Big Fat Facts Big Fat Index

Gastric Bypass Death

Several readers sent in a news story of a 37-year-old Boston woman who died while having weight loss surgery. It's important to remind people that these surgeries are extremely dangerous, especially when some doctors are recommending them as the cure-all.

The article notes only 14 deaths from 2001-2003 from the operation (per the FDA) and a 1-2% mortality rate. A separate study notes a 10% complication rate; men who had the operation were the minority, but had a 70% chance of having a complication.

With all of the negative reports in this article (albeit not very many - still, enough), I can't imagine putting my life at risk for that.

Margaret Cho's Diet | The Thin Pill

lucia November 9th, 2003 | Link | I was astonished at the idea
I was astonished at the idea that men, had a 70% chance of having a complication. I went to the web page above and found this wording: Overall, 10 percent of the patients experience complications. While 84 percent of the patients were women, the men had a 70 percent greater chance of complications. I take this to mean that women's complication rate is near 9% and men's is about 15.3%= 1.7* 9%. The average rate is 10% = 0.84* 9.0% + 0.16 * 15.3% I know.. picky, picky. Still, 15% is not 70%! :D
turtlegrrl November 9th, 2003 | Link | I also think that the FDA is
I also think that the FDA is very selective. Just because someone does not die on the table does not mean that he or she does not die of complications caused by WLS, & plenty of people do. And I have never considered that being thin was worth risking my life...through surgery, ingesting dangerous drugs, or self-starvation...for.
michelle November 9th, 2003 | Link | how about this: "And if you
how about this: "And if you do any operation on morbidly obese patients, even a simple appendix removal, the risk of mortality goes up. These are typically very sick patients." what? typically very sick? before or after the operation? is this a preemptive cop out, so when patients die on the table they can blame the person's fatness instead of the DANGER of the procedure? i think there has been a general trend lately of minimizing surgery risks. it makes me wonder who is benefitting (profiting) from this. just this week a morning news show featured an obstetrician saying that scheduled elective c section was the safe way to have a baby with minimal recovery, etc. this is ridiculous. after such an operation many women are bedridden for weeks and in pain long after. not to mention 4 times more likely to DIE than vaginal birth. it is just hard to believe people fare better under the knife than just by being their fat selves, intact.
turtlegrrl November 9th, 2003 | Link | I am also utterly infuriated
I am also utterly infuriated by the statement that the simple fact of being fat makes one "a very sick person." That is such utter & total bullshit, plenty of fat people are very healthy, fit, active, &, as some other studies have shown, no greater surgery risks than thin people. They are covering their asses, & blaming the deaths & the complications on the patients, as they always do. I have been told by some, including some I know personally who have had WLS, of how they are brainwashed & programmed to believe that everything that happens concerning the surgery is their responsibility, their fault. They are told that anyone who warns them of risks is in denial about the "dangers of obesity", jealous that this person is going to be thin, & should be ignored, they are told that "only bad people have any complications after surgery", & that those who have to have as many as 20 follow-up surgeries, those who have to have complete blood transfusions every 3 months, those who suffer extreme anemia & malnutrition, lose their hair, have seepage & breakthroughs in their incisions, etc., just did not do the right things. The same is also said of the large number who regain most or all of the weight. And, yes, some of these people are told that WLS is no more complicated or risky than an appendectomy. And who is eligible is apparently determined more by who either has good insurance or lots of money, since I read a few months ago in an aol story of a woman who had WLS who was only 5'6", 218 pounds before the surgery. Sorry, that doesn't sound like morbid obesity to me. And the idea of routinely delivering babies by C-section is an abomination! These bastards will do anything to make things easier for themselves & to make a buck! Nothing brings in money like surgery, you know!
michelle November 11th, 2003 | Link | i have to say i'm surprised
i have to say i'm surprised that 84% of WLS clients are women, i thought it would be more even; like 60/40. and why do men have such a higher rate of complication??
lucia November 11th, 2003 | Link | I don't know why men have a
I don't know why men have a higher rate of complications, but I'd speculate based on things I've read. First, women tend to feel more social pressure to lose weight regardless of health. Second, people who do chose WLS are more likely to have ill health than those who don't chose WLS (even accounting for the same weight.) Now: speculation: Maybe, a sizable fraction of women chose WLS based on weight only or at least primarily based on weight not ill health. In contrast, maybe men tend to pick WLS surgery when they have ill health and are also fat. So, those who are unhealthy have a higher rate of complications? This theory would also be consistent with women having WLS surgery more often than men. Men tend to resort to it only when they are sick and fat. Women often resort to it when they are just fat.
earthmama November 12th, 2003 | Link | You think this isn't part of
