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

Typos!

It might also mean they are very careful who they chose to operate on. For every 90 year old deemed in sufficient health to benefit, four others might be refused the op as they're health is to poor.

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.

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.

I responded to this poster and was told it’s unlikely that someone of that age would be selected for surgery and that it would cost a lot to hospitalise. I agree with you and I beg to differ. My mum aged 85 had a hip replacement and another relative nearly 80 two knee replacements. Both ops revolutionised their quality of life and their mobility, and there was no need for further pain meds. And both were up and about and out of hospital in a couple of days. Some of the opinions here are shocking. People would do well to remember that although the body ages, the person remains the same.

I mean to be fair to all of you saying hip replacements should be given regardless of age - I just read this, which surprised me:

"One year after hip replacement surgery, the survival rate was 94.4% for nonagenarians without any major complications versus 79.8% for those with major complications"

I'd have thought the survival rates would be lower than that which was partly affecting my opinion on it .

Again, after having experience of this, 4 times being on wards with women well into their late 80s and one in their 90s, there was only 1, that failed to be out of bed before me. I was 27 when I had my first hip. The knee I had 3 weeks ago I had to stay in an extra night and 2 women, one who had a hip one who had a knee were discharged a day before me, because I, a 33 year old, had complications. They didn't.

You’ve clearly never experienced the pain associated with the kinds of conditions requiring joint replacement. Painkillers don’t restore quality of life. Surgery does. If the patient is fit for surgery, regardless of age that’s the optimum treatment. My mum was 85 when she had a hip replacement. She was up and out of bed the same day and was home within a few days. I also have a relative nearly 80 who has had two knee replacements within a few months of each other.

But it happens. I live next door to OAP bungalows, they're all well into their 80s. Living alone. Most have got little dogs they potter about the block with. If one of them fell, they should be OK to be treated like any other member of society. Not, as some on here have said, have treatment withheld because they're older then 75 and 'lived their life'

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!

OP, I don't think you want to get rid of people, I just think your question is based in a wrong false cause fallacy, when the situations about the degradation of the welfare system is more complex than that.
This is not the example of two kids and one apple, take the apple from one to give it to the other.
Some Libertarian voices claim that the pensions system and the welfare system as a extend is a Ponzi scheme. And somehow, there are some true behind it because it is a system that support the few with the effort of the many and it doesn't work when the numbers are even or the many have to have support of the few.
As I said, they worth every penny, the same as the rest of us.

Do you have any experience of extreme pain? Because if so, I'm staggered by your position on this. And if you haven't, it's still disgusting to suggest leaving someone in terrible pain just because you don't think they will be around long enough to benefit from treatment.

Why?

Plenty of money here in the UK, why is it acceptable for the wealthy to pay either 20% or no tax on their incomes?

You don't even have to be particularly rich to avoid tax on investment income, just use your couples ISA allowances and you'll soon have your entire investment protected from any tax at all.......

If we had more social housing, as we did during the first 35 years of the post war period, people would be able to afford more as they'd have more disposable income, with it not all eaten up by rent and mortgage payments.

Instead, we've driven up house prices and rents, the time bomb being the state will have to pay these rents as people retire.
Rnts in Plymouth on a 1 or 2 bed property can easily be as much as the current state pension, so what will people live on?

I've got another really busy day and although trying to stop myself I keep taking over this thread which I know is annoying. I'll try harder to step back and get on with my work instead!

I just want to say one more thing now regarding false economy that occured to me after my post mentioning eating unhealthily and smoking so die younger and 'solve' the ageing population 'problem'.

Situation today is public services funding cuts, insufficient social housing, punitive benefits system, a child support system that needs improving, lack of work education and training opportunities.

Poverty and (often related to poverty) chronic stress affects health. Which then increases the need for NHS treatment, benefits, and social care for all ages, and people go into older age less healthy and with higher needs.

I don't mean everyday or short-term stress. Also it's not only mental health affected. Diabetes, heart problems, even cancer. I read an article about this recently (although I've personally long had a feeling it's an issue). Can't remember what I read but I found some other links I can post when I come back later in case anyone's interested?

Austerity is a false economy policy. Related, an approach that decides which groups are more 'valuable' (and only seeing value as financial) lowers the quality of life for the whole of society.

The end result of the above two approaches is extreme individualism. Doesn't happen overnight but gradually bit by bit things get worse.

Divided societies.
Loss of sense of community.
Everyone outside immediate family (even friends) become potential rivals and 'enemies', competing for unnecessarily heavily rationed resources (with the thresholds to access always potentially being raised, excluding more and more groups).

