# 980-Pound Man Needs 'Life-Saving' Operation



## Wayne_Zitkus (Oct 20, 2009)

_I don't know what to say about this story, other than to ask who is getting him 20,000 calories of food every day. - Wayne_

* * * * * * * * * * 

*980-Pound Man Needs 'Life-Saving' Operation*

Doctors blame a British man's 20,000-calorie a day diet for causing him to balloon up to a whopping 980-pounds and leaving him in need of a life-saving operation.

Paul Mason, 48, needs a nearly $33,000 life-saving operation after a compulsive eating disorder left him "super-obese."

Mason scoffs three family-sized takeout meals a night and wolfs down roasts like snacks.

He has spent much of the past eight years in bed at his home in Ipswich in Suffolk, England.

His health care costs taxpayers an estimated $165,000 a year.

And now he needs drastic stomach surgery to curb his eating and keep him alive, which the country's National Health Services will have to foot the bill for.

<more>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568634,00.html?test=latestnews


----------



## Teleute (Oct 20, 2009)

I have some things to say about how Fox News is running this story and emphasizing the cost to taxpayers because he's on NHS


----------



## Mac5689 (Oct 20, 2009)

Teleute said:


> I have some things to say about how Fox News is running this story and emphasizing the cost to taxpayers because he's on NHS



i think they are doing that, to try and show what will happen if there is a government run health insurance in the US. (that is if Britain's NHS is Government run)


----------



## Teleute (Oct 21, 2009)

It is government run, Mac, and yes, I think that's exactly why they're running it.


----------



## Jes (Oct 21, 2009)

Teleute said:


> I have some things to say about how Fox News is running this story and emphasizing the cost to taxpayers because he's on NHS



true dat.

Anyway, I'd rather pay his $33K operation cost v. $165K/year!

I find the enablers to these massive eaters fascinating. I find the 'I was a 340000 lbs teenager!' shows distasteful, but like any spectacle, I stop to look, too. And there's almost always someone procuring the food for the fat person. Anyone see the show about the 19 year old boy whose mother has helped make him into a giant adult baby huey? horrible. HORRIBLE.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Oct 21, 2009)

Teleute said:


> I have some things to say about how Fox News is running this story and emphasizing the cost to taxpayers because he's on NHS



I agree. I hate seeing emphasis placed on how much an individual is taxing the system. Every time I hear this argument brought up, I want to start recommending that we go back to the "glory" days of placing our elderly on chunks of ice and watching them sail away into the sunset.


----------



## exile in thighville (Oct 21, 2009)

laughed out loud at taxpayers thing

oh you


----------



## Flutterby68 (Oct 21, 2009)

If his obesity is causing his life threatening condition (and it is), and he is obviously too large to just drive up to the pub for fish and chips every day.... he has to have people procuring the vast amounts of food for him every day. If they were unwilling to say NO and kept contributing to his health issues, they should help to pay for them.


----------



## Ruby Ripples (Oct 21, 2009)

Flutterby68 said:


> If his obesity is causing his life threatening condition (and it is), and he is obviously too large to just drive up to the pub for fish and chips every day.... he has to have people procuring the vast amounts of food for him every day. If they were unwilling to say NO and kept contributing to his health issues, they should help to pay for them.



In what way? Offering the NHS money? Do you understand the NHS? And you know nothing about whoever is/are bringing food to him.


----------



## Tooz (Oct 21, 2009)

I dislike the highlighting of what it costs taxpayers and the highlighting of the man being incredibly lazy (heavily implied, if not directly stated) It's bullshit-- everything is a wash. For every person like him there are loads who go LESS than they probably should or have lower (far lower) medical costs. 

Besides, if this man really has an eating disorder, isn't the money to help him money well-spent? He is ailing, and by fixing the problems he might become well. I dislike the fact that they do identify him as a compulsive eater, but then use sharp imagery such as "wolfing down." You wouldn't see this kind of situation with a cancer patient, but if this man is a compulsive eater he DOES have a legitimate condition.

I am sick of obesity, super obesity, whatever being used as the bone people have to pick with other issues.


----------



## Ruby Ripples (Oct 21, 2009)

What annoys me most about the Fox article is "scoffs" and "wolfs". Totally unneccesary.


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Oct 21, 2009)

I'm also with the consensus here, that the article is heavily biased towards "demonstrating" the burden on the system. It's media spin. If it doesn't spin one way, it's spins the other. Neither is much good for getting the truth, if the truth be told (and quite often it isn't!).

