What do you think about this?

[Iconoclast]

This little news item has the staff where I work in a complete uproar. What do you think?


Source: Nurse Told She Is Too Obese To Move To New Zealand


One reason why the British nurse was denied residency - It could cost the New Zealand government NZ$25,000 to treat obesity-related health problems.
A British nurse was refused permission to live in New Zealand because she weighed 294 pounds, official documents disclosed.


The 51-year-old, who has not been named, argued that her 52 inch waistline was no obstacle to her work as a nurse, which involved 60-hour weeks.

She was offered a job in a home and hospital for the elderly in a provincial town in New Zealand, documents from the country’s Residence Review Board said, and applied for residence in March 2008.

But officials rejected the argument that 10 years’ experience as a nurse meant she should be allowed to live there - even though there is a shortage of qualified nurses.

The woman decided to move to New Zealand after a holiday in 2007 and wanted to set up home there with her husband, a crane driver, and her daughter who planned to work in a shop.

But medical advisors calculated that with a weight of 294 pounds and height of 5ft 1in, her body mass index (BMI) was 55.2, putting her at a high risk of developing health problems.

The certifying doctor recorded “morbid obesity in otherwise well lady”.

Treatment of potential metabolic problems could cost the New Zealand government 25,000 NZ dollars, it was estimated.

The NHS says that a healthy body mass index is between 18.5 and 24.9, while an index of over 40 means the person is “very obese”.

Documents setting out the board’s decision, made last month, showed that she had started losing weight and had dropped 42 pounds in the last two-and-a-half years.

Officials said if she reduced her BMI to 40 her application could be reconsidered.

But they found that currently, despite the woman being in good health, the family “would make a sound, but it could not be said significant, contribution to New Zealand”.

In 2007, a British man who moved to New Zealand was told his wife was too overweight to join him.

Via Telegraph

[Iconoclast]

Sorry, can't amke the link work.

[HammBugga]

5'1" and 300lbs! That is bad. However, I don't think she should be denied citizenship. It seems discriminatory.

[rock__]

I don't know anything about New Zealand. If it's standard for them to deny people who may have potential health problems based on certain criteria, then I guess that's up to them. I do wonder if the same goes for across the board health issues. Say someone who's recovered from a cancer, or someone who has a compromised immune sytem, etc. Basically, if the same goes for everyone, regardless of their current health condition, but all based on potential costs, then it sounds fair. Otherwise I'd say it isn't fair to deny a woman who is currently capable of working and contributing, based on potential cost.

[Tweet]

I think that's pretty fucked up,actually. I think it's discrimination, pure and simple. She's capable of working and giving something to society. What if there were similar problems with diabetes? Would they not allow diabetics in? Not ok, imnsvho.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I don't know anything about New Zealand. If it's standard for them to deny people who may have potential health problems based on certain criteria, then I guess that's up to them.
I agree with this. When countries like New Zealand that have socialized medicine make decisions for residency, these things have to be considered. Officials consider if a person's job skills could be beneficial to their country, and they also must look and see if the person's health issues could be detrimental to their system.

[SingingMom]

I guess if the policy is applied to health issues across the board I could at least respect it as "Hey, not my country, and not how I'd do it, but whatever".

If not, then I think it's a load of fecal matter.

I think that such a policy would ignore the fact that people are more than a balance sheet of income and cost, and bring intangible benefits that can never be quantified.

My accounting professor brought up a similar question today at the beginning of class. Apparently someone in school administration is bringing up the idea of charging more for students who already have degrees (I'm attending a community college, which costs twenty dollars a unit, for everyone.)

Once upon a time, tuition fees at these colleges were much higher for those who already had bachelor's degrees. I have been really enjoying the diversity of the campus, the interesting, smart, and surprising cross section of students. I really think that making the fees flat-across-the-board for everyone contributes to the accepting feel of the campus.

I think there's little benefit to applying higher fees to this really small section of the student population, and it would just make the place feel wrong.

Similarly, I think it's more beneficial to have a more welcoming attitude towards potential immigrants; the benefits just don't necessarily show up on a cost analysis.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I think that such a policy would ignore the fact that people are more than a balance sheet of income and cost, and bring intangible benefits that can never be quantified.
But they have to quantify. If they're limited on how many people they can accept into their country, what type of criteria do you suggest that they use? "Oh, you seem sweet and gentle; we need some people like you"? "You seem like you're raising great kids; c'mon in"?

[JudyJudyJudy]

http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/policies/immigration.php

NZ First will:

...

ensure, where appropriate, health screening of overseas visitors to stop the current abuse of our public health system and to protect our citizens. Health screening for migrants and refugees will be bolstered;

...

base all immigration policy on the premise that all immigrants must have a sound command of English, have a job, be of good character and sound health, and be willing to integrate into New Zealand society;


http://www.immigration.co.nz/life-in-new-zealand-for-migrants/new-zealands-immigration-policy.html

Long Term Skills Shortages List (until recently known as Priority Occupations List):

The Government has also put in place a list of occupations the Immigration Department deem to be in continuing acute and chronic under-supply across New Zealand.

If an applicant is offered a job for which their occupation is deemed to be in chronic shortage, a work visa/permit can be issued, subject to their proving qualifications and experience in that field, registration if applicable with the appropriate local institution, character and health for a period of 30 months. Once the applicant has been working for the company for two years, they can then apply for residence, so long as they are under the age of 56 and comply with health and character requirements.



