have nothing else to say.

Unlike your calm reasoned response?

So lets tell all the abulance crews to avoid Sauchihall Street or Rose Street on a weekend then. Or all the lung cancer patients. "Smoker?, sorry self inflicted just go home."

Andrew

Hey guess what if you drink constantly and have ruined your liver chances are your not going to get a doner unless you stop drinking, this is clearly someone who has abused the system and see's it as a right that he should be able to drain resources from the system.

**AndrewC**

Gibbsey wrote:Hey guess what if you drink constantly and have ruined your liver chances are your not going to get a doner unless you stop drinking, this is clearly someone who has abused the system and see's it as a right that he should be able to drain resources from the system.

And yet, despite not getting a replacement liver they will still get medical treatment for the other conditions arising from that organ failure. Which is not what some are proposing.

Andrew

**Gibbsey**

AndrewC wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:Hey guess what if you drink constantly and have ruined your liver chances are your not going to get a doner unless you stop drinking, this is clearly someone who has abused the system and see's it as a right that he should be able to drain resources from the system.

And yet, despite not getting a replacement liver they will still get medical treatment for the other conditions arising from that organ failure. Which is not what some are proposing.

Andrew

Soylent Green?

**AndrewC**

It would feed a fair few families.....

Cheers

Andrew

PS. I have no sympathy for this individual what so ever. The condition is completely self inflicted and as so he has to take responsibility for his actions. I as a tax payer do not want my cash going to make his life any easier, nor do I think he should be receiving any additional benefits to meet his own failings. However, it is a National Health Service, anyone should have access to it.

Cheers

Andrew

**filbert**

AndrewC wrote:However, it is a National Health Service, anyone should have access to it.

Because it isn't an infinite source of funds, time, material and personnel to waste trying to help people who can't be bothered to help themselves.

In the same way that not every new-fangled drug can be prescribed to everyone - tough decisions have to be taken on a daily basis. How is this any different? I would be pretty cheesed off if I was a cancer sufferer and had been told that my local NHS authority would not fund a new life saving drug and then reading about the funding wasted on this slug.

**Melissia**

filbert wrote:The former postman, who consumed 20,000 calories a day

Here's some medical advice for ya, courtesy of a Jim Carrey from Liar Liar style doctor: "STOP EATING SO MUCH FATASS!"

**mattyrm**

MGS, the more you post, the more you sound like a Tory. I'm glad too see you are resisting your programming!

I don't think you should be able to sue the NHS. You should have to sign a disclaimer before any treatment. If you don't like it, feth off and go private.

But yeah, shoot the fat waster.

**AndrewC**

filbert wrote:Because it isn't an infinite source of funds, time, material and personnel to waste trying to help people who can't be bothered to help themselves.

In the same way that not every new-fangled drug can be prescribed to everyone - tough decisions have to be taken on a daily basis. How is this any different? I would be pretty cheesed off if I was a cancer sufferer and had been told that my local NHS authority would not fund a new life saving drug and then reading about the funding wasted on this slug.

But that individual is still able to get pallative(?) care. The trend being exhibited here is the proposal that this idividual not be allowed access to a doctor at all.

Andrew

**filbert**

AndrewC wrote:The trend being exhibited here is the proposal that this idividual not be allowed access to a doctor at all.

Andrew

That's not what I suggested or inferred. All I am saying is that there should be a cut off point when it is clear that the guy is not helping himself in addition to the treatment.

As I said, chucking good money after bad.

Some may advocate that he shouldn't receive any care from the word go because his obesity is self-inflicted. The problem with that is where do you draw the line? Technically, a smoker who contracts cancer is self inflicted given the overwhelming evidence that smoking is bad but I think it would take a cold hearted individual to turn a cancer patient away from hospital because 'cigarettes are bad and you should have known better'.

The example given by this guy is not that he is obese (which is bad for a start) but rather that he continues to not help his situation and to ignore advice and help given, instead choosing to blame others and wallow in self pity for his condition.