To not want to live to an old age

I got it from the bbc, healthcare costs, especially for the elderly have shot up, I think in 2020 it was much lower comparatively I think around £6000 per over 85 and I thought it was £8000 currently tbh so was surprised too. I do appreciate it includes the very elderly but I think my point stands on whether tens of thousands of pounds of treatment for a very elderly person is balanced out by the length their life may be extended for and the quality of that life.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy7zvp5xrqo.amp

If money was no object then we should all have great medical care. Money is clearly an issue and I think we are all going to have to get used to a lower standard of care. That will disproportionately impact the elderly as they ( on average) use more medical care than the young. I am aware that I probably sound harsh

I don’t think we will be stopping gp appointments and antibiotics it’ll be for things that require long hospital stays, multiple surgeries, expensive cancer treatments. I do think it happens to an extent currently but I believe that’ll increase. In some ways surely being honest with patients and their families is better than stealth rationing, I’ve certainly seen it on here that people think their elderly relative was left on a trolly in A&E for hours till they died of a treatment/ diagnosis delayed till it was too late.

I am a pensioner - and a mother and grandmother.

In the last 10 years I have:

• watched my OH slowly dying, looked after him, nursed him, battled for his rights, had to find a nursing home for him, sat and watched him die in a paranoid state - he thought people were trying to kill him.
• moved house on my own during covid in order to pay for the best nursing home.
• endured covid whilst newly bereaved and unable to be with my loved ones.
• Had a hip replacement that has never been a success - lots of endless pain.
• had a prolapsed disc and needed surgery.
• had cataracts removed and then needed further interventions.
• had a heart attack - a bolt from the blue from this slim non-smoker and semi-vegetarian.
• had a stent in my right coronary artery.
• had a vast worsening of atrial fibrillation which has necessitated a pacemaker.
• endured the miserable side effects of the manny drugs I now have to take.
• endured living on my own with steadily worsening health.
• watched many of the things that make my life meaningful drift away from me through ill health.

It is SHIT and I HATE IT!

A DNR only applies if the heart has stopped.

If a person still has capacity they can refuse hospital, drips, ABs, all the rest of the ‘striving to keep alive’ paraphernalia.

And they can add a paragraph to their Health and Welfare P of A to state in which circs they do NOT want any life saving or life prolonging treatments, in the event that they no longer have capacity, or for whatever reason cannot speak for themselves.
Having seen far too much of dementia, both dh and I have done this.

@Tiredofwhataboutery That's interesting. Would you mind telling me where you got that figure of £13K per year spent on the average 85-year old? For what it's worth, ChatGPT has given me the figure of £7K.
Edited to say that that £7K figure is the average for people aged 85 and older, so that will cover all the centenarians.

In lots of poorer countries the medical budget is directed at working adults to keep them productive. At some point we are going to have recognise that as a country we are skint and budget accordingly. The average 85 year old currently costs the NHS £13,000 per year this is not because they are having the odd GP visit and a course of antibiotics. It’s because a decent proportion of them are having hugely costly treatment.

Every 1 in 3 pounds of government spending is being spent on healthcare surely it’s unsustainable especially with an aging population. I’m not saying no healthcare for over 80s but that if a course of treatment is going to cost many thousands for someone who is statistically speaking on borrowed time then it’s not a good use of resources.

I suspect that some people on this thread are sympathetic to the idea that the point of let's say 95% of the population is to work. The state has an interest in funding the healthcare of those who are working. Once they are long term ill or disabled, or too old to work efficiently, they are no longer useful and should die. The 5% of the most wealthy people can afford to pay for private healthcare and are the only ones who will keep living despite illness, disability or old age.
I wonder how these people envisage things once AI has made vast numbers of healthy young people unemployed?

Well according to the young people who keep popping up on the TV talking about the elderly and pension age, those things are a luxury that society can no longer fund.

I don't disagree with everything you've said, but I really don't like the idea that the only point of our lives is to live and pay taxes! Where is the well-earned retirement, the sense of freedom, the travel, the relaxation, the fun?

This is weird and vaguely stalker ish. And what does it have to do with the OPs question this time?

So under your system a 79 year old alcoholic who's hardly ever worked and been on benefits most of their life would get treatment, but an 80 year old who worked all their life, kept fit and healthy wouldn't?
This is the problem with your eugenics-based approach, who is to decide who is more worthy of treatment?

I wonder if Suella Braverman is on this thread. Some of these comments sound very like her.

LOL, that is life i am afraid, i would say that you could work out and try natural remedies to lessen the damage of older age.I have been doing this since i was young. Its good to brush teeth everyday to avoid losing all the teeth, well that is what google says.

That's barbaric. So if you're poor, your life is thrown on the scrap heap when you reach some arbitrary age. You could die of something easily cured, because you can't afford to see a private GP or to pay for antibiotics. You can't treat old people like that and call yourself civilised.

And and over 80 year old who is still very active in their community.
David Attenborough?

A 68 year old would be entitled to NHS treatment because they are under 80.

Retired people of any age under 80 would be entitled to NHS treatment.

But people retire far earlier than 80... 66/67 right now?
So would you want to be the doctor who tells a 68 year old who is still working, that they wont be getting cancer treatment, and they should just wait to die instead?
And I am predicting that you will say that people that have never worked due to disabilities should never have their lives prolonged, as they are "useless eaters".

I do know what you mean OP and I think if you see your elderly relatives suffer, it changes your view. Most of my older family members lived til 90s/100 and had a miserable last few years. My grandma was in a nursing home with severe dementia for well over a decade. Now my DP and DFIL are all in a bad way for various reasons, mid-late 80s and all miserable. Last year we lost DMIL to dementia and now DM has been diagnosed with it and is declining. It's horrific and DF is devastated. However, I do know many people who are happy in their old age and do not suffer as much. But when you have seen the suffering up close, it's very hard to feel positive about old age!

To direct money and resources where they will be most effective.

You pay national insurance while you are working, and once you are retired you get a certain amount of years of NHS treatment. But then it stops.

Why would someone who is 80+ not be allowed treatment on the NHS?
What is your rationale for that?

Can someone who wants to die be allowed to? Yes. But not on the same day they make the decision.

Is someone over 80 allowed to have treatment to live if they want it? Yes, absolutely. But not through the NHS.

Well, that is why a holistic approach is taken rather than just the age.

Saying that, sometimes you do wonder. I remember caring for a patient who was elderly, had advanced dementia, and was seeing us to have a biopsy taken. If the result was cancer, would he have had all the treatments thrown at him? For who? He had no family, and had no capacity for anything really.

I do think you should get treatment where it’s going to enable good quality of life afterwards. I think often NHS just acts to preserve life though without a lot of thought to how is this patient going to be doing in six months. A sort of treadmill of care.

For example a great aunt of mine had her leg amputated in her 80s . It did save her life but it only extended it by 18 months and those were spent in pain. There were many hospital stays and she became really depressed.

Hindsight is obviously a great thing but I know it was a source of regret for her / the family. NHS probsbly spent tens of thousands on op and subsequent care just do she could have a slow, painful end.

Exactly. Only 4-5% go into care homes.

And my mum's friend who is in good health in all aspects at nearly 90... should be left for sepsis to take hold should she get a UTI?

Meh, I felt like shit in my late forties.
Now 58 and feel great. I plan on living long, and do my best to stay fit and healthy.