Age DOES affect how tragic death is

[Bumpitybumper]

In the current climate and for obvious reasons, I see a lot of discussion about the average age of people dying from Coronavirus and how it is skewed significantly towards the elderly. Inevitably, this will lead to some claiming that this fact is irrelevant and a life is a life and any death is equally tragic. Talk of amending our approach towards the virus because of the average age of the people dying is shot down quickly. The implication being that any acknowledgement that the loss of an elderly person's life is less significant or tragic than a young person is implying that the elderly are expendable or don't matter.

To be clear, I don't think either of those things BUT I do think most people tend to find death more tragic and significant the younger the victim. My theory is that death is an inevitability for all of us, but there is a presumed "normal" lifespan and therefore young people that have died are viewed to have had less opportunity/experience and lost more years.

The ultimate test I believe is that if there was an emergency (e.g. burning building) most people would opt to save the younger person over an elderly person if only one could be saved. I think if children are involved then again most people would rescue them as a priority over adults.

So AIBU to think age does affect how we perceive death?

I think a sudden unexpected death is much harder to come to terms with, than when illness and likely death is 'planned' for. Not having the chance to say 'goodbye' is so hard. DF died earlier this year, he had been ill for many years his death was sad but a relief for everyone. DM died a few weeks ago, out of the blue totally unexpected she was mid 70s and seemingly in good health and just getting her life back after three years of caring for DF, It's left a huge hole for all of us.

So by that reckoning the death of a young man who went to school with my son wasn't hard to come to terms with. As a toddler he was diagnosed with Muscular Dystrophy, I remember him running round, I remember the Christmas when he could only get on the school stage with his little walker and the next year when he was wheeled on in his chair. I suppose his mother had 25 years to prepare so nothing tragic there then as she's had time to get used to it.

I do think we as a society think that death is the worst thing that can happen and certainly from a personal viewpoint having lost DP, my Dad and my Mum in the last nine months it is grim. I think this is particularly the case when it is a younger person who should still have had many years ahead to experience life.

Yes it is sad for those left behind. Suddenly you have no-one that you can turn round to and say "oh do you remember doing so and so?" or I feel like phoning my Mum to tell her something but can't.

I do think that generally we regard the death of a younger person as "worse" and certainly when I think of all the milestones that I experienced with my parents I am sad that DD will not have that.

At the end of the day as others have said it so much depends on the circumstances and the part the person who has died played in your life. I also agree that this is not a competition. I had a brother who died at 13 months and having had my own DD I can't imagine how my DM coped.

I think what is upsetting quite a few people on various threads at the moment is the viewpoint of some people that old people don't matter and that they were going to die anyway. When my DM died she was 87 but only a few days before her death she was teaching English to asylum seekers and having coffee with my sister. She was also very active in her church and visited many housebound "old ladies" who were actually in some cases younger than she was.

I think what I am trying to say in a rather muddled way is that everyone's life matters and just because a person is old does not suddenly make them dispensable or their loss any easier to bear for those left behind. Most of us will be old at some point. It would be interesting to see if the people who think the elderly do not matter and are a burden feel the same way when they are in that position.

@ancientgran

I think a sudden unexpected death is much harder to come to terms with, than when illness and likely death is 'planned' for. Not having the chance to say 'goodbye' is so hard. DF died earlier this year, he had been ill for many years his death was sad but a relief for everyone. DM died a few weeks ago, out of the blue totally unexpected she was mid 70s and seemingly in good health and just getting her life back after three years of caring for DF, It's left a huge hole for all of us.

So by that reckoning the death of a young man who went to school with my son wasn't hard to come to terms with. As a toddler he was diagnosed with Muscular Dystrophy, I remember him running round, I remember the Christmas when he could only get on the school stage with his little walker and the next year when he was wheeled on in his chair. I suppose his mother had 25 years to prepare so nothing tragic there then as she's had time to get used to it.

I don't think that's fair. I would argue that yes, actually, it is easier to come to terms with the death of a 25 year old after a long illness than a 25 year old being mown down by a drunk driver or committing suicide or having a (rare) fatal heart attack.