That's an unhappy and miserable society.

@MistressoftheDarkSide You got the flat? I'm so pleased for you if that's the case, but so sorry you've still got the battle to get your dad the help he deserves. I so hope he gets that help and things start to turn a corner for you and your family xx

I can see the OP has also updated and clarified her view in the meantime. Regardless of whether or not you, the OP or other posters actually share these views or are merely presenting them, the fact is that such ways of thinking are widely held and I agree they are dangerous.

It has been pointed out on this thread that failure to invest in public services is false economy, and that the failure to properly support old, & sick people as well as others who are vulnerable (the poor, asylum seekers and refugees etc. means that we are in danger of no longer being a civilised country.

We are one of the richest countries in the world. It suits the current leadership of this country to have people squabbling between themselves and begrudging scarce resources, rather than question the transfer of more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands. That is the elephant in the room.

Still, on the subject of asylum seekers - at least someone is getting rich on the back of them:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/17/british-asylum-housing-tycoon-breaks-into-sunday-times-rich-list#:~:text=Graham%20King%2C%20the%20founder%20and,Times%20rich%20list%20of%20the

'Researchers at the Greenwich University worked out that the wealth of the 200 richest families has ballooned from £42bn to £711bn since the rich list began 36 years ago, while the overall public wealth of the country has fallen from £337bn to a shared debt of £1tn.
Ben Tippet, a lecturer in economics at the University of Greenwich, said: '...
"During this time, the wealthiest 200 people have seen their wealth grow on average by 15% per year in real terms, compared to just 2% for GDP. As the economy continues to stagnate and the UK government accumulates more debts than assets, we need to remember that the UK does have a growth model – it’s just for the super rich.”

And how common do you think that is? Most people have passed away by then, so already they’re a minority

Haven't RTFT so apologies, but the issue I have is prolonging the life of those in a half life state in nursing homes. Zero quality of life and the big drugs companies continually finding ways to sell their products. I think the solution should be a consent form authorising doctors to withdraw medicine at a certain time under certain conditions, kind of like a DNR form. For ethical reasons this needs to be signed long before the persons mental state deteriorates. I would definitely sign something like that, maybe it could be done at retirement stage when the next phase of life begins. My worst nightmare would be lingering for years without mental capacity and stressing my family, I think most people agree with this.

My dad regularly played nine holes of golf when he was 98. 🤷‍♀️

It’s disgusting to suggest keeping someone in pain and managed by meds when a simple surgery would give them better quality of life. Hip replacement is not major surgery and if the surgeon feels that it’s feasible and will improve quality of life then it should be done. Glad you’re not in charge of the budgets because you clearly have no concept that despite the aging process, the person you are remains. I feel the same at 66 as I did at 16. Unfortunately you have to get there to appreciate that fact. Something that a lot of you on here wouldn’t allow if you had your way.

It doesn’t have to be a choice if you own a house that you no longer need if you live in a care home.

@Futurascope I've got massive respect for you. For doing what you do for work (and caring about the vulnerable people you help) especially in the current budget cut climate which makes your job even tougher than it already is.

Also though respect for doing what a lot of people don't. Willing to consider replies suggesting alternative explanations and solutions to the problems.

Maybe you and I will never agree on all of it, but none of us will get anywhere with tackling the problems if we're not willing to listen to others.

I get where you're coming from in your above post. Taxes are high but public services funding is cut. Seems like there's perhaps a question about where's the tax going. Imo privatisation including part privatisation is one of the problems.

Contracting out public services to companies whose main concern isn't good provision of the service but instead profit for themselves. Often the winning bid for a contract is the cheapest but that means false economy because there's too much cost cutting (except for the company CEOs. So they offer a failing bare bones service, low pay and or poor working conditions for overloaded staff, and the people needing support from the service don't get the timely effective support they need. So end up with more (and more expensive) need.

I believe leading economists have said many times that austerity was and remains a false economy. A lot of the current problems go back to that.

That's actually an interesting question in there.
If it was only my own money would I rather have two years in a care home at the end of my life or take my whole family on some fabulous holidays in my 50s or pay for my kids university education, or have a smaller mortgage for years or something like at???

I think there is a question here
I had grandparent and aunt live to 94 or so. It does become either falls or hospital etc.
I dont think it is like generally disabled people as elderly have had a shot at life when younger.
But dementia is the main issue as obviously it doesnt improve and lasts to the rest pf their natural life. I personally think if we had to save and had to pay fpr pwn care many wpuldnt choose to spend their own money on that quality of life.

At the point cancer hits at the same time as dementia

I'm really sorry you and your poor dad are going through this.