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

Well I don’t feel entitled to reduced taxes. Education and healthcare benefits the who,e of society. But I do remember when I was ttc in the 90s people who needed IVF were considered extremely selfish if they expected the NHS to pay for it. In fact I remember when I was trying to set up a local support group under the auspices of Infertility UK (Internet was in its infancy then) and asked my doctor’s surgery if I could display a poster on their wall they flatly refused. Infertility was not considered a healthcare issue at all then.

With regard very premature babies, I believe we already do that. The cut off is 24 weeks (I believe different cut off apply in different countries) below 24 weeks minimal help to survive is given. Do you have an opinion on this?

I totally agree, that was my whole point - obviously rather too subtly phrased for you to understand - that's why I put 'drain on resources' in inverted commas. To me the OP was strongly implying that this is how she views our elderly population, a very dangerous way of thinking.

Its all very well worrying about how these things are worded but the fact is that when the number of economically inactive people in an economy starts exceeding those who are working and paying for them, that is a major problem unless you have a magic money tree.

The elderly are not a problem in themselves, we have to look at everything else that is happening, it's growing numbers of people too sick to work through obesity or mental health, asylum seekers and refugees all have to be paid for by people who are also facing rising costs of living and a lack affordable housing. I would be interested to think what you imagine a major problem to be if you think this isn't.

Doctors and HCPs are already tasked with making decisions based on the best interests of their patients, and if patients disagree they can get second opinions and appeal to the courts if necessary.

What people seem to asking for is for state level diktats to standardise care by age, economic consideration and whatever the current view of "quality of life" is.

And that is indeed a slippery slope demonstrated by pretty recent history.

I do actually think it's reasonable not to have expensive interventions (except palliative obviously) from a certain age. It would have to be pretty high though. Maybe 90? If you give a 90.year old a hip replacement for example, how many years return are you getting on that investment? And if you have a kidney ready for transplant and 2 patients needing it, then all being equal, if one is 70 and 1 is 20 then id assume the 20 year old would be the one to get it, as they could potentially go on for another 60 years. Id assume all this is already happening though (albeit discreetly)

It would be interesting to know how OP measures quality of life. Is it based on what is necessary - clean water, food, shelter, clothing, sleep - or what is desired - designer labels, the latest high tech, luxury items etc.

Going back to @Futurascope 's question in their OP:

As awful as it is for us all individually to lose somebody that we love….. is curing every disease, and having us all live to 100 really a good thing if it is at the expense of quality of life for the rest of society?

Why is this only to apply to those who reach 100 years old?

Let's do a thought experiment, according to the OP's rationale:

What about the extreme measures taken to keep very premature babies alive? Or those babies born with significant and sometimes life-limiting disabilities which mean they will need significant medical & social care their whole lives? Or babies born who could not survive without significant medical interventions?

These are human beings who will be a "drain" on the social/public purse for anything up to 60 years. Maybe parents should face up to "losing somebody that they love" because keeping that person alive from birth will be "the expense of quality of life for the rest of society"

This is the question that @Futurascope asks.

If we take the question completely at face value, then the answer is 'yes' the elderly living longer and costing money does mean less money for services for younger people (except it doesn't because that implies money not spent on the elderly would be spent on the young rather than more money to be hoarded by billionaires, but we'll ignore that bit).
So the next question, 'what do we want to do about it?'
My answer- nothing.

I honestly do not think it is all that much of a reach. I think it is a slippery slope.

What is the alternative to the State providing 'for everyone indefinitely'? Do you really think that certain categories of people should be left to rot or die if they are not 'economically productive'? Who gets to decide which people are worthy of receiving resources?

BTW prior to the Nazi era, Germany was not some backwater; it was a centre of culture, art and philosophy at the very heart of Europe. So if it could happen there, it might happen anywhere; including here.

@Itsrainingten

Maybe I didn't explain well what I was trying to say.

I personally believe in community. Everyone contributes but also everyone is equally valued, all ages and whether parents or child free.

My point was the slippery slope regarding a poster asking why should an 80 year old 'expect' to be kept alive at 'other people's expense'. If that argument is valid (I don't agree it is), then why wouldn't the childfree perhaps think they should pay reduced tax if, after contributing to the expenses incurred by families with DC, when they're old they're told they don't 'deserve' medical treatment due to the expense.

