Posts Tagged ‘Obesity Discrimination’

Makers of the LAP-BAND launch the C.H.O.I.C.E. campaign

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

Chart_DiagramAlthough obesity is a widespread epidemic, many misconceptions still exist about its causes and solutions. To help spread the word, open a dialogue for change and influence policy makers, Allergan, Inc., the makers of the LAP-BAND® Adjustable Gastric Banding System, recently launched the C.H.O.I.CE campaign.

The C.H.O.I.C.E. (Choosing Health over Obesity Inspiring Change through Empowerment) Campaign is an educational initiative designed to provide a platform for consumers, healthcare professionals and Congress to work together to address the obesity epidemic through a dual focus on prevention and treatment, to reduce the prevalence of obesity and ultimately help                                                                        the obese regain their health and their lives.

The C.H.O.I.C.E. campaign is built on three tenants:

  • Obesity is a disease, NOT a choice. People need to understand that being significantly overweight (e.g., 100 pounds or more overweight) is not a choice resulting from lack of will power or laziness. Those struggling with their weight have often spent years dieting and exercising without long-term success. Too often, people misperceive obesity as a personal choice resulting from bad lifestyle and eating habits. But, medical research now indicates obesity has more to do with science and the biology of fat, rather than lack of will power or discipline. The C.H.O.I.C.E. Campaign provides education and facts to address the stigma associated with obesity, an important step in the prevention and treatment of the disease.
  • People who are 100 pounds or more overweight do have a choice. There is growing medical evidence to support that, for people who are more than 100 pounds overweight, weight-loss surgery is more effective than traditional dieting and exercise alone. Anyone who is more than 100 pounds overweight deserves to know they do have a choice.
  • America has a choice when it comes to costs associated with obesity. The annual cost of overweight and obesity in America is now projected at $147 billion per year, and is only expected to increase. Prevention policies alone are not enough to address the growing U.S. obesity epidemic. Tackling the obesity epidemic requires a commitment to both prevention and treatment and will only happen with the help of consumers, healthcare professionals and Congress.

If you’re interested learning more about the C.H.O.I.C.E. Campaign or signing the online petition to congress you can visit www.mychoicecampaign.com. You can also find the campaign on Facebook.

The Surgical Specialists of Louisiana are committed to fighting the obesity epidemic by helping our patients achieve a healthy lifestyle and a healthy weight. Whether you are interested in weight loss surgery or medically supervised weight loss counseling, we can help you take control of your eating and your weight. Join us for a free seminar or take a weight loss quiz to help you get started.

Obesity Action Coalition Issues Airline Policy Statement

Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

The Surgical Specialists of Louisiana would like to take the opportunity to share the recent issue of the Obesity Action Coalition (OAC) Airline Policy Statement.  Current airline policies often discriminate again obese patients.  Instead of perpetuating the stigma of obesity we should be supporting prevention and resolution policies.  Below is the official Statement from the OAC.

Obesity Action Coalition (OAC) Airline Policy Statement

airplane2The Obesity Action Coalition (OAC) recognizes the current standards and practices used by the United States airline industry in regards to the travel process (booking travel, purchasing of additional seat, determination of ability to fly based on size, etc.) must change. Those affected by excess weight experience an overall diminished quality of travel due to the lack of understanding, education and sensitivity to their condition. These standards and practices must change to accommodate the millions of Americans affected by excess weight who utilize the airline industry for their traveling needs on a daily basis. In order to assist the airline industry in modifying and bettering their practices, the OAC has highlighted specific problem areas needing immediate attention. We have also highlighted long term areas of interest requiring action on the part of the airline industry.

Immediate Action Needed

Purchasing of Extra Seat

Those affected by excess weight often want to save themselves the embarrassment of being “required” to purchase an extra seat and therefore, seek to purchase the extra seat online when booking their travel. Unfortunately, it is not simple to purchase another seat online for the same person. The check‐in process can often lead to even further embarrassment as security and gate agents often question the use of the same ID for two tickets.

Solution

A new user‐interface must be developed allowing those who wish to purchase a second seat to easily do so online. Ticket counter employees, gate agents, flight attendants and others must also be educated on the option for a passenger to purchase an extra seat and treat that individual with respect and sensitivity. For those who are “required” to purchase an extra seat based on airline policy, the cost of the extra seat will be reimbursed if there is at least one open seat on the plane. The open seat must be a seat not used by a paying customer. If the airline should choose to use that seat for a non‐paying customer, such as a flight crewperson, the passenger still needs to be reimbursed their fare for the extra seat as the available seat is now occupied by a nonpaying customer.

Assessment of Ability to Fly due to Size

The current standard and practice by which a passenger is deemed able to fly or required to purchase an additional seat, due to their physical size, must change. Current practices often have the assessment of the passenger’s ability to fly taking place inside the aircraft. This approach greatly increases the negative stigma associated with excess weight and embarrasses the passenger in front of his/her peers.

