0 out of 5 - I was denied services based solely on a numeric weight threshold. I am a Mental Health Therapist, I am appaulled! As a female individual, I must highlight that weight alone is not an accurate indicator of bodily stress on equipment, nor does it reflect true physical risk - especially when factors like height, body composition, fat-to-muscle ratio, human anatomy, and gendered weight distribution are not considered. For Example:
Weight ≠ Risk: A taller individual like myself may weigh more but distributes weight over a greater surface area, reducing concentrated pressure points.
Female physiology (as in my case) often involves lower centers of gravity and more even fat distribution, which mitigates risk to structural equipment compared to male physiology of equal weight - in comparison to a “standard patient”. That standard, by the way, was designed around a 154lb white male in the 1970s.
BMI is a substandard and sleazy metric. Anchoring your decision to a debunked, racist tool invented by a Belgian mathematician with zero medical training in the 1830s indicates immense need for reform at your facility.
Equipment and clinical standards based solely on weight without flexibility for individualized assessment is an outdated, potentially discriminatory practice that fails to account for modern diversity in body types, genders and the comprehension of physiology as a whole.
Denying care without an opportunity for an individual risk assessment feels not only deeply impersonal, but clinically negligent. This decision contradicts trauma-informed, person-centered care values, especially in a mental health or substance use recovery context. This is supposed to be a space where people are already vulnerable, often judged, and in need of compassion; not clinical shaming. Denying care to someone based on a number on a scale? That’s not care. That’s cruelty wrapped in red tape.
I will not be reduced to a statistic. I find it imperative to provide my testimonial about this dehumanizing experience. If I don’t know, who will? There was no due diligence here - only a number and gross negligence.