I don't understand how his healthcare is costing $165,000 a year though. I think this highlights one of the problems with the NHS. It's very poorly run. I mean, if healthcare for this individual is costing the NHS £100,000 per year, which is about 4 times the average salary of someone in the UK, then why wasn't he receiving check ups? I mean, I'm assuming at nearly half a tonne, the man couldn't just mosey down to the local health clinic. When you have to tell the Doctor, "I'm too fat to get out of bed", that's when the Doctor needs to start coming to you.

If that had happened, then the Docs/Nurses/Carers would have been able to surmise, from logical reasoning that if the man seems to be getting fatter, or even just staying at the same weight, then something IS WRONG. Somebody is feeding him, he's not sticking to a diet etc etc.

This is a problem for the system. People have a right to their own freedom, so the man can eat what he wants, or what he thinks he wants, or what he's given. But morally, is it correct that we should allow someone to do this? If it was a scenario in a vacuum, fair enough, but it is placing a burden on the system. It's the same as these people who have expensive cancer treatment on the NHS and continue to smoke. It flies in the face of decency, but what can you do about it? It's a free country; quite literally.

Living in the UK and knowing how stressed the NHS really is, I think it's terrible. Some people are denied treatment if the drugs are too expensive, or they're too old. Basically "sorry, but you're not cost effective". Whereas this man, who has an eating disorder which, though terrible, is probably manageable with correct care, has money essentially thrown at him so he could lie in bed all day and get fatter. I'm not pushing an opinion either way, other than to say, it's not fair.

That's really what it comes down to. The man should have been committed or something should have happened. For all the money and care the man has thus far "received" the real issue as in - what is in the best interests of this man as a patient and someone who has a mental disorder - have not really been considered. The man hasn't failed the system. The system has failed him.


----------



## bigmac (Oct 21, 2009)

Fox is reviving the classic Calvinist _deserving_ vs _undeserving _argument. The implication is that fat patients are undeserving while say a cancer patient is deserving (so long as she's a nonsmoker).

Conservatives love this -- they get to scale back spending and be judgmental at the same time -- a twofer. As an added bonus they can feel good about helping those few they deem deserving.


----------



## Tooz (Oct 21, 2009)

bigmac said:


> Fox is reviving the classic Calvinist _deserving_ vs _undeserving _argument. The implication is that fat patients are undeserving while say a cancer patient is deserving (so long as she's a nonsmoker).
> 
> Conservatives love this -- they get to scale back spending and be judgmental at the same time -- a twofer. As an added bonus they can feel good about helping those few they deem deserving.



See now I agree with you on everything but the political party. Those sentiments are something present in every party, not just one.


----------



## Flutterby68 (Oct 21, 2009)

Ruby Ripples said:


> In what way? Offering the NHS money? Do you understand the NHS? And you know nothing about whoever is/are bringing food to him.



I know that the man is over 900 lbs and is relatively immobile. That means the person(s) who are bringing him food are enabling him to continue.


----------



## Tooz (Oct 21, 2009)

Flutterby68 said:


> I know that the man is over 900 lbs and is relatively immobile. That means the person(s) who are bringing him food are enabling him to continue.



Because simply stopping bringing food is such a great option. I'm sorry, but frankly at that weight is it safer for them to CONTINUE bringing him that amount of food-- these people are not nutritionists and the last thing he needs is to suffer from starvation as well (which is absolutely possible at any weight, btw)


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Oct 21, 2009)

Here's a question I'm just gonna put out there for consideration:

This guy is eating 20,000 calories a day - he's used to eating that amount every day, and they're planning to do gastric surgery on him. What happens AFTER the surgery when he still wants to eat all that food but can't? Why aren't they talking about the underlying food issues that he obviously has? They're still gonna be there after his stomach has been shrunk.....


----------



## Tracyarts (Oct 21, 2009)

" I know that the man is over 900 lbs and is relatively immobile. That means the person(s) who are bringing him food are enabling him to continue. "

It depends on who they are and how he is getting the money to buy all that food.

If he has money to spend at his discretion, and somebody to go spend it for him or to deliver purchases he makes over the phone or computer, does that person who assists him in tasks he is no longer able to do for himself have the right to cut him off and say no, I will not buy that for you; or no, I will not bring that to you?

