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

No, not performing open heart surgery on a 95 year old, when elsewhere funding cuts mean there’s no ambulance to save the life of a dying child. I’m talking about sensible resource allocation, not killing people

No, not performing open heart surgery on a 95 year old, when elsewhere funding cuts mean there’s no ambulance to save the life of a dying child. I’m talking about sensible resource allocation, not killing people

I've been posting on the assisted dying thread. It's a very emotive topic. And I've explained my conflicted thoughts around it.

What is setting off alarm bells for me is a sudden uptick in general of open discourse over the "problem" of lack of resources all round, and the pointing at vulnerable groups - the poor in general, the sick, the elderly, the disabled - as the root cause.

It's all being carefully dressed up of course in terms of supporting policies that will actually help them of course - encouraging people to work because it's good for them and will cure their mental health issues for example - to be achieved perhaps by substituting money for vouchers for therapy or other immediate needs.

There is a seed being planted and encouraged to grow in the mainstream that state dependency is more about lack of resilience and personal responsibility than demonstrating the knock on effects the effects of living in a fast paced, ever changing modern world that has irrevocably changed the employment landscape, made housing an asset over providing secure homes, encourages atomisation and division of society and economically means it's incredibly difficult to survive without asking for state assistance for a rapidly growing number of people.

While the OP of this thread may have been genuinely interested in a philosophical debate around the issues of whether all the progress made to address all the ills of society has indeed improved things, or created new problems of its own, it has quickly turned to a discussion of worthiness in terms of application of that progress from an economic point of view.

Talk of pragmatism, hard choices, people having to "take one for the team" and accept the results of engineered economic policies means if you are even (hopefully) temporarily disadvantaged you are "part of the problem". You are supposed to feel guilt and shame and be striving to avoid "taking".

There's alot of weasalling going on. The dehumanisation is meant to bring those who "don't really need" the state assistance they are entitled to, yer have had to prove they are via means testing and often humiliating medical scrutiny, to the realisation that they are taking from the even more vulnerable. It's not the government's fault.

The poor government has so much to deal with, what with being hamstrung by global affairs, and making sure money goes where it is really due - into the pockets of those whose pockets already overflow.

Why have we bothered to strive for progress over the last couple of centuries at all? If you really overthink (as I am unfortunately wont to do) what is / has been the point of trying to improve things at all? It's just created its own issues so back to simple survival of the fittest - and richest - seems to be gathering popularity.

It appeals to the worst facets of human nature, capitalises on desperation and flies in the face of decades of encouragement to nurture better mental health and create a more equitable society.

Ideologies are spread at dizzying speed due to the advent of technology which should be used to improve things for all (where is my flying car?) yet it is used more for propaganda, the promoting of division by culture wars and honing the tools of actual war than anything else.

But what I'm really getting at is that we are being encouraged to think this is just the law of unintended consequences and that there is no agenda. And we have to just "do our bit" at the bottom of the heap to improve things, which now seems to be to consider ourselves "drains on society" if we don't have a six figure salary. Which overlooks that apparently, according to some on MN on those salaries are also feeling the pinch.

None of this makes any sense. We keep calm and carry on (mostly) with less and less idea of where we're going as a species in general, but also economically.

The daily cognitive dissonance brought about by just existing is dizzying.

I know what I'm getting at, but it's so complex I'd better shut up and go and make my Dad his breakfast. At least that's one thing I can achieve with guaranteed success.

I've been posting on the assisted dying thread. It's a very emotive topic. And I've explained my conflicted thoughts around it.

What is setting off alarm bells for me is a sudden uptick in general of open discourse over the "problem" of lack of resources all round, and the pointing at vulnerable groups - the poor in general, the sick, the elderly, the disabled - as the root cause.

It's all being carefully dressed up of course in terms of supporting policies that will actually help them of course - encouraging people to work because it's good for them and will cure their mental health issues for example - to be achieved perhaps by substituting money for vouchers for therapy or other immediate needs.

There is a seed being planted and encouraged to grow in the mainstream that state dependency is more about lack of resilience and personal responsibility than demonstrating the knock on effects the effects of living in a fast paced, ever changing modern world that has irrevocably changed the employment landscape, made housing an asset over providing secure homes, encourages atomisation and division of society and economically means it's incredibly difficult to survive without asking for state assistance for a rapidly growing number of people.

While the OP of this thread may have been genuinely interested in a philosophical debate around the issues of whether all the progress made to address all the ills of society has indeed improved things, or created new problems of its own, it has quickly turned to a discussion of worthiness in terms of application of that progress from an economic point of view.

