AIBU to Think MNHQ needs to tackle the ageism on this site?

[LastGoldenDaysOfSummer]

The venom and hate aimed at older people on some of the Covid threads is disgusting. If the same was aimed at disabled, TW or BAME people then the posts would be deleted immediately, and rightly so.

But because it's the elderly it's left to stand, even after being reported. This isn't new, MNHQ has always been a hotbed of ageism but it's usually dealt with when reported.

But not any more. Should they be doing more?

@TheSeedsOfADream

And I can't do anything about that. But I can campaign to have eugenicists banned from Mumsnet.

You can but when our government and public health policy is based on eugenics, it’s hardly surprising that some people think it’s perfectly fine

Its usually along the lines of selfish old people who've bought their own house.

To be fair, they have just deleted the thread that was trying to say that 'stupid old people' wanted the minimum wage threshold raised.

I complained about, as it seems did others, and they have taken it down quickly because it was ageist.

They're also deleting the hate speech on the school thread.
It becomes pretty obvious that a lot of it is astroturfing when the hatred for the elderly gets shoehorned into other threads.

I've read the article now.
So it was a potential proposal that was never put into action.
I expect the eugenicists are sorry it was a hypothetical plan.
That said, my 84 year old relative who died of Covid didn't get a hospital bed so silver lining for the haters eh?

No it wasn’t a hypothetical plan that was never put into action. It was adopted as policy by numerous trusts around the country. There were hospitals with empty ITU beds which sent over 80s home. Did you actually read the whole ST article @TheSeedsOfADream?

Yes.
The (lengthy) article is written very cleverly. Presumably with the agenda of discrediting the govt. But it makes it clear that the plan was to be considered for implementation in the event of the NHS being overwhelmed which, of course, it never was. According to the govt. That it was never overwhelmed because people were being left to die on the instructions of various trust guidelines is another (equally abhorrent) failing. Which everyone knows about and has done for 6 months.
I'm not defending either the govt or the NHS trusts. One has blood up to its sorry little neck.
But the article makes it clear that the plan was hypothetical, to be used, as and when. But it never was.
It's a good example of semantics and stylistics and managing to bamboozle your readers into thinking they've read something else. I might use it in ethics class.

Doesn’t it concern you that the plan ever existed in the first place? Because it does me. O

And, of course, the reason the NHS was never overwhelmed was because people over a certain age were discharged untested into care homes or not taken into hospital in the first place.

Since the dawn of man and indeed of the NHS care has been rationed. No one wants that but it is how it is and always will be. That is not eugenics. However doctors have always had to choose who lives just as 90 of UK mothers abort a down's child. That does not make them eugenicists.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-52155359

Of course nobody is going to admit it now, but they most certainly did dump older people in care homes to die. The numbers of deaths etc evidence this. An inquiry will eventually show the truth, if allowed to.

I wish people would stop using the word "eugenics" wrongly. Rationing care for elderly people is a practiced that can be criticized but it is nothing to do with eugenics. "Eugenics" does not mean "any kind of kill-y type act which I disagree with."

Read the Amnesty Intetnational report on the reckless introduction of covid into care homes, as referenced by Daily Mail

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8801287/Coronavirus-UK-Care-home-policies-exposed-residents-virus-BLOCKED-medical-care.html

Quite breathtak By the casual disregard / contempt for the health, lives and rights of the elderly

I think most of us know what eugenics means. We also manage to recognise that on this thread (and others) more than one strand of an argument is being discussed. Govt policy (hypothetical) NHS policy (implemented) and ageist and offensive posters on MN.

You probably won't have seen them, because they get zapped pdq, but the eugenicist posters we are referring to will use any Coronavirus thread to advocate leaving the elderly to die (invariably so they can do nice things themselves) They often use disgusting demeaning language to talk about the vulnerable, and I have no doubt they'd talk about the disabled in the same way if they could get away with it. I admit calling them that is hyperbole on my part. But advocating the widespread culling of a certain group isn't far off semantically speaking.

@Xenia- struggling to see the connection between abortion and ageism.

But as you're the lawyer, you'll know about the legalities involved in choosing to abort a foetus and say, leaving a child to starve to death? It is interesting though that you compare (if I understand correctly) abortion and ageism. And have different moral views on both. Though maybe, having been round the MN block a few times, I shouldn't be.

