| |
What's PlayingFree Summer Concerts
 |
|
Live on the Lake
Burbank Park/Wed., 6 p.m.
|
| July 8, Sirsy |
Concerts at the Lake
Windsor Lake/Sun., 7p.m. |
|
Weather delay to July 5,
Pittsfield Eagles
Community Band
|
Lawn Concerts
Clark Art/Tues., 6 p.m. |
| July 7, The Doerfels |
|
Sales FliersDaily Digest
A local bruin looks forlornly at the birdfeeders far from her reach in Joyce Harsch's back yard. Have a photo to share? Submit as a member or e-mail to info@iberkshires.com. |
Public Hearings
Department of Public Utilities on National Grid's request for a 16 percent increase in distribution charges on Wednesday, July 15, at 7 p.m. at North Adams City Hall. What's this all about? |
Jobless Journey
Former Adams resident and radio host Sean Baker has been chronicling his adventures in unemployment on The Forecaster site in Maine. |
ObituariesSportsSoccer sign-ups
Hoosac Tunnel Youth Soccer League/NBYMCA fall soccer sign-ups for PreK-Grade 8 at Northern Berkshire YMCA until Aug. 1.; 413-663-6529 for more information. |
ColumnistsRelated Stories |
| |
Local Woman Testifies Against Weight, Height DiscriminationBy Jen Thomas - April 04, 2008
iBerkshires Staff
WILLIAMSTOWN — When Gail Burns discovered it was legal to discriminate based on someone's height and weight, she decided to do something about it.
Inspired by advocates at the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, Burns joined a statewide effort to fight for what she calls "an empowering effort." Last week, Burns joined nearly 20 others at the State House to support human rights legislation that would see the words "height" and "weight" added to the existing anti-discrimination laws.
"I had a chance to help make a change," said the Williamstown resident of her March 25 testimony to the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development.
Burns' campaign to support acceptance at every size began last summer, when she herself was the victim of discrimination based on her weight. In her nearly 1,000-word statement to the committee, Burns recounted how a certain hospital rejected her request for a nonlife-threatening medical procedure because of her size.
"In February of 2005, this medical community had announced publicly their decision not to admit patients they considered 'morbidly obese.' This is decided solely on the basis of a number on the scale, not an examination of the patient. I was denied surgery," read Burns, a church secretary and theater reviewer.
Burns declined to name the doctors or hospital involved, but said it was out of state. Though she was able to find a surgeon willing to operate in Albany, N.Y., the experience left a mark.
"And I'm not the type of person to roll over and say, 'OK, you can discriminate against me,'" she said. "But I had no legal recourse. I couldn't try to make change other than flapping my gums. It's completely legal to say 'I won't hire fat people.' That opens up a floodgate of prejudice about who's worthwhile."
Burns said the bill – H1844, petitioned by Boston Democrat Rep. Byron Rushing – isn't about facilitating dramatic changes.
"The bottom line is that we're just asking to add two words to the discrimination law. I'm not looking for revenge against a doctor or hospital; I just want human rights. This will just give people the right to stand up for themselves," said Burns.
According to Burns and "fat activist" Marilyn Wann, Massachusetts would not be the first state to adopt this type of legislation; a similar bill was approved in Michigan and several cities - including San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Calif., Madison, Wis., and Washington, D.C. - have instated their own variations.
The bill has been brought before the Legislature six times before, said Burns, and has failed to pass each time.
Novice Advocate
Calling the advocacy her "first foray into political activism," Burns said she wants to encourage Berkshire County residents to get involved by contacting their legislators.
"We're in the early stages of a civil rights movement," said Wann, a member of NAAFA board and the author of "Fat!So?: Because You Don't Have to Apologize for Your Size," in a telephone interview. "People anticipate ridicule if they pass this legislation but I think the civil rights achievement goes beyond that temporary cost."
"I hope people in Massachusetts will take a courageous step. If we establish civil rights for height and weight, we're setting a standard for self-worth," Wann, of San Francisco, added. Wann also attended the hearing.
"This cannot continue to be legal. It could be your parent, your spouse, your sibling, your child who is denied medical treatment and made to suffer not only from physical pain but from the unshakable knowledge that their lives are considered worthless by the medical community and by their Legislature, which failed to grant them the same rights and protections that other minorities have," Burns read in her testimony. |
"And the reason she was denied the surgery by the first hospital was because they claimed they didn't have the equipment to treat her, not for any medical reason"
Doesn't sound like any discrimination to me. If she went to have her car fixed and they didn't have the equipment or parts - would she claim discrimination here as well? | | from: Turtle | on: 04-06-2008 |
|
"This article really didn't do a very good job of explaining why this woman was denied treatment. "
Worse, the article starts out with the assumption that discrimination did indeed occur. That has not been satisfactorily established, and the article should not have been written as though it had.
| | from: Jamie Bairstow | on: 04-06-2008 |
|
It’s this simple; If an overweight person wishes to take part in a non-life threatening medical procedure, the following must be legally binding.
1: The medical staff must advise the patient, both verbally and in writing, what the possible health risks that can be experienced during and after the completed procedure.
2: After receiving detailed information of the potential risks, the patient in writing, releases the medical team and all its associated partners, of any/all legal responsibility (unless there is gross negligence on part of the medical staff) so there can be no legal action taken against any professional who took part in the medical process if the patient is not content with any aspect of the procedure, or the family of the patient is not satisfied in the event of death.