I am sure there are rights issues at play in a case like this. Unless he is officially judged to not be mentally capable of making choices for himself, he still has the right to eat what he wants if he has the way and means to procure it. 

If he has some kind of national healthcare or otherwise government funded caretaker who shops for him and prepares food for him, does that person have to do as he says even if it is obviously self-destructive? 

It could be a rights issue more than an enablement issue.

Tracy


----------



## Flutterby68 (Oct 21, 2009)

In the U.S., if someone is in that condition and is being fed those copious amounts of food, the person providing the food can be charged.

Adult Protective Services would also likely be getting involved.


----------



## cinnamitch (Oct 22, 2009)

Flutterby68 said:


> In the U.S., if someone is in that condition and is being fed those copious amounts of food, the person providing the food can be charged.
> 
> Adult Protective Services would also likely be getting involved.



Adult protective services would only be involved if it is proven he is mentally unable to make decisions for himself. I worked in a home where we had a man who was nearly 650 lbs. He refused to follow the doctors diet plan. He had family bringing in snacks. The family was constantly asked to stop bringing them by the VA's caseworkers who were in charge of his medical care. They refused. The man was shown to be competent and this was his desire and there was nothing that could be done. Our solution, which was legal and all parties were aware , was that yes we had no say in if he could have snacks, or whether family could bring it it, but we as a business were not to go to his refrigerator to get him the snacks. That was his responsibility. So no one can really be charged as long as the person is mentally competent.


----------



## Hubby2USBBBW (Oct 22, 2009)

wow... it's so unreal how on a freaking SIZE-ACCEPTANCE site there is so much fat bashing going on.. I thought the whole point was to SUPPORT each other [hello!!] not criticize, judge, and in other ways discriminate against ppl of size. There's more acceptance to fat folk on the "skinny" sites than there is here.


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Oct 22, 2009)

Hubby2USBBBW said:


> wow... it's so unreal how on a freaking SIZE-ACCEPTANCE site there is so much fat bashing going on.. I thought the whole point was to SUPPORT each other [hello!!] not criticize, judge, and in other ways discriminate against ppl of size. There's more acceptance to fat folk on the "skinny" sites than there is here.



I think very little "fat bashing" has gone on in this thread actually. We're discussing an issue that is very relevant to fat people and people who like them.

So, because this is a size-acceptance website, you assume that we have to skirt around stories like this, or not discuss them? We like fat people and think they're beautiful, so they can do no wrong and nothing fat-based is bad, negative or contrary?

It's not unreal at all. How is discussion contrary to being supportive? If you think that being 980lbs the topic of discussion on a size acceptance website means that no wrong can be said of you, then I think you're being childish and unrealistic. Certainly neither of those qualities would have benefit this man.


----------



## sunnie1653 (Oct 22, 2009)

Hubby2USBBBW said:


> wow... it's so unreal how on a freaking SIZE-ACCEPTANCE site there is so much fat bashing going on.. I thought the whole point was to SUPPORT each other [hello!!] not criticize, judge, and in other ways discriminate against ppl of size. There's more acceptance to fat folk on the "skinny" sites than there is here.



I saw no fat bashing. That's just my opinion, though.




What upsets me the most is that they're most concerned with the money this individual is apparently costing the government than the health and well-being of this man. Disgusting.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Oct 22, 2009)

I just realized that Rupert Murdoch MUST have a 600lb AfricanAmerican mistress:eat2: tucked away to give him squishy comfort when his Size 2 Dragon-Lady 3rd wife Deng Wendi bangs her elbows into his ancient ribs. When Rupert's 600lb mistress Tells All, the Empire of Oceania:bow: will collapse within moments... God she must be a hottie...


----------



## Tracyarts (Oct 22, 2009)

" Adult protective services would only be involved if it is proven he is mentally unable to make decisions for himself."

That's the way it works here in the U.S. unless a judge declares you unable to make your own decisions, you have the right to live however you wish, as long as you have the ways and means to do so. 

Government funded helpers and caregivers aren't supposed to make moral judgements when doing tasks like shopping and preparing meals. If the man wants 20K calories worth of food every day, and has money to pay for it, then nobody can stop him unless he is deemed unable to make his own choices. 

And that's not really easy to do at all. At least here in the U.S. Went through that with my mom when she developed Alzheimer's and wanted to live independently against the wishes of her family and neighbors. It's pretty difficult to get somebody's independence taken away by force. 