Solution

The process of assessing whether an individual requires an additional seat must be held in a private room out of view of passengers, other airline agents (other than the trained official evaluating the process) or the general public. Passengers in question would be required to sit in a sample airline seat (specific to each airline) and perform the required safety measures, such as lowering the arm rest and buckling the seatbelt (with the assistance of a seatbelt extender if needed). Once completed, the passenger would then be cleared to fly or provided with a detailed explanation regarding their denial of travel or second seat purchase requirement. Once aboard the aircraft, under no circumstances should the passenger be required to once again demonstrate their ability to fit into a seat or perform any other qualification requirements other than those specified by the FAA, such as viewing the safety demonstration or verbally agreeing to assist other passengers if seated in an “exit row.”

Sensitivity Training for All Airline Employees

Travelers affected by excess weight often express horrific stories of being made to prove their ability to fit into a seat, while flight crews watched, explain tirelessly why they have two seats registered to one person and much more. Travelers affected by weight are not second‐class citizens and the treatment of them as such must immediately stop.

Solution

Sensitivity training is a must for the airline industry. Along with the above mentioned issues, sensitivity training is crucial in building a more accepting environment for passengers of size. Unfortunately, weight stigma is one of the last acceptable forms of discrimination in the United States. As the diversity of customers for the airline industry is immeasurable, the airline industry must ensure that it is serving each customer, regardless of size, with respect, dignity and sensitivity. The OAC stands by ready and waiting to assist any airliner with the implementation of sensitivity training for their employees.

Long term Issues

Widening of All Airline Seats

A long term initiative that is achievable by the airline industry is the widening of all airline seats. The average airliner today uses seats that are 17” – 17.2” wide. Unfortunately, this is not aligned with the current size of the average American as millions are affected by excess weight. The much‐needed widening of airline seats is long overdue. Such widening should allow for the vast majority of Americans to travel on a single fare without the requirement of purchasing a second seat.

Solution

The widening of the all airline seats will better accommodate the general public and reduce the number of individuals, affected by excess weight, being denied travel. The airline industry has failed to appropriately assess the size of an average passenger throughout the past 25 years; leading to many passengers, even those who would be deemed “normal weight” according to a body mass index scale, feeling uncomfortable during their travels. The airline industry must adapt to a more forward‐thinking and proactive methodology in constructing their aircrafts with the needs of Americans as a first priority. Major industries, such as sporting venues, automobiles and others have made changes in their seating standards to accommodate people of all shapes and sizes – the airline industry must follow suit. In the interim, immediate inclusion of a limited number of wider seats is a shorter term solution; however, the complete overhaul of airline seating must be addressed in a timely manner as millions of Americans utilize the airline industry on a daily basis.

Reproduced with permission from Obesity Action Coalition. Please visit www.oac.org

The Surgical Specialists of Louisiana are committed to helping our patients achieve a healthy lifestyle and a healthy weight. Whether you are interested in weight loss surgery or medically supervised weight loss counseling, we can help you take control of your eating and your weight. Join us for a free seminar or take a weight loss quiz to help you get started.

Is Obesity the Last Acceptable Form of Discrimination?

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

weightdiscriminationprevalent

Obesity remains a socially acceptable injustice and often referred to as “the last acceptable form of discrimination.” Overweight individuals are often the subject of jokes in the media which can translate to real life discrimination. In this article, printed with permission of the Obesity Action Coalition, Rebecca Phul, PhD discusses the difference between “stigma” and “discrimination” and what legal ramifications, if any, can take place to protect overweight individuals.

Weight Discrimination: A Socially Acceptable Injustice

By Rebecca Puhl, PhD

Obesity is highly stigmatized in our society. Overweight and obese individuals are vulnerable to negative bias, prejudice and discrimination in many different settings, including the workplace, educational institutions, healthcare facilities and even within interpersonal relationships.

Unfortunately, weight bias remains very socially acceptable in North American culture; it is rarely challenged, and often ignored. As a result, thousands of obese individuals are at risk for unfair treatment, and there are few outlets available to provide support or protection.

What is the difference between “stigma” and “discrimination?”

Weight stigma or bias generally refers to negative weight-related attitudes toward an overweight or obese individual. These attitudes are often manifested by negative stereotypes (e.g., that obese persons are “lazy” or “lacking in willpower”), social rejection and prejudice. Weight stigma includes verbal teasing (e.g., name calling, derogatory remarks, being made fun of, etc.), physical aggression (e.g., hitting, kicking, pushing, shoving, etc.) and relational victimization (e.g., social exclusion, being ignored, avoided, or the target of rumors).

Many obese individuals report being treated with less respect or courtesy than thinner persons and being called names or insults because of their weight. Thus, weight stigma can emerge in subtle forms, or it can be expressed directly.

Discrimination is distinct from stigma and negative attitudes, and specifically refers to unequal, unfair treatment of people because of their weight. For example, an obese person who is qualified for a job but is not hired for the position because of his or her weight may have been the victim of weight discrimination.