Being overweight is not healthy in any form, therefore, most medical professionals will not engage in any procedure(s) that will place ANYONE in risk of injury or death if they are deemed medically unsafe.
Unfortunately, we live in a society that is terribly “sue happy” therefore, placing many professions in an exceptionally guarded stance as to what they will or will not do.
So, in closing, and most importantly, overweight persons must not under any circumstances ever be discriminated against for any reason. However, overweight persons must understand there condition places them at a higher risk of injury or death when agreeing to a non-life threatening procedure, in additional to risk factors that accompany being overweight, (IE: diabetes, high cholesterol, stroke, etc...) despite this, if they are adamant on receiving a specific non-life threatening procedure that medically places them at a greater risk of injury or death, they must release they medical staff from any/all liability, period.
PS: What many people may not understand, some medical facilities may not be (right or wrong) be capable of providing the proper care to an overweight person (large wheelchairs, larger beds, large lifting equipment, staffing, etc...) This is not a joke, the proper medical term is called “bariatric”
| | from: Scott | on: 04-05-2008 |
|
| This article really didn't do a very good job of explaining why this woman was denied treatment. Perhaps certain doctors/hospitals have a specific reason why they wouldn't do non life threatening procedures on the morbidly obese. I would think that there's a greater risk of complications with anesthesia, a longer recovery time, and increased complications in other areas as well if a person is morbidly obese. Perhaps more of a cost and liability issue as opposed to not liking heavy people. | | from: Tesh | on: 04-05-2008 |
|
The doctors who made the determination that Ms. Burns was a "safety risk" never examined her. The cause of her "poor health" was a gynecological issue unrelated to her weight. She had the surgery with no complications. And the reason she was denied the surgery by the first hospital was because they claimed they didn't have the equipment to treat her, not for any medical reason (they couldn't have claimed a medical reason since they never examined her!) They have the right to decide not to equip themselves not to treat her and she has no right to object? And if fat people are so unhealthy, how is denying them health care going to help?
As for those fat firefighters and EMTs everyone is so worried about, yes, there are standards of fitness required for those professions, but frankly, if I am in a burning building and a fat person comes to rescue me, I am not going to send them away and wait for a thin person to come in! I am going to say "Thank you!" and get the hell out of there before I burn to death! | | from: Merrily Wilder | on: 04-05-2008 |
|
Edit: In the first paragraph of my previous post, I should have used the term "equal rights" instead of the term "equal care".
A doctor's determination that an obese person is a safety risk is not discrimination or an infringement on their "equal rights".
It is a decision based on their health risks, thereby affording them "equal care".
| | from: 100 lbs lighter | on: 04-05-2008 |
|
Would you want the 170 lb 12 year olds playing football against your 90 pounder? Will you get off the crowded bus or plane when a 350 lb woman gets on? Will you pay even more for your insurance because morbidly obese people with their multiple health issues demand "equal care"?
Obesity is NOT a right - obesity is a health problem, caused for the most part by the excess intake of junk food - unhealthy sweeteners, soft drinks and highly refined carbohydrates - combined with a deplorable lack of exercise.
Just as cigarette smokers are not welcomed into every employment, medical and social situation, so must obese people accept the consequences of their unhealthy choices.
They are not being kept out of schools, hospitals, churches, transportation vehicles and Wal-Marts -
but a doctor makes a medical decision not to do a procedure on a person in poor health (obesity IS poor health), and this is called discrimination?
RIDICULOUS!
Having lost 100 + pounds myself through managing my glycemic index and increasing my activity level, you can bet that I have NO SYMPATHY for those who want to make their health problem MY responsibility.
It would be far more sensible to make free health education available to these folks.
| | from: 100 lbs lighter | on: 04-05-2008 |
|
| Consider, are you really serious? You do understand that certain professions have fitness standards and they test prospects, don't you? If the person passes it it doesn't matter what their weight is. Maybe you need to 'consider' things before spouting. | | from: | on: 04-05-2008 |
|
an all you can eat buffett was served in the little hall of the state house after the hearing
would this prevent someone from funning against incumbenent legislators, sometimes refered to as "fat and happy"? | | from: yum yum | on: 04-04-2008 |
|
| Everyone stop and think about this law would mean and honestly ask yourself...could an obese EMT climb four flights of stairs quickly enough to save your life? Could a severely overweight firefighter climb a ladder quickly enough to rescue your child during a fire? If legislation is passed prohibiting selection based on wieght and height it has to go across the board which means risking lives... | | from: Consider This... | on: 04-04-2008 |
|
Peanut Butter & Jelly and Turtle:
You are ignorant people. The point is she was denied a surgery solely because she was overweight - no other reason. It wasn't because it was life-threatening to her if the doctor's proceeded, they just didn't want a "fat" person in their care. A child not being the proper height is a SAFETY issue, not a discrimination issue. And, we spend far more money on less important things than new laws enacted. | | from: Someone a little more openminded | on: 04-04-2008 |
|
| Is it really worth the cost to reprint every document that has the discrimination verbiage printed on it because this person's feelings were hurt? | | from: Peanut Butter & Jelly | on: 04-04-2008 |
|
I guess the theme parks won't be able to prevent the shorter kids from riding on a ride any more even though it maybe more dangerous for them.
| | from: Turtle | on: 04-04-2008 |
|
|
Enter your email address below to receive our FREE iBerkshires.com Newsletter
|
|
