I saw that documentary - it was heartbreaking, but I agree with you that he was only paying lip service to losing weight. I do think it's a shame that he's essentially been sectioned, but it's not as if he's someone who just "likes his food" - as you say, he's got a compulsion that's not far off killing him.

Difficult one from a libertarian point of view, but from a humanitarian point of view I do think intervention's the best thing in the circumstances.

Then again, when they come to lock me up for smoking I may well change my mind ;)

Don't get me wrong: they are going to lock you up for smoking. It's just that this particular event is not the thin end of that wedge.

Libertarianism is all about freedom and autonomy, concepts that, sadly, will never apply to many mentally ill people.

Thank you S2 for a better insight into this issue, rather than the slippery slope arguments and the accusations of nanny state presented by others.

It is NOT nannyism to look after people with mental health problems dispite how it appears, I saw no arguments against what the authorities had determined as this man's mental and physical status, I saw nothing supporting his view that "one day they just turned up and took me away", what so he's never had health care in his life up till now and managed to self-diagnose using the internet ? Surely someone has been monitoring his progress, surely he has been warned ?

It doesn't take an idiot to realise there are two sides to each story and unfortunately the health authorities aren't going to give you their side because of patient confidentiality.

What it boils down to is that people don't trust healthcare as another government insitution, they point to isolated instances of incompetence but ignore the huge amount of care and professionalism that is done correctly on a daily basis.

This guy might live a few more years longer because of this, and the people trying to help him are getting it in the neck.

Ian,

I'm so grateful for your appreciation that I'm going to have to argue with you.

I think you're conflating two issues here. What I was saying was that Chris Leppard was taken into care because he has a self-destructive mental illness, not because he's fat, and that there is nothing wrong with locking such people up against their will when it is genuinely for their own good. That has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the NHS's service.

> I saw no arguments against what the authorities had determined as this man's mental and physical status, I saw nothing supporting his view that "one day they just turned up and took me away"

Absolutely right, but I'm afraid I can see nothing in what you've written to support your implication that Chris Leppard will get good treatment on the NHS. I am very sceptical of that.

Squander2, you are clearly suffering from a mental condition yourself and should be locked up for your - and any unwary web surfer who has the misfortune to come across the rubbish you write - good.

Chris is no more mentally ill than someone who slowly kills themselves smoking or puts themselves at risk by particpating in dangerous sports such as climbing.

You claim to be as worried as the next Libertairian about the goverment locking up innocent people against their will, and yet you are quite happy for poor chris to be incarcerated for no other reason than that he eats too much.

Who needs fascists, when we have prats like you.

Hi, Phil.

If you look up the details of Prader-Willi syndrome, you will discover that its key cause is a non-functional hypothalamus. Now, it may be that you have a good explanation or theory of why, in some cases, having an incorrectly formed brain isn't the same thing as having a mental illness — and I for one would love to have the debate that would result from that — but you haven't offered it here. Instead, you formatted the word "prats" in bold, which isn't such a good argument.

Does anyone have a copy of that documentary? ('Not My Fault I'm Fat')

Not me. Sorry.

I make no comment about the appropriateness of Chris' situation, I don't know enough about his case to have an informed view. However, I saw the documentary a couple of nights ago on Australian TV. What I thought was odd was what it _didn't_ say. It focussed on the issue of the insatiable appetite, but was almost silent on other typical symptoms such as:
- slow physical and mental development (eg, walking usually occurs around age two).
- speech and language problems
- mental retardation (average IQ is around 70, with a range from 40 to 105).
- behavioral problems (obsessive complusion, rigid personalities and explosive tempers, with true depression and psychotic episodes being reported).
- hypogonadism

Again, I can't claim to know anything about Chris' circumstances, but I suggest that there would be some cases of PWS where involuntary institutionalisation is entirely appropriate. A PWS sufferer isn't just a person who can't stop eating, s/he is in many cases suffering from a range of symptoms which make him/her incapable of helping him/herself. The big question is, at what point is it appropriate to intervene?

i am very sorry for Chris leppard. i am willing to help if there is any chance. i was a medicine doctor when i was in china. and i did the course of deep pressure massage for losing weight. it is very popular in china. it can stimulate the nerves which control your stomach and your brain. if any body can pass the messege to any authority or his family i would like to help as a volunteer. thanks

the chinese deep press massage can control your feeling for hunger. at the first week you may feel not very well because of the sore muscles. after that you will be getting better week by week. it is long journey, about 6--8 monthes.