Is it discrimination when doctors make care decisions that account for a patient’s extreme obesity? In British Columbia, astoundingly, it might be.
A Canadian woman who identifies as an “unapologetically fat intersectional feminist” won her bid to bring an obstetrician to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) for alleged discrimination on the basis of her size and body mass index (BMI), of 46, after the physician referred her to a high-risk birth centre during her pregnancy.
Sara Lindberg, 40, won an Oct. 4 BCHRT decision that refused Dr. Rick Mentz, and the Fraser Health Authority’s (FHA), application for a dismissal in the matter. Lindberg also accuses Dr. Mentz of treating her with disrespect on the basis of a disability — namely, her fatness. She must prove at the hearing that her weight constitutes a disability under the Human Rights Code.
In a bid to do so, she has dubiously claimed that her obesity is “involuntary and permanent.”
Lindberg’s fantastical claim that she is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics may not have even been necessary, though, as the BCHRT has expressed an interest in exploring the “social construction of disability” in the forthcoming hearing. The tribunal’s latest ruling states that “disability under human rights legislation, including under the Code, extends beyond biomedical conditions and functional impairments to perceptions and stereotypes,” apparently including stereotypes about being fat. (Fat, for the record, is Lindberg’s preferred nomenclature, which she describes as a “neutral term for people with larger bodies.”)
Glaringly absent from Lindberg’s entire case is any discussion of an infant’s right to a safe delivery guided by evidence-based care. The hospital where Lindberg wanted to give birth is classified as “low risk and without the benefit of specialized staff and equipment,” according to Fraser Health Authority. Obesity during pregnancy is linked to numerous health risks for both the mother and baby, including gestational diabetes — which Lindberg developed and required insulin for — birth defects, preterm birth, stillbirth, and a difficult delivery on account of the infant being oversized. That the human rights tribunal even mentioned, in its latest ruling, that Lindberg’s baby was born “without complication” can be none other than an admission that all parties recognize the risk that was inherent in her birth.
Lindberg got lucky with a healthy baby. Let’s hope her child does not require future therapy for the trauma of discovering that her mother fought so hard to prioritize “fat activism” over her own safe entry into the world. Because that is what this case ultimately comes down to: a fat activist performing a malicious and attention-grabbing stunt.
The potential ramifications of a future ruling in Lindberg’s favour are worrying. There is already a severe shortage of physicians in the province. B.C. will not be an attractive province for doctors who realize that the state may punish them — and publicly accuse them of violating their patients’ human rights — if they follow evidence-based practices that happen to offend the sensibilities of fringe activists. It will present a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” conundrum for physicians: risk offending a patient — and being sued and defamed — or risk not offering the proper level of care to avoid any offence, potentially harming patients — and being sued or investigated anyways.
We simply cannot normalize lawfare against physicians who hurt our feelings by speaking the truth. We could quite literally end up dead. A physician’s job must never include cosseting our emotional fragilities or political views. Those who would weaponize the state to enforce such coddling, as Lindberg is doing, are a detriment to us all.
When Lindberg, who ran for the federal New Democratic Party in 2015, first filed her 2022 human rights complaint, she told media that she felt “fat shamed” by Dr. Mentz, and that meeting him was “probably one of the worst days of (her) life.” She claimed that she suffered postpartum anxiety and depression due in part to Dr. Mentz’s referral to a high-risk birth centre. She is now represented by a lawyer from the Community Legal Assistance Society, which receives funding from both the federal and provincial governments.
This is not the first time Lindberg has accused a physician of “fat shaming” her. In an X post from 2022, she claimed to have undergone a “botched” gallbladder surgery with a “surgeon that messed up, then fat shamed (her) incessantly.” In another post, she asserted she had suffered two-plus years “of intense medical fat shaming” that directly caused her to develop numerous ailments, including postpartum depression, an eating disorder and “fear of food,” post-traumatic stress disorder, body dysmorphia, and a fear of physicians.
In online communications with National Post, Lindberg claimed she has no interest in being awarded damages in her case. Instead, she said she wants a policy change that will both “remove arbitrary BMI/weight restrictions on labour and delivery,” and offer a “case-by-case risk analysis in a more patient-centred model.”
Dr. Mentz did not respond to a request for comment. He might do well to look into having the case against him tossed out as a vexatious complaint.
The BCHRT should have no place in determining what constitutes a legitimate high-risk medical situation, based on airy notions of “social constructs” or “fat shaming.” Nor should the province permit activists like Lindberg to hash out their personal grievances and vendettas on the publics’ dime. About her weight, I couldn’t care less. But her entitlement, now that is way too large.
National Post