Tracy


----------



## Miss Vickie (Oct 22, 2009)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> Here's a question I'm just gonna put out there for consideration:
> 
> This guy is eating 20,000 calories a day - he's used to eating that amount every day, and they're planning to do gastric surgery on him. What happens AFTER the surgery when he still wants to eat all that food but can't? Why aren't they talking about the underlying food issues that he obviously has? They're still gonna be there after his stomach has been shrunk.....



I think this thread -- since it discusses WLS -- perhaps belongs on the WLS forum although the greater issue of the cost of being fat is more apropos here. It's an interesting discussion, and the issue of the burden that any of us -- let's face facts, most people at some time in their life will cost their government money, that's just how it is -- places on society is interesting. Yes, he's costing the UK money but so do people with kids, so do smokers, so do people who get cancer through no fault of their own. I'm not sure we can expect it to be "fair". Some will pay more into the coffers and use less resources. Others will use more. That's just how it is, isn't it? 

But be that as it may...

As you know, I'm a supporter of the properly utilized surgical intervention for obesity when a patient desires it, when it's damaging their health, and when they cannot lose weight otherwise. In this man's case, however, WLS doesn't seem like a good option, _until and unless_ there is also treatment for his obvious eating disorder. All the surgery will do is make it harder for him to overeat, but it won't be impossible, and it could end up being dangerous or even deadly. He could damage his body, possibly permanently, through overeating, in addition to putting the success of his surgery at risk.

As I've discussed before, my brother had an untreated eating disorder before his WLS and he ended up having to have surgeries to correct the damage he did with overeating because he never received any support for his ED. He ended up regaining almost all of the 400 pounds he initially lost, and died last year from complications from diabetes. What could have been a life saving operation for him, ended up doing nothing, because he couldn't or wouldn't be compliant with the dietary guidelines required to make the surgery a success.

Contrast this with me, his sister and therefore genetically similar, who had WLS at the same age and lost 140 pounds and kept it off. Am I 100% compliant? Oh heck no. But I don't have an eating disorder, so I don't overeat, and have managed to use the surgery to lose sufficient weight to feel better. (I'm still considered "obese" by the powers that be but they can just kiss my ass). I'd tried to talk to my brother about his relationship with food and my worries about him -- he could eat enormous amounts of food in one sitting, and then do it again a couple of hours later. But he ignored me. He, and his doctors, felt that the surgery would treat his disorder, but we all know how that worked out. 

I'm not sure what the answer is for this guy, other than maybe long term hospitalization and diet control, intense therapy and nutritional support for him and his caregivers. Yes, WLS will kick start his weight loss, but it may come at a terrible price.


----------



## Cors (Oct 22, 2009)

And... you wonder why the UK is not fat-friendly at all. Whenever a fat person is on the news, it is almost always about how much he costs taxpayers, how much of a burden he is to the overburdened NHS and how he gets more in welfare benefits than what hardworking Brits make.


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Oct 22, 2009)

More spin is more spin I suppose, but the following article suggests that he lost a lot of weight a few years ago, but wasn't happy and then set out to intentionally gain weight to break a record.

http://www.news.9msn.com.au/world/878444/worlds-fattest-man-wanted-to-break-record

It sounds a bit sensationalist, though I've no doubt that it will shed something of a different light on the discussion.

For argument's sake, assume the article is truthful and correct. Does this change the issue for anybody? There are gainers out there after all, though in reality I'm sure that practising successful gainers are more a minority. Again, it is a free country, so there is nothing to stop a person doing this by choice. Would the opinions of those here be different then?


----------



## TraciJo67 (Oct 22, 2009)

Tracyarts said:


> " Adult protective services would only be involved if it is proven he is mentally unable to make decisions for himself."
> 
> That's the way it works here in the U.S. unless a judge declares you unable to make your own decisions, you have the right to live however you wish, as long as you have the ways and means to do so.
> 
> ...



