Search Results for "airline seat"
Airline Seat Saga Continues
Regular readers of these pages will recall my previous comments on the recent Canada Supreme Court ruling on the accommodation of severely obese passengers on Canadian airlines (for previous comments click here and here). This policy resulted in Air Canada now requiring obese patients to present a doctor’s note 48-72 hrs before travel if they wish to be accommodated on two seats (click here for the forms Air Canada requires passengers to fill out – see page 5 of the form). While creating more work for doctor’s who have to fill out the form (with rather simple measurements that almost anyone can take) and creating embarrassment for all involved, at least this policy does ensure that large patients are accommodated without extra charge: one passenger – one fair – it’s only fair! Yesterday, United Airlines took the other view and announced that it would begin charging large individuals for two seats. In doing so, United now joins the other four major airlines (Delta, US Airways, Continental, and Southwest), which have already been charging large travelers for an extra seat. As expected, there are a host of people who think that this is only fair (which is probably why the airlines can get away with this policy). I have previously made my views on this clear: this policy is discriminating and feeds into the widespread notion that obesity is simply a self-inflicted condition resulting from poor choice, completely avoidable by eating less and moving more. As long as this simplistic view of obesity prevails, we are still a long way off from treating obesity for what it is – just another complex chronic condition (like diabetes, asthma or heart disease) that results from complex interactions between sociocultural, biomedical, genetic and/or iatrogenic factors in our obesogenic environment. I have yet to meet someone who “chooses” to be fat. AMS Edmonton, Alberta
Airline Seats Revisited
BEST HEALTH BLOG FINALIST: The second round of voting is on – please vote AGAIN for your favourite health blog by clicking here Last week I blogged about the recent Supreme Court ruling mandating that airlines accommodate oversized passengers. This ruling was picked up by international media, especially in the US, where in light of their own obesity epidemic, this ruling attracted substantial attention. In fact, I was interviewed by MSNBC for my take on this, especially with regard to the question how airlines should determine who would qualify for an extra seat and who would not. My simple solution, as reported by MSNBC was as follows: “You can’t bring it down to a BMI. People’s body shapes are different.” Instead, the chair of obesity research at the University of Alberta suggests a solution inspired by the baggage sizers already in place at many airports. Instead, Sharma would like airlines to place an airplane seat in the terminal — “somewhere that offers travelers a bit of privacy.” Then, if it’s not obvious that a traveler won’t fit in one seat, they can sit in the sample seat. “If they don’t fit in the seat, then they’re too big and they’ll need to have that extra seat. At no cost. It’s not rocket science.” Obviously, other “experts” had other suggestions including bringing in doctors’ notes or simply increasing the seat sizes for everybody. For a full report on this story click here. If readers of this blog have any other suggestions – I’d love to hear them. AMS Edmonton, Alberta
THE MIDDLE SEAT BLUES 🎶
Airline travel is not just a continuing challenge for most of my patients, but being stuck in the middle seat is no fun for anyone (and yes, I’ve been there often enough😀). So, I guess, someone had to write a song about it! 🎸🎶🎸 In fact, as part of my new musical adventures, I have just recorded my first blues single, which should be out on Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, and everywhere else in a couple of weeks. If you want to learn more about Dr. Sharma, the blues musician, please follow me on facebook or instagram. You can also sign up on my Music Page for an exclusive preview of my song and other goodies. Welcome on board! @DrSharmaBerlin, D
Will the Public Accept Laws that Prohibit Weight Discrimination?
Regular readers of these pages will be well aware of the very real problems caused by weight-bias and discrimination. As noted previously, anti-fat prejudice has direct implications for the health of those struggling with excess weight as it can increase vulnerability for depression, low self-esteem, anxiety, suicidality, maladaptive eating behaviors, avoidance of physical activity, poorer outcomes in behavioral weight loss programs, and hesitation to seeking preventive health-care services. In most countries (including Canada), it is within the legal rights of most employers to discriminate against their employees on the basis of weight, and those who experience weight discrimination have no means for legal recourse. But is the public ready to accept laws that will prohibit weight-based discrimination? This question was addressed by Rebecca Puhl and Chelsea Heuer from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Yale University, New Haven, CT, in a paper just published online in OBESITY. The study was conducted online in a national sample of 1,001 adults to examine public support for six potential legislative measures to prohibit weight discrimination in the United States: Surprisingly, the researchers found substantial support (65% of men, 81% of women) for laws to prohibit weight discrimination in the workplace, especially for legal measures that would prohibit employers from refusing to hire, terminate, or deny promotion based on a person’s body weight. Perhaps not so surprisingly, the likelihood of agreement with antidiscrimination laws was higher among individuals who were obese, 35–49 years of age, with a political ideology identified as Liberal or Moderate (or who identified themselves as Democrats), and those with lower education (high school vs. college or graduate degrees) and lower annual income (<$25,000). In addition, although only 9% of the sample reported having experienced weight-based discrimination in the workplace, these individuals were 2–4 times more likely to endorse agreement with laws than individuals who had not reported workplace discrimination. Similarly, participants who reported that their family members had been targets of weight-based victimization were more likely to express agreement for laws compared to participants who did not report victimization toward family members. On the other hand, there did not appear to be much support for laws that proposed extending the same protections to obese persons as people with physical disabilities. Thus, while it appears that there may be some acceptance and room for legislation against weight-based discrimination (especially in the workplace), there may also be important limitations to… Read More »
Should Obese Patients Pay More For Ambulance Rides?
One of my favourite medical blogs is written by Kevin Pho (KevinMD), a Boston internist and avid blogger. KevinMD was voted the best medical blog of 2008 and has over 21,000 subscribers and 16,000 followers on Twitter. While I agree with much of what Kevin blogs about, yesterday’s post got me up in arms (or rather the responses to a poll he posted on his site did). The post was in regard to the question of whether or not obese patients should pay more for ambulance rides? Understandably, ambulance workers say that patients weighing over 350 pounds present additional challenges to transport, and require specialized equipment and additional workers. Not unexpectedly the ambulance industry wants to pass on the expenses to insurance companies and even individual patients. It turns out (accoding to Kevin) that some US states already charge more for transporting extremely overweight patients. So what is my response to this poll? My regular readers will probably already guess that I voted “No” and with that differently than the 78% of responders who opted for “Yes”: While I fully appreciate that extremely large patients pose important challenges for amublance workers, I still maintain that (as with airline seats) the only fair rule can be one patient – one ride – one fare! The whole notion that obese people should pay more, is nothing other than another expression of the widely held weight bias against overweight people that is entirely based on the assumption of choice and fault. As I have argued previously, neither choice nor fault (even if they were relevant to obesity) can be a criterium for deciding about costs. If fault is a criterium, then how about charging people more who get into DUI accidents, injure themselves during risky outdoor activities or even just have heart attacks from smoking too much? If this is about “fair” distribution of cost, I wonder if ambulances will next offer discounts on rides for people who walk to the ambulance and lay themselves down on the gurney (less work – less pay?). Or will they also be charging higher rates for tranporting other folks who create more work, like people who don’t speak English, are psychotic, aggressive, or just making a mess of themselves by spilling blood and guts all over? As a significant proportion of the population gets bigger, it is up to ambulances to up-size and adapt their services… Read More »
