Abstract
The paper reviews the article, “Why We Need to Stop Labeling Behaviors Influencing a Person’s Weight Ideal or Healthy”, wherein Madeline Ward (2023) criticizes the act of corporates giving monetary bonuses to employees whose body mass index is below 25 in light of the harmful impact this mode of determination has on the employees and as well, sometimes create stigma and workplace discrimination. Ward advises that we must assure workers know the relationship between bad eating and lifestyle behaviours and the risk of chronic diseases. At the same time, we also take their health improvement steps to the provided health intervening initiatives, establishing the gym and the childcare centre. At this point, the paper summarizes some of Ward’s key arguments on the ethical concerns surrounding healthism. This paper also addresses the significance of dealing with the social determinants of health and the need for comprehensive wellness initiatives.
Introduction
The article, “Why People’s Bodies Should Not Be Labeled Healthy or Ideal”, by bioethicist Ward (2023), states that the concept of healthism and the workplace use of such is an oppressive character as one employee can be labelled healthy or unhealthy based on this which can lead to social inequality. He points out the negative sides of Nike’s policy regarding its employees’ body mass index (BMI), proving that this perception may worsen social inequality once it is settled. This study illustrates why Ward feels that healthism, as culturally understood through BMI-reward systems, needs to fully consider the complicated socioeconomic demands from and of the population. The paper strives to carry over Major’s dominant perspective, which would be, in essence, to bring to light the underlying ethical questions around using narrow criteria of health indicators like BMI to promote well-being initiatives in the workplace.
Pros and Cons of Healthism
Healthism, which sees people being in charge of their health, can bring many benefits and hurdles when working with people. Employers are experts in “healthism” to obtain wellness methodology and encourage employees to maintain a BMI under 25. This approach may bring employees a sustainable living habit, which, as a result, helps a company’s expenditure on healthcare be lowered and workers’ health improves. Moreover, organizations that aim to embark on wellness programs can create health concerns for the people involved, and productivity is also high. However, alongside that, corporation healthism may ultimately produce some unwanted results and adverse effects as well.
One illustration is a CR person with a waistline over 30 inches, conforming to healthy habits but facing discrimination and insurance penalties. The BMI assessment of normal individuals might not be the most appropriate metric. Also, healthism can set a trap for some people, ripping them apart due to the standards of health based on a common concept. In contrast, others face this social rejection and stigmatization while living with a disability or a chronic disease. The narrow focus of healthism as only targeting specific health indicators reflects the necessity of shifting towards more inclusive and all-encompassing employee wellness initiatives that scrutinize all health indicators these persons might face and prioritize overall well-being instead of only body parameters.
Understanding Health and Healthism
Ward (2023) indicates that an individual’s health condition is controllable through the things they eat, the amount of exercise they carry out and their lifestyle, among other things. However, along the way, she acknowledges that positive incentives like consuming healthy foods and ditching cigarettes are also great for improving workforce health. Contrarily, Hawne highlights the shortcomings of healthism for its inability to perceive the role of socioeconomic status in basic health decisions. She particularly brings to light problems that people with low incomes have, such as rude groups of people, those without access to healthy food, and those who care for their family members or relatives.
Interestingly, he declares that using the BMI (Body et al.) as an obesity indicator is inappropriate because it does not consider certain elements of fitness based on metabolism. Therefore, this criticism signifies a weak assumption of quantitative measurements as exclusive indicators for health outcomes (Ward, 2023). In the context of Ward’s argument, the highlighted points draw a dichotomy around the traditional notions of health promotion and prod for a more balanced grasp of wellness, considering the intricate network of social, economic, and biological factors. Similarly, the evidence presented by Ward implies that health status is a phenomenon resulting from multiple determinants of which a person’s behaviours are only part. Socioeconomic pressures and environmental factors, alongside structural disadvantages, define how much people can be with the health-enriching facilities and possibilities. Therefore, the carriers of wellness should not stay away only from the systemic inequities that mainly bring obstacles to the healthy lifestyles of individuals.
Alternative Approaches to Encouraging Wellness
Ward (2023) proposes several changes for a healthier work culture. Strict classifications of healthy and unhealthy behaviours do not determine employee wellness. Instead, companies should use this opportunity to increase the visibility of benefits linked to eating right and the coexistence of health and prevalent ailments such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and hypertension.
Furthermore, he recommended that companies provide their workers with the means to use such facilities as gyms, healthy food choices, and nursery oases. By adopting these non-traditional approaches, organizations create an atmosphere encouraging employees to make healthy lifestyle decisions without the stigma or pressure based on their weight or other health markers (Ward, 2023). Consequently, it comes to meeting the principles of social justice through assets such as equity and autonomous participation provision since all employees have equal access to resources and opportunities in their remaining lives.
Conclusion
The author advises that corporate wellness movements should shift policy from the sub-sector, which targets only those deemed fit according to BMI, to educating and allowing all employees to access facilities instead of only incentivizing. Such techniques ensure that everyone witnesses the struggle and smiles on the faces of the staff. In other words, the staff is not ashamed and left out because they look unhealthy. These purposes result from a workplace environment that shows equal treatment of health conditions in general. Companies can be proactive in helping their employees to be healthier and feel satisfied through comprehensive wellness initiatives, which lead to increased workplace productivity in a wider effort to improve the workforce’s health. However, these practices promote social ethics and benefit employees and employers. The two parties will help in the end. Consequently, employers should be aware of comprehensive wellness plans emphasizing the outreach and accommodation strategies that will ultimately benefit all employees independent of their health conditions.
Reference
Ward, M. (2023). Why do we need to stop labelling behaviours that influence a person’s weight, ideal or healthy? AMA Journal of Ethics, 25(7): E472-477. https://doi.org/10/1001/amajethics.2023.472
write