These kind of cases usually get to social services when the caregiver becomes ill, dies, or otherwise gives up ... or the patient requires hospitalization, and it becomes clear that there is significant neglect involved. If the patient is able to perform some activities of daily living for him/herself, then government funded helpers or caregivers could be possible in terms of keeping him out of a nursing home - but I believe that you are incorrect in implying that the caregivers have to feed him 20K calories. He'd have probably had a referral for a nutrititionist, and a medically-prescribed diet set forth by his physician. That is what the PCA would be following, not the patient's request. If he didn't have a friend or family member to provide him with snacks/supplements, he wouldn't get them. I am curious about how an immobile man has access to that many calories, considering that they are staggering in scope and would have to take someone hours per day just to prepare, even if most of the "preparation" involves going for take-out. At some point, I'd like to think that if he were my husband/father/son/friend, I'd have to stop and examine my role in enabling him and keeping him in that bed. 

Tracy, sorry to hear about your mom. I'm dealing with a similar issue right now, with my mom. When it gets to the point where you think it may not be safe for her to live alone, and if she has been diagnosed with alzheimers, you can get POA quite easily, and as heartbreaking as it is to have to make such a choice, you can also get her moved to a facility, even if it is against her wishes


----------



## Gingembre (Oct 22, 2009)

chubloverUK86 said:


> I'm also with the consensus here, that the article is heavily biased towards "demonstrating" the burden on the system. It's media spin. If it doesn't spin one way, it's spins the other. Neither is much good for getting the truth, if the truth be told (and quite often it isn't!).
> 
> I don't understand how his healthcare is costing $165,000 a year though. I think this highlights one of the problems with the NHS. It's very poorly run. I mean, if healthcare for this individual is costing the NHS £100,000 per year, which is about 4 times the average salary of someone in the UK, then why wasn't he receiving check ups? I mean, I'm assuming at nearly half a tonne, the man couldn't just mosey down to the local health clinic. When you have to tell the Doctor, "I'm too fat to get out of bed", that's when the Doctor needs to start coming to you.
> 
> ...



I am repping you for this. Well said. Nothing of relevance really to add, except to say that I am a great supporter of the NHS and it's potential (everyone loves to moan about it until you need it and realise how valuable it can/could be). It is, however, being run into the ground which means it is becoming more flawed and failing more people (2 words..."postcode lottery"). I work for a company which analyses public sector spend data how inefficient most public sector bodies (inc NHS but not solely) are is shocking.


----------



## moniquessbbw (Oct 26, 2009)

Bottom line here is the man needs help. How long do you think he can live at this size!! He is trapped in his own body and that isnt a good feeling. If he doesnt get help he will die. I hope that he also wants to help himself. Food addiction isnt easy. I battle it every day. I feel for this man and hope he finds the strength to help himself.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Oct 29, 2009)

There was yet another trash magazine article about how fat CP wants to be and in the lower corner there was a pic of the man stating that he also gained intentionally. Of course being a trash magazine you don't know how much is truth.

However, I find some of the reactions on this thread funny. We are on a website that is 1000% pro weight gain and very anti weight loss/WLS.


----------



## Isa (Oct 29, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> However, I find some of the reactions on this thread funny. We are on a website that is 1000% pro weight gain and very anti weight loss/WLS.



Agreed. Further more, if this story had been about a woman someone would have posted how sexy she is, ignoring the health issues.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Oct 29, 2009)

Isa said:


> Agreed. Further more, if this story had been about a woman someone would have posted how sexy she is, ignoring the health issues.



EXACTLY!!!!!


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Oct 29, 2009)

Isa said:


> Agreed. Further more, if this story had been about a woman someone would have posted how sexy she is, ignoring the health issues.



That may be true, but I don't see what difference it makes. I'm gay, I like fat guys and I have been with a fair few "really fat" fat guys, and I've enjoyed those experiences, as I hope they did.

That doesn't mean I can't try to look objectively at something like this. It's almost as though some people here actually _expect_ people to be biased in favour of something like this, simply because they have a fetish or a sexual attraction to the subject of discussion. Frankly I think it's a tad disappointing that this is the case.

Discussion of this nature is not an attack on fat people, nor is it a commentary for pro WLS or anti WLS. It's a discussion about the moral issues surrounding the treatment of, in this case, an individual and the resulting socio-economic impact of such treatment within the context of this one man's case. There are downsides to people becoming so incredibly fat that they cannot care for themselves. There is a perceived negativity to those people using the money of the State in order to live with a problem they have essentially given themselves. We don't live in a fluffy cloud cuckoo land where everyone can be that size and money is no object. So surely it is a valid article to discuss? Nobody is guaranteed the same opinion, but that doesn't mean either side has to be right or wrong, for it's very nature is subjective, isn't it?