Talk of pragmatism, hard choices, people having to "take one for the team" and accept the results of engineered economic policies means if you are even (hopefully) temporarily disadvantaged you are "part of the problem". You are supposed to feel guilt and shame and be striving to avoid "taking".

There's alot of weasalling going on. The dehumanisation is meant to bring those who "don't really need" the state assistance they are entitled to, yer have had to prove they are via means testing and often humiliating medical scrutiny, to the realisation that they are taking from the even more vulnerable. It's not the government's fault.

The poor government has so much to deal with, what with being hamstrung by global affairs, and making sure money goes where it is really due - into the pockets of those whose pockets already overflow.

Why have we bothered to strive for progress over the last couple of centuries at all? If you really overthink (as I am unfortunately wont to do) what is / has been the point of trying to improve things at all? It's just created its own issues so back to simple survival of the fittest - and richest - seems to be gathering popularity.

It appeals to the worst facets of human nature, capitalises on desperation and flies in the face of decades of encouragement to nurture better mental health and create a more equitable society.

Ideologies are spread at dizzying speed due to the advent of technology which should be used to improve things for all (where is my flying car?) yet it is used more for propaganda, the promoting of division by culture wars and honing the tools of actual war than anything else.

But what I'm really getting at is that we are being encouraged to think this is just the law of unintended consequences and that there is no agenda. And we have to just "do our bit" at the bottom of the heap to improve things, which now seems to be to consider ourselves "drains on society" if we don't have a six figure salary. Which overlooks that apparently, according to some on MN on those salaries are also feeling the pinch.

None of this makes any sense. We keep calm and carry on (mostly) with less and less idea of where we're going as a species in general, but also economically.

The daily cognitive dissonance brought about by just existing is dizzying.

I know what I'm getting at, but it's so complex I'd better shut up and go and make my Dad his breakfast. At least that's one thing I can achieve with guaranteed success.

I've been posting on the assisted dying thread. It's a very emotive topic. And I've explained my conflicted thoughts around it.

What is setting off alarm bells for me is a sudden uptick in general of open discourse over the "problem" of lack of resources all round, and the pointing at vulnerable groups - the poor in general, the sick, the elderly, the disabled - as the root cause.

It's all being carefully dressed up of course in terms of supporting policies that will actually help them of course - encouraging people to work because it's good for them and will cure their mental health issues for example - to be achieved perhaps by substituting money for vouchers for therapy or other immediate needs.

There is a seed being planted and encouraged to grow in the mainstream that state dependency is more about lack of resilience and personal responsibility than demonstrating the knock on effects the effects of living in a fast paced, ever changing modern world that has irrevocably changed the employment landscape, made housing an asset over providing secure homes, encourages atomisation and division of society and economically means it's incredibly difficult to survive without asking for state assistance for a rapidly growing number of people.

While the OP of this thread may have been genuinely interested in a philosophical debate around the issues of whether all the progress made to address all the ills of society has indeed improved things, or created new problems of its own, it has quickly turned to a discussion of worthiness in terms of application of that progress from an economic point of view.

Talk of pragmatism, hard choices, people having to "take one for the team" and accept the results of engineered economic policies means if you are even (hopefully) temporarily disadvantaged you are "part of the problem". You are supposed to feel guilt and shame and be striving to avoid "taking".

There's alot of weasalling going on. The dehumanisation is meant to bring those who "don't really need" the state assistance they are entitled to, yer have had to prove they are via means testing and often humiliating medical scrutiny, to the realisation that they are taking from the even more vulnerable. It's not the government's fault.

The poor government has so much to deal with, what with being hamstrung by global affairs, and making sure money goes where it is really due - into the pockets of those whose pockets already overflow.

Why have we bothered to strive for progress over the last couple of centuries at all? If you really overthink (as I am unfortunately wont to do) what is / has been the point of trying to improve things at all? It's just created its own issues so back to simple survival of the fittest - and richest - seems to be gathering popularity.

It appeals to the worst facets of human nature, capitalises on desperation and flies in the face of decades of encouragement to nurture better mental health and create a more equitable society.

Ideologies are spread at dizzying speed due to the advent of technology which should be used to improve things for all (where is my flying car?) yet it is used more for propaganda, the promoting of division by culture wars and honing the tools of actual war than anything else.

But what I'm really getting at is that we are being encouraged to think this is just the law of unintended consequences and that there is no agenda. And we have to just "do our bit" at the bottom of the heap to improve things, which now seems to be to consider ourselves "drains on society" if we don't have a six figure salary. Which overlooks that apparently, according to some on MN on those salaries are also feeling the pinch.

