".....our culture of instant gratification/never feel uncomfortable, to which the pharmaceutical companies are more than willing to cater, especially when somebody else is paying."
I strongly agree with OBG on this, as I have intimated in previous posts, and sympathise with Re-entry's puzzlement.
"I'm not always sure where the line should be drawn- do we stop treating people for high blood pressure and diabetes, if they are unwilling to make lifestyle changes?"
This is a good and difficult question. Lots of the things that people do are "not good for them" in some way of the other. Sometimes the "not good for you" has solid evidence and sometimes it's just a feeling by some people that it ought not to be good for you!
Quite a lot of the things that are "not good for you" are also pleasurable. There are plenty of folk who are suspicious of things that make you feel good, regard them as somehow immoral and would like you (and all of us) to stop. Yet feeling good is in itself "good for you" happy people live longer and have less illnesses. I think it was Marie Lloyd, the music-hall star, who pointed out that, "A bit of what you fancy does you good". You need to draw up an equation between the bad X does you versus the good that feeling good does. And another equation, down much does it harm society? A lot? A little? Is it tolerable? However "bad" it may be, will stopping it violate people's personal freedom to go to hell in a handbasket if they so choose? And finally, is banning it (like making some sex acts illegal even between man and wife) possible at all?
Many Western countries, with the UK predominant, have become "nanny states" seeking to regulate minutely the actions and thoughts of their citizens. Much of it stems from good intentions, but the results have been dubious, to say the least. By discouraging independence of thought and action this has produced in many a grumpy feeling of helplessness and disempowerment, resentments both voiced and unvoiced, a culture of blame and an abrogation of personal responsibility.
People are confused when, on the one hand an employer is unable to refuse to take someone on because of gross obesity and on the other the obese person is ostracised and made to feel like a criminal. There are many such contradictions.
It is unfair to refuse treatment to obese hypertensives and diabetics and yet at the same time surround them with advertising that encourages overeating. Mixed messages indeed!
Regulate the advertising then, you may say, and I have considerable sympathy for this, yet one then risks descending further and further into an overregulated society in which even more things are banned.
Every society carries a certain amount of "dead wood" - individuals who either contribute nothing to society. Every society decides for itself on a practical basis how much dead wood it can carry. Rich societies can tolerate a lot of dead wood without the society being harmed, whereas tough, marginal societies can, as a matter of survival, allow far less.
Some people, by their behaviour actually contribute negatively to society (criminals and so forth). Again, every society decides for itself, often informally at first and then formally (by means of laws) what is antisocial behaviour and how much it can be tolerated.
Personally, I favour a strong culture of self-reliance and personal responsibility, with less regulation and greater freedom. But I recognise that this must handled carefully, lest we descend into a dog-eat-dog brutal and anarchic chaos.
Perhaps the two documents that I admire most, in theory at least, are the Constitution of the United States and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Where does the line stop, and who should make that choice?
A very valid question, to which I have only partial answers, but it makes an excellent debating point!