Dimensions is a safe haven for all the wonderful sexy fat boys and gals out there, but that shouldn't be at the cost of actually talking seriously about these things and, dare I say, having an opinion that isn't as two dimensional as "wow I love teh fat guys! Would love to see more pics!".


----------



## Isa (Oct 30, 2009)

chubloverUK86 said:


> That may be true, but I don't see what difference it makes. I'm gay, I like fat guys and I have been with a fair few "really fat" fat guys, and I've enjoyed those experiences, as I hope they did.
> 
> That doesn't mean I can't try to look objectively at something like this. It's almost as though some people here actually _expect_ people to be biased in favour of something like this, simply because they have a fetish or a sexual attraction to the subject of discussion. Frankly I think it's a tad disappointing that this is the case.
> 
> ...



I understand what is being discussed in the thread. You are stating what many have said here over the years and I agree because it's true. This does not change the fact that dim is a pro fat site and weight loss discussion, even for health related reasons, is not always welcome here.


----------



## Jes (Oct 30, 2009)

Isa said:


> Agreed. Further more, if this story had been about a woman someone would have posted how sexy she is, ignoring the health issues.



i laughed.


----------



## mergirl (Oct 31, 2009)

Isa said:


> Agreed. Further more, if this story had been about a woman someone would have posted how sexy she is, ignoring the health issues.


......and the rain came tumbling down..


----------



## mergirl (Oct 31, 2009)

The words.."Life saving"- should not be discussed alongside money, no matter how the person came to need saving.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Oct 31, 2009)

mergirl said:


> The words.."Life saving"- should not be discussed alongside money, no matter how the person came to need saving.



I *heart* this. And you. :wubu:


----------



## joswitch (Nov 2, 2009)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> _I don't know what to say about this story, other than to ask who is getting him 20,000 calories of food every day. - Wayne_
> 
> * * * * * * * * * *
> 
> ...



Just quickly - two points:

1) as I understand it and recall from reading in another paper - until she died recently his 76 year old mother was this fella's carer...

2) this article and every bloody one like it - is a blatant excercise in freakshow and scapegoating... 

Imagine if everytime a smoker needed a tumour removed or a lung transplant, or if everytime an alcoholic needed a new liver that they ran an article in the paper ranting about the cost to the NHS!?!? The papers would have to be twice as thick and they'd be full of it from cover to cover EVERY SINGLE DAY! The NHS means you MUST PAY IN, and you get treatment regardless of the WHYS of your illness. That's the deal, it's always been the deal...

They (media / politicos / pharmas / WLpushers) always make such a big deal out of these rare instances when an extremely supersized person has to be removed from their home for some health treatment. Particularly about the "knocking the wall down" thing. Like that in itself is some earth shaking big money, big deal. It's not - knocking down walls is cheap and easy - give me a pickaxe and a sledgehammer and I'll have the average brick / breeze block wall down in a couple of hours (oh. maybe a couple of pit props needed if it's structural). 

These kind of articles are pure bullshit and they are thrown up all the time cos fat folks are an easy and convenient target who are not organised to fight back when they are BLAMED for everything that's wrong with the world. Meanwhile the real villians are mad busy socking the taxpayers money away in their Swiss bank accounts and looking for real estate in the Cayman Islands.


----------



## joswitch (Nov 2, 2009)

chubloverUK86 said:


> More spin is more spin I suppose, but the following article suggests that he lost a lot of weight a few years ago, but wasn't happy and then set out to intentionally gain weight to break a record.
> 
> http://www.news.9msn.com.au/world/878444/worlds-fattest-man-wanted-to-break-record
> 
> It sounds a bit sensationalist, though I've no doubt that it will shed something of a different light on the discussion.



"And when he got home he ordered takeaway pizzas, curries and Chinese meals  he was often seen going through the *McDonald's drive-thru* section for cars in his special wheelchair."

Bolded - cos I've never seen a McDs drive through in England and I'd be surprised if there's one in Ipswich... which leads me to suspect the whole article including the "intentional weight gain" may in fact be..... BULLSHIT.


----------



## Gingembre (Nov 2, 2009)

joswitch said:


> I've never seen a McDs drive through in England...



