Jab the fat, make them work.
Stock images
Wes Streeting MP’s recent proposal to provide weight loss injections to unemployed individuals suffering from obesity is both dystopian and fundamentally flawed. Partnering with the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, the government is set to conduct a five-year trial in Greater Manchester, testing the efficacy of the weight-loss drug Mounjaro on unemployed people struggling with obesity and obesity-related health issues. The goal is ostensibly to help these individuals shed weight, improve their overall health, and ultimately re-enter the workforce, thereby reducing the financial strain on the NHS. Streeting lauded the initiative, stating, "There’s a lot of evidence already that these jabs, combined with changes to diet and exercise, can help people reduce their weight and also prevent cardiovascular disease and diabetes, which is game-changing."
The economic rationale behind the proposal is clear: obesity-related illnesses currently cost the NHS an estimated £11 billion annually, according to the Health Minister. However, while the financial burden of obesity is undeniable, this article seeks to challenge this new Labour policy's ethical, practical, and philosophical underpinnings.
State intervention in personal health decisions, particularly through incentivising wearable devices and weight-loss injections, represents a troubling infringement on individual autonomy. Streeting’s proposal, which includes monitoring citizens’ health through wearable technology, opens the door to more invasive forms of state control. Such measures risk transforming the NHS from a healthcare provider into a regulator of individual behaviour, shifting from treating illness to dictating lifestyle choices.
The government should prioritise empowering citizens to make informed choices rather than coercing individuals into health decisions via state-sponsored incentives. Health interventions should focus on providing education and resources, not surveillance and control. As public health experts like Dr. Dolly van Tulleken have noted, there are significant ethical concerns surrounding medical interventions like these, especially when they are framed in terms of economic productivity rather than personal well-being.
Centralized government interventions in health, such as the proposed weight-loss jabs, are historically prone to inefficiency and waste. The bureaucracy involved in large-scale public health initiatives often results in poor implementation and limited effectiveness. As Dr. van Tulleken pointed out, specialist weight management services in the UK can only treat 49,000 patients per year, yet the population eligible for this trial likely numbers in the millions. The mismatch between demand and supply is a glaring issue that government intervention has consistently struggled to address.
In contrast, the private sector is better suited to tackle issues like obesity through competition, innovation, and consumer choice. Allowing private companies to offer fitness and health solutions independently of state control would result in more scalable, efficient, and effective outcomes. A market-based approach encourages innovation and caters to individual preferences, reducing the bureaucratic burden on the NHS and offering more tailored, accessible health solutions.
One of the most concerning aspects of this policy is its emphasis on measuring individuals based on their economic value and productivity. The notion of administering weight-loss drugs to unemployed individuals to return them to work shifts the focus away from personal health needs and towards economic outcomes. This instrumentalisation of human health—viewing people primarily through the lens of their financial utility—is a slippery slope towards economic coercion.
The state has no right to dictate personal health choices based on the perceived financial benefit to the nation. Such policies undermine the dignity of individuals, reducing them to economic units rather than respecting them as citizens with rights to self-determination. Governments should not engage in policing citizens' health for economic reasons. This approach devalues human autonomy and risks further stigmatizing vulnerable populations, framing their worth in terms of economic productivity rather than their inherent dignity and well-being.
Labour’s 10-year plan, which links NHS trust funding to performance metrics and reform implementation, centralizes power in the hands of the state and limits the autonomy of healthcare providers. Under such a framework, hospitals and clinics would be compelled to follow government mandates, leaving little room for independent innovation or flexibility in meeting local needs. Streeting’s suggestion that trusts failing to "play ball" could face penalties is a troubling example of this.
A free-market approach to healthcare would allow hospitals and clinics the flexibility to tailor their services to the unique needs of their communities without the constraints imposed by centralized government control. Greater competition and choice in healthcare would drive better outcomes, fostering innovation and improving the quality of care. Top-down, one-size-fits-all reforms, in contrast, stifle creativity and adaptability, leaving the healthcare system mired in bureaucratic inefficiency.
Expanding government-led healthcare initiatives, such as providing weight-loss drugs and wearable devices, is financially irresponsible and will likely increase the tax burden on citizens. While the government claims that such measures will reduce long-term healthcare costs, the immediate expenses of running these programs are substantial. Administering drugs like Mounjaro to millions of individuals, combined with the cost of implementing wearable technology and managing the associated data, could far exceed any potential savings.
Through competition and innovation, the private sector is better equipped to provide cost-effective solutions for public health issues like obesity. By allowing market-driven health initiatives to flourish, individuals can access a broader range of health and fitness services that suit their specific needs while avoiding the financial strain that massive public health programs often place on government budgets.
Labour’s NHS plans represent a worrying expansion of state control over personal health choices, with dubious ethical and economic justifications. Rather than empowering individuals to take responsibility for their health, the government is shifting towards a paternalistic healthcare model that risks undermining personal freedom and autonomy. A more effective approach would prioritize personal responsibility, market-driven solutions, and minimal state intervention in addressing public health concerns such as obesity.
By allowing the private sector to take the lead, individuals can make their own informed health decisions, and the NHS can focus on providing quality care without becoming entangled in regulating personal lifestyles. Ultimately, public health should not be reduced to a question of economic productivity; it should be about preserving individual dignity and autonomy.