You think this isn't part of the diet/profit racket going on in America right now? Are people really listening to the information available? Do you HEAR the death rate? I am 5'5" and weigh 265, by doctor's standards I am morbidly obese. I don't drink, smoke or do drugs and I've been basically healthy all my life. At age 40 I was diagnosed with Type II diabetes. Over the course of the last two years we have worked out a course of oral medication that keeps my blood sugars well within the 'normal' range. But yet my doctor felt compelled to talk to me about WLS. Even saying that she could get my 'insurance' to cover it because I was a hundred pounds overweight. I cannot believe that the doctor that was supposed to be concerned with my health and well being would suggest having a risky, potentially life-threatening surgery/mutilation for my own 'good'. I went in search of another physician. It's all about the money folks.
lorlyn January 30th, 2004 | Link | This is kind of long, my
This is kind of long, my apologies, but I really believe that WLS is another wave of diet crazes out there, course this one is definitely being pushed more because it is more money in the pocket of the physician who does the surgery and to those who support it being done. I have had doctor's tell me that this is what I need, but I truly do not feel that it is right to go messing around inside my body for such a drastic measure and for something that if I really honestly set my mind to the task at hand I could do. But then again, I may always be overweight, because it runs in my family and so will WLS take care of my genes too? I have read articles where they say this is not a get thin quick scheme, but I think this is what the doctor's are promoting and they are encouraging it more and more. And they know that by having the surgery, most people lose large amounts of weight in short periods of time. I know of two people in my own town who had a form of WLS done and they are back to the size they were before. Now this one may have been a less radical one, but I still do not believe that this is the answer to the rise in the growing overweight population. Society, I feel, is largely to blame for the way people look at and feel about themselves and when one has pressure from society, many people become depressed or feel they are unworthy and so they eat. Also, our world has become much busier and most people do not have time to cook well-balanced meals, so they rely on the restuarants for their food source and many do not offer well-balanced meals, so many people have gained weight from having to eat out. Now I don't believe in suing McDonald's for one's weight gain, but I truly feel that there should be better food choices for people. Also, if they know the oil they cook foods in cause weight gain, why don't they change it! Like what fries are fried in, the oil they state causes people to gain weight.....so is that the consumers fault? I think there is far too much blame and shame laid on the overweight person. I think that there needs to be more things that encourage people rather than drag them down and make them feel unworthy and less because of their size. I also think that far too many thin people sit in judgement when they do not know the reason why someone is overweight....it could just be that they did not sit at a table and gorge themselves to the size they are today and many do not think that they even have a part in why so many overweight people feel inferior and less human because they do not meet societies standards. I remember my grandmother telling me once that when she was growing up, she did not recall larger sized people being ridiculed for their size, they were actually considered healthy! Course they did not have TV to veggitate in front of, they did not have all the conveniences we have today that makes us as American's more lazy. They did not have all the medications they have today with some causing a person to gain weight. People worked hard back then. Times were slower paced and there weren't fast food places, only the corner diners that served a good cooked meal. Some where along the way we decided that by making the fat population feel bad about what they looked like that they would be shamed into losing weight, but I think it truly has backfired on them. And it has become a multi-million dollar industry with all the diet and weightloss schemes out there. But are the larger sized people reaping any of the rewards....no....just the shame and ridicule. So, I truly do not think that this newest craze of WLS is going to make American's thinner....maybe some who take their life in their own hands and allow someone to change what God created inside of them....but is it worth it? I personally do not think that throwing up because one ate over 1/2 cup of soup or that you have diarrhea because you ate something too greasy or had caffiene in it or that you now have a vitamin deficiency because you are not getting the nutrients you should have from the foods you ate before you had this procedure done. They say they are saving people's lives and that they are making them healthier....how can a vitamin deficiency be healthy? I think to many people are being told this is the only way and I don't think that is true. And I know doctor's tell you that larger sized people are more prone to have diabetes, heart problems, and so forth....but alot of that comes from your genes as well and I know many large sized people who do not have diabetes, heart problems, etc. It is something small people can have as well....but what is the cause of their health problems. It angers me when a doctor pins all problems on ones weight. It isn't always the reason why you feel awful!! Doctor's have become lazy in their care to patient's. Give'm a pill or tell them to lose weight and send them packing! They do not encourage, they scold when you do not meet the goal they think you should. How is that helping someone? Maybe we just need to accept people for who they are and love them for their uniqueness!! I don't think God meant for us all to be thin, He certainly didn't create all of us to be tall! Can you imagine a world if we were all thin? Then what would society pick on?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.