@VinylDetective-of course it bothers me. It's another example of the utter contempt with which the govt treats (or would like to) its most vulnerable. But that doesn't change the actual fact that the Whitty document wasn't legislation. Sure, the govt didn't give much of a fuck it was happening, and certainly didn't intervent to stop it, and I have no doubt tacitly raised a glass for every trust with a spare bed or two thanks to shuftying off another half dozen back to the homes...but the plan wasn't legislation, didn't become legislation and was never implemented. (I'm sure when there is hopefully the mother of all enquiries, they would also like to have pretended they didn't know it was happening and they never advised trusts to do that and blabla, so it's good that this info is coming out now) Again, it's all very chicken and egg that the plan was never implemented because the NHS was never overwhelmed because they were implementing a policy that wasn't Whitty's in name only will probably get them off the hook.

@chickenyhead

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-52155359

Of course nobody is going to admit it now, but they most certainly did dump older people in care homes to die. The numbers of deaths etc evidence this. An inquiry will eventually show the truth, if allowed to.

Absolutely. But I bet they'll feed Whitty to the sharks first. Still, you run with lions, you risk being dinner.

The plan was implemented. There are plenty of health care professionals who are perfectly clear that it was.

I just said on another thread. That plan raises two issues.

One being the pension age increases. Given the plan considered denying care to over 60s, one could argue the pension age should be lowered to 60.

Secondly. Smoking. You can't castigate people for smoking because 'it shortens your life' - but then deny potential lifesaving medical treatment because 'you're too old'.

Smoking is the answer. Stress hugely impacts on the immune system. Smoking is a good stress reliever. It also brings in billions for the NHS, and saves on pension and social care costs. Add in lots of cake too (treat food = another stress relief) and all is sorted.

@TheSeedsOfADream, the plan WAS implemented as confirmed by the doctors who actually implemented it!! See over 80s sent back to care home or were refused a bed in hospital.

And tbh, I’m pretty sure the government will do the same again. This is called making choices on who will be treated and might survive depending on their statistical chance of recovering... it has happened in many countries where the hospitals were overwhelmed (incl France and Italy too).
As a PP pointed out, it’s hard to say to someone that their views are abhorrant when they are the ones supported by the government.

I'd love to see some kind of legal challenge wrt pensions. Get together anyone 60+ in a group action.

They're considered fit and well for the purposes of work by HMRC/DWP - yet the medical profession say otherwise...

It was implemented. So was a blanket order not to save any lives in care homes. D.N.R. orders have a respectable justification, in certain cases, with prior consideration of the likelihood of merely causing someone to die horribly in the process, in the slight chance of prolonging a life which cannot be maintained much longer in any case.
Care homes couldn't get doctors to visit, but doctors authorised entire homes to have a blanket DNR policy.
Women have a risk of breast and cervical cancer which increases with age, yet screening stops for an older age group, unless they specifically insist. Lately, the right for over 70's to insist has also been removed, and went largely unreported in the press.

Meghan might have prattled some words, or strictly come eating more sugar might have made an announcement, a footballer might have expressed an opinion, or got drunk, or some equally important matter filled the news

It's a slippery slope too. Eugenics. Start with the very elderly, move down to the younger elderly. And then...on to the disabled and people with long-term conditions. Who next? I assume parents will be prioritised over the childless, but then what? Higher earners over the poor?

Moral countries - Australia, New Zealand, the Isle of Man, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, etc went for containment.

It's an undeniable fact too that those countries all now have better functioning healthier economies.

I once posted about a night out at the pub with my 23 year old daughter and my 60 year old boyfriend and one poster remarked that it couldn't be much fun for my poor daughter to spend her evening with "elderly" company.

My then partner had a full head of hair with not a grey in sight. Works full time in a physical job, is slim, in great shape .... as far you can possibly get from 'elderly'. Likewise me, young in looks and attitude, run my own business etc.

And she wasn't alone in her responses. Others agreed!

Yes some posters are very ageist.

But then you are saying your boyfriend gets a pass because he looks youthful. What about a boyfriend with no hair at all, with a paunch and a bit stooped?

I think you have actually defeated your argument because people should not need to look 20 years younger than they actually are to be judged worthy of being good company or able to perform their job well.

In fact this is where men suffer more than women because we can don a roll-neck jumper and douse ourselves in L'Oreal whereas men look right prats if they dye their hair and run the risk of looking like the oldest swinger in town (song).

@chickenyhead

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-52155359

Of course nobody is going to admit it now, but they most certainly did dump older people in care homes to die. The numbers of deaths etc evidence this. An inquiry will eventually show the truth, if allowed to.

Read the Amnesty International report linked above 😢

I am not sure I had given a view no those topics. I am in favour of our current abortion laws although I am not sure I would have an abortion. I also support our current laws on not murdering other people even if they ask you to do so.

The NHS will always have to ration care.

Ageism discrimination law is rightly different from the other discriminations as sometimes it is fine to discriminate on age grounds so it has to be different.

Calling things eugenics when they are not is not useful, although deciding not to keep down's babies is probably a eugenics view and is one most women in the UK share.