Other examples include being denied a job promotion or fired from a job because of one’s weight; being denied certain medical procedures or provided inferior medical care because of one’s weight; or being denied a scholarship, a bank loan or prevented from renting or buying a home because of one’s weight.

In each of these cases, the behaviors directed toward the obese individual depict inequitable treatment with no justifiable cause, and legal recourse may be an appropriate response in these situations.

Obesity Discrimination on the Rise

Despite the increasing prevalence of obesity, it appears that incidences of weight discrimination are only becoming worse.

In our research, we examined trends of weight discrimination throughout a 10 year period from 1995-2005 and found that the prevalence increased by 66 percent during this decade, from 7-12 percent of the general population. This finding was not a result of increasing obesity rates, but rather specifically demonstrates that more people are experiencing weight discrimination.

How common is weight discrimination?

Given the social acceptability of negative attitudes toward obese individuals, it may not be surprising to learn that weight discrimination is common in the United States.

In a recent study, we examined the prevalence of multiple forms of discrimination in a nationally representative sample of 2,290 American adults and found that weight discrimination is common among Americans, with rates relatively close to the prevalence of race and age discrimination. Among women, weight discrimination was even more common than racial discrimination. Among all adults in the study, weight discrimination was more prevalent than discrimination due to ethnicity, sexual orientation and physical disability. Almost 60 percent of participants in our study who reported weight discrimination experienced at least one occurrence of employment-based discrimination, such as not being hired for a job.

On average, a person’s chances of being discriminated against because of weight become higher as their body weight increases. In our study, 10 percent of overweight women reported weight discrimination, 20 percent of obese women reported weight discrimination and 45 percent of very obese women reported weight discrimination.

Rates for men were lower, with 3 percent of overweight, 6 percent of obese and 28 percent of very obese men reporting weight discrimination. This finding also tells us that women begin experiencing weight discrimination at lower levels of body weight than men.

What legal action can be taken for victims of weight discrimination?

Unfortunately, there are few legal options available for individuals who suffer weight discrimination. Currently, there are no federal laws that exist to prohibit discrimination based on weight.

With the exception of one state law (Michigan) and a few local jurisdictions that address discrimination on the basis of weight or appearance (e.g., San Francisco), the vast majority of people who experience weight discrimination in the U.S. must pursue legal recourse through other indirect avenues.

In particular, obese individuals have depended on the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Most cases filed under these categories pertain to weight-based discrimination in employment settings, and only a few cases have been successful. In addition, whether it is appropriate for obesity to be considered a “disability” under the ADA is questionable and could perpetuate bias further.

Overweight people who are not “morbidly obese,” but who experience weight discrimination cannot file claims under the ADA because they are not considered disabled under this law. It places an unfair burden for individuals to prove that their obesity is debilitating and disabling in order to obtain fair and equitable treatment in the workplace.

These unresolved issues, in addition to public perceptions that place blame on obese people, have led to inconsistent court rulings and often deter obese individuals from taking any legal action.

Clearly, legislation is badly needed to protect individuals from weight discrimination. Massachusetts recently introduced legislation (House Bill 1844) to prohibit weight-based discrimination in employment settings. The hearing was held on March 25th 2008, with no opposition present at the hearing, and all expert testimonies were in favor of the bill. No decision has yet been made, but if this bill passes, it will be an important step in encouraging other states to follow suit.

Reducing weight bias requires major shifts in societal attitudes, and national actions are needed to establish meaningful legislation to ensure that obese persons receive the equitable treatment they deserve.

This article first appeared on www.OAC.org. Reproduced with permission from Obesity Action Coalition. Please visit www.oac.org

The Surgical Specialists of Louisiana are committed to helping our patients achieve a healthy lifestyle and a healthy weight. Whether you are interested in weight loss surgery or medically supervised weight loss counseling, we can help you take control of your eating and your weight. Join us for a free seminar or take a weight loss quiz to help you get started.

About the Author:

Rebecca Puhl, PhD, is the Director of Research and Weight Stigma Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. Dr. Puhl is responsible for coordinating research and policy efforts aimed at reducing weight bias.

References:

Puhl R, Brownell KD. (2001). Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obesity Research, 9:788-805.

Puhl, R.M., Andreyeva, T., & Brownell, K.D (2008). Perceptions of weight discrimination: prevalence and comparison to race and gender discrimination in America. International Journal of Obesity. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2008.22

Andreyeva, T., Puhl, R.M., & Brownell, K.D (2008). Changes in Perceived Weight Discrimination Among Americans, 1995-1996 through 2004-2006. Obesity. oi:10.1038/oby.2008.35

Brownell, K.D., Puhl, R., Schwartz, M.B., Rudd, L. (Eds.) (2005). Weight Bias: Nature, Consequences, and Remedies. New York: Guilford Publications.