If you keep reading on that last link, health is a huge deciding factor in determining who is allowed to live in NZ. If they are to keep their healthcare system intact and take care of their own citizens, I think this is pretty smart.

[Iconoclast]

The Us has requirements re: heath and financial status before we accept immigrants. I don't know what they are (google your heart out Judy ;) ). I doubt obesity is on the list of excluded conditions (like TB, HIV) but it probably ought to be.

I think it is entirely appropraite for NZ or the US or whomever to decide to whom they want to grant citizenship. There is no way she is "healthy" at 5'1" and 300 pounds. Statistically, she is likely to cost them a fortune.

[rock__]

TB and HIV are contagious, obesity is not. So, I see those as two different issues. The US may have restrictions on non-communicable health issues as well, I don't know. But since out health care isn't completly socialized, it is a different situation. That said, I agree that a country has the right to their own immagration standards.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I thought it was interesting that NZ requires immigrants to "have a sound command of English."

[still_me]

TB and HIV are contagious, obesity is not. So, I see those as two different issues. The US may have restrictions on non-communicable health issues as well, I don't know. But since out health care isn't completly socialized, it is a different situation. That said, I agree that a country has the right to their own immagration standards.


It is not contagious, but it is teachable. Also, if you are going to hire a nurse would you rather hire one that is fit, or one that isn't? Honestly, if I were an employer, I would have to take that into consideration. This is a situation that clearly highlights that obesity could be a strike against you.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Unless the hospital rooms and doctor's office rooms in NZ are far bigger than here, the woman's size could also impede her ability to do her job. I've seen average-size nurses having a hard time squeezing into the areas around equipment to do their jobs.

[Iconoclast]

In this case, NZ is nixing residency b/c of the high correlation b/w morbid obesity and medical costs. I think it is entirely reasonable.

The US doesn't have socialized medicine, but who pays for treatment of immigrant who show up in EDs? Declining applications from immigrants with a similiar likelyhood of becoming a burden to the community seems prudent to me.

I think I did hear someplace that HIV and TB are communicable. I wish I remembered where.

[Iconoclast]

Unless the hospital rooms and doctor's office rooms in NZ are far bigger than here, the woman's size could also impede her ability to do her job. I've seen average-size nurses having a hard time squeezing into the areas around equipment to do their jobs.

I think she was going to work in some kind of nursing home, so perhaps her job would consist of charting and handing out pills. I suspect she could do that for a while, but sooner rather than later, it is certainly going to cause problemns with mobility if nothing else.

Hiring nursing and medical staff based on the kind of example they might set wouldn't work well. Half the nurses I work with smoke, lol. Considering they are already working short handed, I don't see not hiring smokers. Of course, someone showing up for a job interview reeking of cigarettes might not get hired, just as a 300 pound applicant or someone who shows up for an interview hung over might not get hired. It certainy gets complicted.

[JudyJudyJudy]

The US doesn't have socialized medicine, but who pays for treatment of immigrant who show up in EDs? Declining applications from immigrants with a similiar likelyhood of becoming a burden to the community seems prudent to me.
I agree.


I think she was going to work in some kind of nursing home, so perhaps her job would consist of charting and handing out pills.
In the nursing homes I've been in, the rooms are small, so unless she planned to be the one sitting behind the desk, I still think it could be an issue, and most likely it would take her longer than average to do such a job.


I suspect she could do that for a while, but sooner rather than later, it is certainly going to cause problemns with mobility if nothing else.
I agree.


Hiring nursing and medical staff based on the kind of example they might set wouldn't work well. Half the nurses I work with smoke, lol. Considering they are already working short handed, I don't see not hiring smokers.
I can certainly see why NZ would reject smokers because, like obesity, smoking contributes to health problems and will likely cost a lot of money in the long run.

As for nurses who smoke, I changed peds when Jacob was a baby because of that. Every time one of the nurses dealt with him, he would start sneezing and wheezing.

[Iconoclast]

I don't think I've ever been in a nsg home. I have no idea what the workload is like. I had an idea that the aids did all the physical caretaking, lpns did meds and an rn was in charge in an admin capacity. I reallt don't know though.

[JudyJudyJudy]

That's pretty much right, which is why I said that she might end up with a desk job. However, in most nursing homes, the RNs at least pretend to go to the rooms on occasion. ;)

[BeachMama]

Honestly? I don't think it's unreasonable.

[MrsKitty]

I wonder where the line would be drawn. A certain BMI.. or just anyone who was overweight? What if someone was overweight but active and ate well? You can have people who have horrible diets and be thin and not healthy at all. Would they only take weight into account, or a full health check?

Obviously this lady isn't healthy at her height and weight, but I am wondering about people who are a little overweight, not morbidly obease.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I wonder where the line would be drawn. A certain BMI.. or just anyone who was overweight? What if someone was overweight but active and ate well? You can have people who have horrible diets and be thin and not healthy at all. Would they only take weight into account, or a full health check?

Obviously this lady isn't healthy at her height and weight, but I am wondering about people who are a little overweight, not morbidly obease.
Apparently, they draw the line at morbidly obese. They said that her application could be reconsidered if she got her BMI down to 40.

[Iconoclast]

Even 40 is still obese.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Very much so. It seems more than reasonable.