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

You didn't ready my post earlier in this thread then?

@toomuchfaff I do see the point you’re making.

@ThisNoisyTealLurker Have you ever worked with someone who chose not to take their medication and/or refused interventions? What happens in that situation?

I’m asking because I could see my Dad (86) do this at some point or felt that he’d had enough and was ready to die after a long life. I feel that it’s his choice, tbh.

And what criteria works for your "time to die" scenario?

So there's a car crash - one passenger in each car injured.

car 1 - you have the fit and healthy 85 yr old - who has run marathons weekly since they were out the womb

car 2 - the 35 stone 44 yr old, who has never not eaten a ready meal, lives on crisps and chocolate, thinks vegetables are just pretty plants and smokes 40 cigarettes a day

Which one deserves to get the treatment more in your "we don't have enough funds to treat the old people"?

I hope they need a new hip on the day after their 75th birthday.

Don't be an ageist, abelist.

I hope to God you don't work for the NHS.
She's be sacked very quickly thankfully!

Leaving a 90 year old woman with a hip that dislocates is compassion is it? She was up and on her feet quicker than me and she was almost 60 years older. Compassion my arse. If they are lying there at the end stages of dementia, shitting and pissing themselves, then yes, you have a point. But a completely ok old lady who just needed a hip replacement? No.

Some people miss out. Those who have lived a full and long life have had their turn. And elderly people are so, so, so expensive in healthcare terms. I would not want to be kept alive at 85 while 50 year olds are immobile and out of work waiting for knee operations
I see. So if my 85 years old, very healthy and fit dad, who has worked hard all his life, ensured to keep a healthy lifestyle, did volunteering until a year ago, has all.his brain and still do arithmetic quicker than I had an accident through no fault of his, he should be left to die so that a 50 years old, needing a knee replacement due to self inflicted obesity and total lack of exercise, can have one, despite the fact they will still do no exercise and conti he with their unhealthy lifestyle afterwards?

Thankfully it is illegal for the NHS to discriminate on age because indeed, you can a much healthier 80 year old co pared to a 50 year old.

It sounds like many posters seem to forget that age IS a protected characteristics!

You'll understand when you're older.

I hope to God you don't work for the NHS.

Do women want to be the answer though? We have higher education and maybe that’s a factor, I mean it’s a bit regressive for women in some ways

So what age are you killing off your parents? Or other elderly relatives?

Sorry aunty Ida - you've been around too long now. Time to die (its for the greater good!)

Don't forget - that's also the age you have to take the pill and step off the plane too (probably younger by time you get there... what with the population getting bigger - makes sense to get rid quicker by your calculation)

@JL690 Well, thank goodness the law says different.

The government has done everything it can to destroy familial inter generational care. Women now in full time work, raising the pension age, propping up house prices so people have to work longer to pay their mortgage, selling off social housing so people have to move away from their family.
At each of these steps people have pointed out that it would destroy any culture of intergenerational care. Now the country is reaping that reward.
So the "solution" is simply to let people die.

I disagree. You had the chance to prevent their death but chose not to. That's an active decision, therefore you killed them.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Younger/healthier people can often think that older/frail/disabled are a drain.

Somehow when they are in that position they aren't all booking flights to Switzerland.

Good old-fashioned nastiness

@JL690 No, it isn’t splitting hairs at all. I think it’s a bit worrying that you think that. If someone was drowning in a shallow puddle and you walked by and didn’t help, did you kill them? No, you didn’t.

It is saying we should let people die. That only rich people should get to live to over 85 years of old. Anyone else...tough.

Social care is a rising concern. Asking how are we going to afford it seems a good question. Institutes are set up to think about it as it’s so difficult

Plus we’re not really keen to do our own elderly care, some will but culturally it’s quite low

But non-treatment could easily translate to withdrawal of palliative care and in the case of dementia patients who can't communicate pain or fear that might mean a quicker but more intensively terrifying death. We don't know, and so the middle ground must be maintained on compassionate grounds not on the grounds of tidy book-keeping.

It is nuanced and a moral dilemma first and foremost, but in the case of people who cannot decide for themselves it's more humane to ease potential suffering.

Every case of this nature is individual which is why legislation and box ticking shouldn't be a sledgehammer that ends up cracking nuts that don't want to be cracked out of pressure from society trying to save money.

The OP isn't about medical care. The OP is about councils cutting services in order to provide basic social care to the elderly. That's what the OP is objecting too. She doesn't think it's right that kids miss out on leisure centres to fund basic social care. Frail elderly people should be left in filth, unable to feed themselves so that kids can have story time in the library.

That is really splitting hairs. Not providing life saving treatment is killing by omission.

See this is the issue - somehow “non-treatment” is now seen as “killing”. It’s not.

It’s not sick it’s compassionate.