That's just one example of the slippery slope of going down the road of deciding who is 'more worthy' of provision from public services.

Unless of course you weren't born or educated in the UK. I have a friend who has just retired. She came to England at 19. Has worked through our since then. No kids no hospital treatment etc. I think she's certainly paid more than her share

Well, I’m not heartless, but at least that’s better than being called a flipping Nazi. I mean, for goodness sake.

Ok this has got nothing to do with this thread but I read this bollocks on Mumsnet all the time and it annoys me:

"Perhaps the childfree, for example, might feel entitled to pay reduced tax. They don't use schools or maternity care, so why should they pay as much tax as us parents"

Why are the parents the ones "responsible" for the state paying for schooling and maternity care for their children? Surely we all are "responsible" for our own costs?
I mean obviously a child can't pay for these things but they will do eventually via their taxes when they grow up. Just like the rest of us.
If we're talking about "paying in" and "taking out" of the system then we all had the benefit of maternity care when we were born and schooling as children. Nobody (well almost nobody) avoids these costs to the taxpayer. The child free included!

I find heartless twats more fitting

I really do think it's a bit much to call those who don't believe it's the State's job to provide for everyone indefinitely, "Nazis".

Wow, just wow.

(I don't usually use that phrase but it's fitting here).

Bet you change your mind when you get older.

PPs didn't mean they think they're younger than they are. They meant they still have the same joie de vivre, zest for life, passions, hobbies, interests, and families and friends who they love and who love them and want them in their lives..

If you want to go down the road of deciding who 'deserves' medical treatment (or any other support service), very slippery slope. Perhaps the childfree, for example, might feel entitled to pay reduced tax. They don't use schools or maternity care, so why should they pay as much tax as us parents, if when they do need something back they're told nope you're old and 'worthless' now?

And you might still be perfectly capable of living a happy, able life. Like my nan and her mother before her. My great nan had a fall at 90, broke her hip, had it replaced and lived another 8 years. Would you have said no to that hip? She lived at home until the end. On no medication apart from paracetamol.

Fuck me OP, you are actually saying elderly people should be left hungry, dirty, uncomfortablenfotcold so your little darlings can have a cheap swim at the leisure centre.
For starters , you clearly do not understand what social care means. It is not medical care, it is giving them the help they need to look after themselves eg feeding, getting up, washing themselves.
Secondly elderly people have to spend virtually all their money on social care before the council steps in.They are allowed I believe £25 a week for their own expenses

Inside I'm mid 40s because I'm not immature. When I'm 80, if I'm 80, I'll be 80 inside. Just because you feel young doesn't mean you have a right to be kept alive at huge expense (zero sum expense for others).

Most elderly people's lives are not artificially prolonged. They're not on ventilators or similar life-sustaining equipment. They're in nursing homes being fed and watered. So, what's the suggestion? Stop feeding and watering the elderly who can no longer do it for themselves?

I have a real issue with the framing of economically inactive - ie elderly, disabled, otherwise vulnerable - people as a 'major problem'. Rather, I think it is the collective responsibility of a society that considers itself civilised to care for allits members; and to do it freely rather than begrudgingly.

IMO so much of this lack of compassion stems from Thatcher's 'no such thing as society' ethos. A whole generation (and probably the ones before and after it, tbh) internalised that message to make themselves feel better about being self-orientated and self-serving. 'If it doesn't affect me or someone I love, it's not my problem.' That kind of thing.

I have a real issue with the framing of economically inactive - ie elderly, disabled, otherwise vulnerable - people as a 'major problem'. Rather, I think it is the collective responsibility of a society that considers itself civilised to care for all its members; and to do it freely rather than begrudgingly.

What does it mean to call them a 'drain on resources'? The implications of that phrase really worry me. Believe me there are plenty of people - including young healthy employed people - who are a net drain on the rest of us, and plenty of disabled & elderly people who are net contributors during their lives and/or continue to be so.

It doesn’t mean they have cash assets or an easy to release asset to fund social care though.

No worries @Rosscameasdoody sometimes it's hard to get satire when you're reading fast on a messageboard. Many's the time I've not got the joke ...

Yes, on re-reading I get the point. It’s just chilling seeing the words ‘final solution’ as it has connotations for me. Big girl pants back on now !!