Yes, but you, my dear, live on a boat (and a lovely boat it is too) - even Newbury has a drive thru McDonalds. Like, get with the program 

</thread derail>


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Nov 2, 2009)

Gingembre said:


> Yes, but you, my dear, live on a boat (and a lovely boat it is too) - even Newbury has a drive thru McDonalds. Like, get with the program
> 
> </thread derail>



Technically there are 2 drive thru McDs in Newbury.....one is by the bypass I think...it is 24 hours.

I've also been to one in Luton, Basingstoke, Southampton, and Reading to name only a few, lol.


----------



## Cors (Nov 2, 2009)

Joswitch, you might actually have one near you. Try searching for it here. 

There are a good 48 of them in London alone.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Nov 2, 2009)

Cors said:


> Joswitch, you might actually have one near you. Try searching for it here.
> 
> There are a good 48 of them in London alone.



Damn dude. That's a lot of fries and big macs!!!!


----------



## bigjayne66 (Nov 2, 2009)

Guess what,I have NEVER been to a McDonalds,am I missing something here ??


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Nov 2, 2009)

bigjayne66 said:


> Guess what,I have NEVER been to a McDonalds,am I missing something here ??



no not really, lol. It's over priced unhealthy stuff.


----------



## Santaclear (Nov 2, 2009)

Off topic, but we'll know we have come along way the day we can see a thread titled *980-Pound Man Performs Life-Saving Operation*


----------



## Cors (Nov 2, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> no not really, lol. It's over priced unhealthy stuff.



Funny how McD aggressively advertises their healthier deli menu and salads here ("YES you can eat healthy at McDonalds!!!!!!") - it is like they are trying to copy Subway. I don't know many people who will actually order these options but I suppose it is good to have them. 

Not sure if it is just me but I think McDonalds just tastes so much better in the US...


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Nov 3, 2009)

Cors said:


> Not sure if it is just me but I think McDonalds just tastes so much better in the US...



yeah me too, lol.

And when I go to McDonalds, it isn't for apple slices, lol, I want the grease and salt!


----------



## mergirl (Nov 3, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> yeah me too, lol.
> 
> And when I go to McDonalds, it isn't for apple slices, lol, I want the grease and salt!


lmao. Ive never seen 'grease and salt' on the menu- Do you get fries with that? 
I actually hadn't been to McD's for years (being a veggi there is not much point) but i went to a drive through in East Kilbride in Scotland last week cause i wanted a milk shake! Also there is a drive through along the road here and where i live is a small seaside town!! Joswitch!!! tee-hee.. I Love that you live on a boat though. McDonalds should really could do with a couple of 'Sail throughs'. x


----------



## joswitch (Nov 3, 2009)

Gingembre said:


> Yes, but you, my dear, live on a boat (and a lovely boat it is too) - even Newbury has a drive thru McDonalds. Like, get with the program
> 
> </thread derail>



Lolz! Ok, I stand corrected! 
Somehow I think that my boycotting McDs and the like from the age of 14 - cos they burned down swathes of rainforest and treated their employees like crap.... and that I haven't driven a car in the UK since I scrapped the band's old van in '98 (nowhere to bloody park round here anyway!) and I haven't owned/ driven a car at all since I was in the USA / Mexico in '03 / '04.... means my observations on this point are biased! My bad! :bow:


----------



## Jes (Nov 4, 2009)

I'm curious what people think:

does this 980 lbs man need a life-saving operation? what if you take the 'life-saving' out of it (which is dramatic language). does he need an operation, in your opinion? would he benefit from it? if he doesn't do it, what does he face? if you were him (and we have few details, i know) would you have an operation?


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Nov 4, 2009)

Jes said:


> I'm curious what people think:
> 
> does this 980 lbs man need a life-saving operation? what if you take the 'life-saving' out of it (which is dramatic language). does he need an operation, in your opinion? would he benefit from it? if he doesn't do it, what does he face? if you were him (and we have few details, i know) would you have an operation?



To be honest if I were him I would be scared shitless. 980lbs is a lot of weight to go under anaesthetic with. I'm scared at my size but he has 350+lbs on me.....so yeah, If I were him I would be sad knowing I will probably die...either from my weight or from an operation.

It is sad.

I hate the way WLS is always considered life saving....it's more like life changing.


----------



## bigjayne66 (Nov 4, 2009)

I am just under 400lbs at 5'4 and I can barely walk,but because the rest of my organs are functioning ok there is no way I would have surgery,I don't go anywhere,I am happy (ish) right here,and getting used to my size.
But I am glad I am not 980lbs....


----------

