In 2018, ABC’s Four Corners program investigated the grip of the sugar industry on global policy efforts to cease the rise of obesity. The epidemic of obesity has been a major problem in Australia, with some advocating for a sugar tax to solve the problem. The program focused on some of the tactics that companies who use excessive amounts of sugar in their products utilised to skew the public’s perception of sugar.
In 2014, nearly 30 countries had a sugar tax. There are many policy considerations to think about when introducing a sugar tax. One is to reduce the number of admissions of patients into hospitals who have developed health problems caused by obesity. Another is to encourage companies to stop using so much sugar in their products by making the substance more expensive. Introducing a sugar tax shifts the financial burden onto companies, rather than punishing the tax payer for the costs associated with funding the public health care system.
Another method people have used to tackle the obesity problem is to litigate in court. One example to recall is an incident in the USA, where a group of teenagers brought an action against McDonalds for their obesity. It was thrown out of court as it was difficult for the teenagers to establish that the source of their illness was from eating McDonald’s food products. The case failed to trigger further cases, akin to the stream of class actions brought against the tobacco industry.
In Australia, blame has been shifted onto medical professionals based on a failure to warn about the effects of obesity.
In 2013, at first, Mr Luis Almario successfully sued his doctor for failing to treat his obesity that led to elevated liver function. Mr Almario argued that his doctor failed to re-refer Mr Almario to a bariatric surgeon which was the practice of general practitioners at the time. Mr Almario also submitted that his doctor failed in his medical duty of care and failed to warn him or to investigate further. Further, Mr Almario pointed out that his cancer was a result of his obesity, and if he had been surgically treated, he would not have developed the life-threatening cancer.
However, his doctor successfully appealed the decision in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court of Appeal stated that the finding of negligence by the trial judge was based on the proposition that the doctor should have referred Mr Almario to a bariatric surgeon by 30 July 1998. Their Honours found that Mr Almario had refused medical treatment by way of referral by his doctor to an obesity clinic prior to discovering his liver was cirrhotic.
The doctor’s insurer thought the decision to overturn Mr Almario’s payout was crucial for the profession as they could not be held responsible for every decision that a patient makes during their life. A doctor’s role should be to make sure a patient is informed.
The case does not close the door to further actions of illnesses caused by obesity against medical professionals. However, widening the scope of duty for a doctor to see all possibilities arising from an unhealthy lifestyle can be beyond the doctor’s duty of care, especially in instances where a doctor has referred a patient to an obesity clinic in the first place.
This is not legal advice.
Photo by rawpixel.com from Pexels