None of this makes any sense. We keep calm and carry on (mostly) with less and less idea of where we're going as a species in general, but also economically.

The daily cognitive dissonance brought about by just existing is dizzying.

I know what I'm getting at, but it's so complex I'd better shut up and go and make my Dad his breakfast. At least that's one thing I can achieve with guaranteed success.

There are enough resources. They are misappropriated by the elite, stolen and handed over to the mates of our corrupt government etc. But rarely do we see anyone advocating for this to be addressed; just for vulnerable groups to be cast adrift to plug the gaps created by poor policy and greed.

There is no reason why a 95 year old who has been assessed to have a good chance of surviving surgery and recovering a decent quality of life should be denied surgery. And there's no reason why this should mean that a child wouldn't receive the life saving care they need.

@Uniqueusername2 I agree with this. If I was an ambulance dispatcher with only 1 ambulance on the road, if a call came in about a 90 year old having a heart attack and a 15 year old also having one, I'd prioritise getting the only ambulance to the 15 year old. I genuinely don't believe anyone wouldn't.

No, not performing open heart surgery on a 95 year old, when elsewhere funding cuts mean there’s no ambulance to save the life of a dying child. I’m talking about sensible resource allocation, not killing people

The Nazis also killed disabled people, homosexuals, gipsies and many other groups of people they regarded as being undesirable in some way.

So, selective euthanasia?

So my able bodied nan, who is in better physical shape than me, needs to just throw the towel in if she needs help at 90? In just 3 years time? She has my dc for tea twice a week. I'll let her know

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

You see, reading a comment like this sets my teeth on edge. Anything can happen at any time to anyone, so that they can find themselves relying on other people.

My DS is severely physically and mentally disabled, relies entirely on others and will do for the rest of his life. Some posters would want to argue that his life is not worth living? Try telling my boy that.....he is the happiest person I know.

And I am actually fairly sympathetic towards assisted dying. But only if it is freely chosen by the individual, as an informed decision, and with strong safeguards in place. From one or two of the posts on here I would really worry that it could lead to people being regarded as a burden and being persuaded/coerced into decisions not in their interest.

So: informed and person-focused decisions based solely on the needs and best interests of the individual. Anything less is uncivilised.

Please consider your rather sweeping statement of ‘The moment I have to rely on anyone else is the moment I’ll be hopping on the first plane to Dignitas.’…. Due to a brain tumour I am no longer able to drive so I have to rely on others to get around as public transport is very bad in our area…. I work full time remotely ( paying good taxes), volunteer online and locally and otherwise fell I contribute to family life. However, as I have to rely on others, should I be going to Dignitas?

Completely agree. Quality over quantity I say; the tax burden for keeping people alive those few extra years (usually with little to no quality of life) means that everyone is struggling so much more than they might if we drew the line a bit earlier. The moment I have to rely on anyone else is the moment I’ll be hopping on the first plane to Dignitas.

So you think that rather than life enhancing surgery she should be doped up on painkillers and left to wait it out until she dies?

How about we leave it to individuals to make these decisions, in consultation with their doctors about their best interests, rather than seeking to dictate these within a social policy?

Erm of course it's about survival rates! Or at least partly. There's no point in spending out on a new hip if the person isn't likely to survive the op. That's why I was surprised to see that the vast majority do. And it has changed my view a bit.

Of course it would be disgusting to leave someone in extreme pain. Which is why I didn't say I'd do that. I'd have signed off on whatever meds were needed to ensure she didn't suffer from pain.
And it's not just a financial thought anyway. There's also the likelihood that at 90 most people who are incapacitated due to such a major op aren't going to be able to regain the strength afterwards to be back on their feet. In which case it would have been pointless. Plus the strain to the body of a general anaesthetic, plus the length of time needed to recover in hospital (assuming they did recover at all). In fact the more I think about it, the more unlikely it seems that a hip op would be done at that age at all!

It’s not about the survival rates though, it’s about improving mobility and quality of life. Pain meds can’t do that with the type of pain from conditions requiring this type of surgery. If someone is deemed fit for surgery, then regardless of age they should have whatever they need if it’ll make life better for them.

"See my previous post. My great nan had a hip at 90 and died at 98, 2 weeks before her 99th birthday. Should she have just been left?"

Honestly. If I was in charge of budgets, no I wouldn't have signed off on a hip replacement for a 90 year old. That's the truth. I'd have absolutely signed off on painkillers or whatever meds would have made her remaining time more comfortable. But a major op? No.
But it's irrelevant really. Because she got one and it apparently went well. So good for her.