YOU don’t have to look too far for authoritative reports that support the notion of bariatric surgery for obese patients. A study published in the journal Public Library of Science Medicine in 2015, for example, found that, when its findings were applied to the 1.4 million morbidly obese Britons, bariatric surgery could prevent 80,000 cases of high blood pressure, 40,000 cases of Type 2 diabetes and 5,000 heart attacks over four years.
Just under a year ago, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association said that obese patients who underwent stomach-shrinking surgery had half the risk of death in the following years compared with those who relied on diet and behaviour alone. Experts said that such surgery was cost-effective and led to substantial weight loss.
Scottish figures, revealed today via Freedom of Information requests, disclose that the number of weight-loss operations here fell by a fifth between 2013-14 and 2017-18, from 259 to 205. It has to be said that, in the context of short- or medium-term priorities, the thinking of those who determine local NHS resource allocation can at least be appreciated: bariatric surgery at some £10,00 a time costs the NHS twice as much as a hip or knee replacement, after all, and is around £1,000 more than a heart bypass. But the persuasive rejoinder is that an obese person stands a much-increased chance of requiring one of these procedures over time. Furthermore, obesity is a key avoidable cause of cancer. What we don’t pay now, we will pay later.
Tam Fry, chair of the National Obesity Forum, is correct to observe that current attitudes are a short-term catastrophe. Other European countries recognise the general importance of carrying out many thousands of such operations every year. Here, there is a compelling case to be made that it is better by far to shoulder the cost now than in the ruinously costly years ahead, when competing challenges, such as those posed by an ageing population,will put the NHS under serious strain.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here