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

It really isn't hard to say "after 75 you can't expect significant intervention". I am always astounded to hear of people who feel a 90 something relative should have been given more care. There simply isn't enough resource to go around an old population. We're not talking about this for fun!

@shypoet That’s a fair point to make.

@Elvisthedonkey You do know social care budget funds disabled adults and elderly people? A cut in that means a cut to care for autistic adults who can not live independently. Do not think your son will be excluded from this.
And what do you propose we do with people who need social care if we get rid of the budget? Leave people to die of starvation in their own faeces?

And OP people do not normally live to a 100. The median age women currently die is 82 years old. So are you proposing non treatment of everyone over 70? Over 75?

I query all these stories about people with dementia and other diseases saved from pneumonia through aggressive treatment.
Nearly everyone in that situation has a DNR and do not treat pneumonia. If they do not then that means either your relative has enough capacity to consent to treatment and is saying they want treatment, or relatives are saying they want the treatment.
My FIL was at home with a carer visiting for 2 years and had consented to no aggressive treatment at all. He knew he was dying and was at peace with that. But he did not want to be killed off prematurely.

The voting is really worrying, speaking as a 62 year old (still working and paying tax and NI BTW).

@Allthesea DS had a mixture of ABA, SCERTS and speech and language therapy. He should also have had occupational therapy but he was turned down by the council (he really needed it - age 12 he still can’t tie his own shoe laces - but they just don’t have the funds) and there was only so much we could self fund. Funding for children with autism is woeful. I would 100% prioritise funding for children over social care for the elderly; those who insist there is enough money for everyone “if only Shell paid more tax” don’t understand how it works, I’m afraid.

So you're suggesting involuntary euthanasia of people living in long-term care is the solution to improving quality of life for the other members of our society?
Hitler, is that you?

Regardless diabetes and obesity do cost, it looks like Wegovy etc will be used more often given recent trials

Drill in a little deeper.... no peer reviewed research yet and do we really want to give people a "pill for every ill" pretty much saying eat like a pig and the NHS will have an expensive drug to fix your lifestyle choices?

Both of these diseases can often be fixed by not eating rubbish and a little exercise.

Quite right OP. As an older person my right to life and to be in the lives of my children and grandchildren is of far less value than your kid's right to go down a water slide at the weekend.

What a nasty, toxic thread. Designating people as drains on society and discussing how to basically rid society of these valueless people.

Absolutely right. It wouldn't be long before assisted dying became compulsory for the aged. Then it would spread to other groups,
such as the disabled or mentally ill people. Naxi Germany's euthanasia programme even killed off dyslexic people and mothers with post natal depression. They were 'Useless mouths' according to Nazi doctrine.
Everything to do with eliminating frailty could so easily spin out of control in a society that valued survival of the fittest.

I also worth remembering that things like flu, covid and infections arent actually guaranteed to finish you off, even pneumonia known as old mans friend isnt 100% you will die if untreated. Therfore they arent always treated to prolong life. The treatment or prevention is about making you more comfortable at the time and preventing a whole heap other things to make you even more uncomfortable longer term when you survive anyway.

Are the majority saying kill the elderly?

I don’t think the op is suggesting that

Is that correct on spend I thought it was more related to age than that

Regardless diabetes and obesity do cost, it looks like Wegovy etc will be used more often given recent trials

Treating and preventing acute disease in someone already living with illness or disability isn't just about saving their life though, is it? It might be about them surviving with, or without, additional impairment and care needs. It's a pragmatic rule of thumb that straightforward emergency treatment should always be given, unless the patient refuses it.

Except you can't, if you were serious. The rules have changed and I think you have to be a Swiss resident for a number of years. You can't put a value on life. You get to choose, if you have capacity but the minute you lose capacity you don't get to chose at all.
We need to get rid of this asset stripping government and get social care properly funded.

40% of cancer now directly linked to obesity. The biggest cost to the NHS is diabetes, of which 90% is caused by lifestyle choices. Heart rate issues mainly caused by lifestyle issues. Correlation between obesity and dementia...I could continue....

So before killing the very old people who most will have managed to make it there due to healthier lifestyles, how about killing the younger ones who are the biggest drain on the NHS and then social care due to unhealthy choice. In all likelihood it will be the majority of posters by the time they reach 60.

Honestly, these threads are utterly disgusting for it's sexism. Imagine saying a race should be killed because they are a bigger drained to resources.

Shame on the majority of posters here!

As far as I can see there are three different questions going on in this thread, all important and should not be ignored.

1. The super rich sucking up all the wealth leaving the rest of us to scramble around and arguing over the crumbs. They didn't make this money on their own, the people staffing their warehouses made it for them, they deserve their fair share.
2. Keeping very elderly people alive in extremely poor health in pain and suffering with constant rounds of antibiotics and vaccines instead of letting illness like flu end their suffering quickly. I think assisted dying is a bit of a red herring, is extending very, very poor quality of life that's more of an issue imo. And please don't come on saying ' my nans 89 and run marathons, you want her dead' you know full well that's not what I'm talking about.
3. Demographics and the challenges this will create. It's no good saying 'oh just fund things better' this is head in the sand. For example, in South Korea in (I think) 15 years, there will be more people over 65 than under, birth rates there are 0.7 and still heading down. The UK is much more protected from this than SK because of high immigration but Demographics will still be a challenge, even here.

Your kid is 12. Most girls go through phases of wanting to be teachers when they grow up. Nothing is set in stone at that age.
You have no idea what the world will be like when she is old enough to buy a house.
You blame old people living longer. The birth rate was high in the decades after ww2. Those children are now the elderly. There are a lot of them.
Governments have not been allocating enough money to health care for years whilst still implementing cut backs. That's why we are in the position we are in now.
Of course billions can be found to fund wars. The world is a very dangerous place right now. You cannot possibly know how life will be for your kids or for yourself when you become one of the old people.
I wonder if you will care about the same things when it's YOU needing the care?
Time will tell.

He won't have paid more than he's cost by this age. That's part of the problem.

My point is at the age if 33, I am one of the people OP is talking about. I am never going to be 'well'. Am I a drain? I work but I won't be able to forever. Is my life not worth living as I have to rely on others?

The moment I have to rely on anyone else is the moment I’ll be hopping on the first plane to Dignitas.

No you won't.

So many people say this, including celebrities, and others who can well afford to hop off to Switzerland. The will to live is very strong, even if you're old and feeble.

Have advancements in medicine have contributed to the decline in living standards and quality of life? No. As a previous poster has pointed out, more than half of UK social care expenditure is on adults aged 18-64. I would suggest that if the government improved their (currently piss poor) funding of dementia research then the spend on the over 65s might see significant decreases…you know, thanks to those pesky advances in medicine allowing older people to live independently for longer.

If you were him, would you refuse the treatment? He must have paid quite a lot in tax and NI by now, and he could expect on average to live another seven years. Or are you saying that his condition is terminal and chemo will only prolong the agony? (Still his choice though.) If patient doesn't have capacity, how is the decision made?

I think anyone over 75 is incapable of dying early, to be honest (my parents both over this age agree - but get extensive and expensive NHS care for ongoing conditions while I have to pay privately for mine because of waiting times / total NHS disinterest in the working age population). Anything you have beyond then is a lovely treat and I don't think you can ask for more than not being actively harmed.

Your story is terrifying @Samlewis96 and I'm going to sort my living will now. It's horrific that they keep people alive in a hellish state.

I agree.
The deserves a thread of its own. Its not the 1% though. At the bottom of that you have senior doctors and headteachers and other people doing really important work. It's a tiny, tiny percentage, much less than 1% suckling up all the wealth.