To think that people living longer is making quality of life for everyone worse?

@EasternStandard Well, my 52-year-old friend had a knee replacement in December, no contributing factors such as obesity, she’s just unlucky to have bad knees.

She’s back at work as a dentist so the operation was definitely worthwhile.

I'm 33. I've had both hips and both knees done. I should have had my elbow replaced by the end of the summer. They should last me 20 years, maybe more maybe less. At what point should I be told 'nope, sorry. You can't have anymore!'?

I don't think it is lifespan that is the problem, rather that the distribution of wealth is so insanely skewed these days.

I think it isn't a question of age, but of quality of life. Someone who will never again be able to feed or wash themselves, communicate with loved ones, or do anything independently should not be medicated to the point that they are being kept alive artificially. They should have pain relief and palliative care, but prolonging life in this instance is purely selfish.

Those in this position are generally elderly because the body and mind deteriorate after 80+ years of life, even if lived extremely healthily. It's not ageist to say that the elderly are generally more frail and closer to death; it's entirely natural.

If there were a form that I could sign right now to ensure that I could die peacefully at the point where I no longer had a decent quality of life, I would. I do not want to exist in a world where I do not have any capacity or recollection of my loved ones, nor do I want my care to be a burden on my children. I want their memories of me to be of an independent, vibrant woman.

But lots of people of all ages are alive who don’t actually have a happy life or life at all
So who gets to become cops of happy lives?

Look at cases that have ended up in the papers with parents fighting courts to keep children alive who really should
of been allowed to pass peacefully.

If you can still live a genuine happy life sure.

But lots of people of all ages are alive who don’t actually have a happy life or life at all. Just hooked up to machines and left to just life out their life unable to talk or even eat. Not be able to let anyone know how they even feel because they just are not in there anymore.

Joint replacements are quite something though, when you think in terms of the NHS being set up and what we can do today

Projections for hip and knee operations are eye watering by 2030

Not say they shouldn’t be done but a discussion on how we fund it is no bad thing

People are too afraid to ever say goodbye or that they will be judged if they don’t push for every thing possible when honestly it’s not always in the persons best interests
Does this apply to children who suffer brain damage? Even if they are living a seemingly happy life but relying on heavy meds to prevent seizures, mucus build up in the lungs anf more.

Should these happy yet very disabled children be taken from their parents and what? Killed? Because as you say, it's not just the elderly!

What a horrible thread - conflating two vastly different areas for political manipulation no doubt.

That isn't a life. I agree. But there are posters on here saying that people of 75 plus shouldn't receive joint replacements!? Ffs. Going to dignitas as soon as they need to rely on someone.

It’s not just elderly is it. It’s anyone who has a huge cost of social care to be kept alive basically. We have grown this life at all costs to be the only acceptable answer. We have babies being born who will live hooked up to tubes for every second of their lives breathing and feeding them, never to walk or talk or anything pretty much, because life at all costs.

We have people with bodies that are trying to give up but the answer is always to pump more drugs more antibiotics. Just stick a plaster here and there. The person isn’t ever getting better. It’s prolonging the inevitable or in the cases with infants bringing them into a life of nothing to start with.

People are too afraid to ever say goodbye or that they will be judged if they don’t push for every thing possible when honestly it’s not always in the persons best interests.

There is no pot of gold the debt just gets bigger and bigger untill something has to give.

It goes beyond ageist. Apparently a life is not worth living as soon as you need to rely on someone else. Still waiting on a response from that poster on multiple things.

Care homes can keep people going for years and years due to modern medical interventions. Imagine lying in a bed, unable to communicate or see/hear properly, subjected to a blaring radio playing foul electronic music, doubly incontinent, in constant pain/discomfort, no say in anything and only able to eat mush. Antibiotics every month or so prescribed by a disinterested GP with no real understanding or interest in palliative care and who sees every death as a personal failure. And relatives who scream blue murder at the staff if the resident shows any sign of deterioration whatsoever. I'm so relieved I left nursing. I didn't train so that I could spend my days and nights torturing people.

The slope is so slippery that it's been made illegal.

What a great thread for MN, finding out that 60% are ageist. So much for expecting the world to support the rights of women when the majority don't care at all about the rights of the elderly! Truly a shocking thread.

Exactly, @twoblackdogs , because where do you draw the line? What about people born severely autistic, for example, who are unable to ever live without support-what’s the point of keeping them alive for decades? The slope is just too slippery.

@Elvisthedonkey I think you misunderstand the "price of a life" concept. Life is priceless i.e. too precious to be valued in monetary terms alone.

@ChristmasGutPunch Completely agree. It’s like those people during Covid who said “if lockdown saves even one life then it will be worth it”. They don’t seem able to accept any kind of value calculations - the kind which are actually made by the NHS and government every single day.

There is no price on a life? Yes there jolly well is.

I understand where you're coming from, OP, but this is a slippery slope. So we set an age when somebody comes and says "oh hello, Anne, your time has come, move aside for the young people, we have come to take you over the rainbow"?
On the other side - when you see people dying with cancer and begging for death which doesn't come because they must be kept alive no matter what...
I still believe there's enough money for care and things like that; however, it absolutely doesn't go where it should, and there's almost nothing we can do about that. Pessimistic, I know.

I find it mystifying that a terrible health service is in general accepted but the idea of shifting expenditure from the very elderly to the younger population is beyond the Pale
Because noone gets to decide who is more worthy just based on age. Just like some race is not more deserving, nor sex, nor the non disabled.

Do you have the same attitude with other protected charities or is it just the older population you seem less worthy?

Well... The NHS makes decisions not to treat older people every day. The principle is necessary because there's no alternative
Yes, when they ascertain that interventions can do more damage than good AND after discussion with the patient and their family.

No other alternatives, you mean none that suite your narrative, that is illegal and immoral!

75 is not 'very' elderly

I find it mystifying that a terrible health service is in general accepted but the idea of shifting expenditure from the very elderly to the younger population is beyond the Pale. It's very like COVID thinking all over again. I wonder if this mentality will change as the dominant older generation ebbs away.

It won't be due to their age alone. It would be due to their quality of life if any and the outcome if successful. That isn't just a decision for the elderly. It's for any age.

Well... The NHS makes decisions not to treat older people every day. The principle is necessary because there's no alternative.