The obese should not be entitled to disability benefits.

1. Let's have the facts.I'll start by clarifying a few facts and explaining why Mr. Eggleston's misrepresentation (or ignorance) of the facts is important.First off, his representation of the Court's ruling is not accurate. He claims that the Court's ruling establishes obesity as a disability and that the European taxpayer must now pick up the tab for them. This is completely false--in fact, the complete opposite of the Court's ruling.The question that was before the Court was whether (a) obesity gives rise to anti-discrimination protections; and (b) obesity could trigger the legal requirement of a workplace accommodation.[1] The Court determined that obesity does not give rise to broad anti-discrimination protections, but that it could in some circumstances trigger the legal requirement of a workplace accommodation.[2] If an individual's obesity causes a long-term physical, psychological, or mental impairment that hinders job performance, that may result in the requirement of an accommodation.[2] Notably, as in U.S. law, European law requires only accommodations that are reasonable in the circumstances, and the employee may still be terminated if the employee is not able to perform even with reasonable accommodations.[1]So, far from being a ruling that obesity is now grounds for the dole, the ruling stands for the proposition that, if reasonable accommodations can be made, the employee should continue to work. This is quite the opposite of how Mr. Eggleston has described the situation, and it should radically change the way he views the decision. The purpose of laws that prevent termination for a disability that can be accommodated is to keep people productive and off the dole, not to take people out of the work force.Second, Mr. Eggleston's representation of the situation in the United States is patently false, except for his proposition that we are "the land of the free and the home of the brave," which is spot-on. He warns the U.S. not to follow in Europe's footsteps, when, as usual, the U.S. has been far ahead of the curve, and has long since beat Europe to the realization that we are better off with working obese people than with unemployed obese people.[3] Our Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employment discrimination against persons who are found to have a disability due to obesity, as recognized by our courts and counsel.[4] When it comes to unemployed people, obesity can contribute to a determination that the individual is eligible for Social Security Disability benefits, and this has been true in the U.S. for quite some time.[5] Not that we in the U.S. have anything over the Europeans, whose welfare state has been encouraging all workers, both fit and obese, to seek the European dole. In other words, tying my first two points together, Europe has long been a beacon to the slothful, and with this new Court ruling Europe is now more in line with basic logic, which is that if you're going to be so kind to the lazy, you should likely make sure the employable are protected from needless termination and thus don't end up drawing a welfare check.Third, when it comes to costs, it is clear from Mr. Eggleston's exposition of his argument that he believes that the U.S. approach is quite ideal in terms of its expense, since he predicts doom should we deviate from it. Granted, he is completely unaware of the fact that the U.S. is leading this march; however, let's take him at his word that the U.S. approach has been economically superior, which, indeed, it has. Protecting the working rights of employable people is a good economic policy.In summation of this bit of factual clarification, I'll point out that protection of employment and the requirement of reasonable accommodations is, in fact, a benefit. And, it's clear that offering social security disability to some people with obesity has not managed to put the U.S. in competition with the European welfare state, so Mr. Eggleston's prophecies of doom are overwrought.[6] So, even if Mr. Eggleston tries to arbitrarily narrow the definition of "benefit" to eliminate the relevance of the Court opinion that he completely misunderstood or misrepresented (a narrowing to which I will not agree), that will not help him show the great danger in extending other benefits.2. Let's consider the morality.Mr. Eggleston's tirade reeks of moral disapprobation and a sense of his own moral superiority, so, I will consider the morality of benefits for the obese.First, I will dispose of his discussion of benefits for the truly disabled. It is irrelevant to me whether an obese person obtains handicapped parking, a place to sit on the train, or the like. I do not need it, and I do not begrudge him it. I do not understand the moral value of insisting that a person should suffer because he is obese, and if there is one, I encourage Mr. Eggleston to offer something other than harsh words. Second, as for his claim that the obese have done something to deserve their condition, while others have not, this is a false distinction. As pointed out by both the European Court and the U.S. Fifth Circuit (a very conservative circuit), persons with disabilities are eligible for accommodation without regard to their fault in their condition.[2,3] It is not true that obesity indicates higher culpability, because many other disabilities are caused by choices, risk, and misadventure.[2] Furthermore, obesity is influenced by a number of conditions outside of one's control, as discussed by one of our less-than-liberal news sources.[7] Third, obesity is, as discussed by scientists,[8] influenced by a number of factors, including genetics and one's work environment. Making such harsh moral judgments as Mr. Eggleston offers about individuals who may have different results from the same behavior because of genetics is highly suspect. But what is even more suspect is his moral ignorance of environment. For instance, many sufficiently aged adults have had the experience of the combination of age, stress, long or irregular work hours, and limited time for proper diet and exercise due to commitments, leading to decreased fitness. For Mr. Eggleston, he sees a "greedy" person sticking his "snout" into the larder. A reasonable person would instead see a hard worker who has acquired a condition in large portion (no pun intended) because of his devotion to his work and commitments. Certainly it is desirable for a person in such a situation to take measures to improve his health, as most of us do. However, implying that those who fail or who may have more serious conditions that dispose them towards failure in health is something we should associate with laziness and lower life forms is simply harsh words. We should, rather, assist such people.3. In conclusion.I have established a case for extending benefits to certain obese individuals. The benefit of accommodations keeps people gainfully employed when possible, which is desirable, and there are moral grounds to assist people who have failing health. The Court's decision, and U.S. policy, is correct and economically desirable.Sources:[1] http://curia.europa.eu...;[2] http://curia.europa.eu...[3] http://www.eeoc.gov... [4] http://www.gordonrees.com...; http://www.insidecounsel.com... [5] http://www.ssa.gov...[6] http://www.npr.org...[7] http://www.foxnews.com...[8] http://www.livescience.com...