Are all these 'let the over 50s die' threads testing the waters for a blanket ban on anybody over a certain age receiving NHS treatment for Covid or something?

If you think a 95 year old dying peacefully in their sleep is as tragic as, say, a 5 year old dying of cancer, then frankly there is something very very wrong with you.

I haven't seen any threads doing saying anything like that at all, mitzik.

I don't understand how having your children die is the same as having your parents or grandparents die though. Emotionally I can't get my head round that.

It's just not how mammals work, especially ones that live in social groups like humans. Instinctively surely we protect our young. Changing that view because of ageism is going to be pretty tough I think.

Are all these 'let the over 50s die' threads

Except that no one has said anything of the sort, have they.

Are all these 'let the over 50s die' threads

Except that no one has said anything of the sort, have they.

I was thinking this. That post made it sound as if we were in the film 'Logan's Run'. Honestly, talk about exaggeration.

I agree, Cupidstunt202O, led by the person who thought that a person of 85 was of more worth than a toddler because they were contributing to society . Rather than Logan’s Run I think we have a fair few Cocoon fans... I mentioned upthread that there is an anti-ageism movement which demands first-come-first-served access to medical treatment, so that if a heart becomes available, it should be given to a 100-year-old, if that’s who’s at the top of the list, rather than someone of 20.

I mentioned upthread that there is an anti-ageism movement which demands first-come-first-served access to medical treatment, so that if a heart becomes available, it should be given to a 100-year-old, if that’s who’s at the top of the list, rather than someone of 20

Christ thats idiotic. TF that will never happen!

No it's not idiotic. Or rather not for the reason stated.

If the person is on the approved-for-transplant list, and they are the best match, they should get it.

When they start looking at approved, on the list, recipients for any reason other than quality of match, then we are on a very slippery slope indeed.

It is not a first-come-first-served system, and never should be. But that's because of medical factors (quality of match) not age.

Whether a 100 year old should be on the list is a totally separate question, which would depend on clinical factors, not age. There are people of any and all ages who won't be put in the list because of other factors about their overall health.

Whether a 100 year old should be on the list is a totally separate question, which would depend on clinical factors, not age

being 100 years old IS a clinical factor. Age IS a clinical factor. A 100 year old would never be approved to go on a transplant list. They wouldnt be on the list and they wouldnt be the best match.

I hope to christ you're not in the medical field.

Where did I say it was not a factor?

I think you are over-extrapolating from my fourth paragraph. Which was about deciding between those who have been approved for transplant (which is all about quality of match. Not the totally separate issue of how one becomes approved for transplant.

I’m 52 and have a decent sized family in the 75+ bracket.
They’re all fairly pragmatic about death and worry far more about pain and isolation and dementia.

"S/he has had a 'decent innings' ", people say.....But that may not be true at all. The last years of life, for some old people, may be the first years they ever had free to have any enjoyment. A downtrodden woman may have been beaten and humiliated every day of her life, from bullying parents then a bullying husband. Women's Aid has rescued women in their 80s, but usually, the victim will just endure, until the relentless abuse stops when the attacker dies.

Or, people have been downtrodden carers all their lives, with no chance of escape from the obligation, to parents, to siblings, or to adult dependent children they are compelled to devote every waking hour to attending. The sadness is, that like battery chickens who never even learned how to run round and peck the ground, these people are often unable to imagine what to do if the cage door is finally open.

Other posters have pointed out some of the other facts about the incorrectly assumed 'good lives' of older people. The Age Hate organisation misnamed the resolution foundation has direct access to government and unions and ensure promotion of age hate as policy, and as propaganda. They say idiotic things about the average incomes of older people, disgracefully ignoring that a comparative minority being rich will distort the average, just as Bill Gates on a bus makes the average bus passenger a billionaire, until he steps off.

I'm not sure what your actual point is though 20mum.

My gran never had any freedom really until my grand dad died. She got a couple of Good holidays in. She died at 87 I think it was.

You're arguing that she should have lived longer even though she died of natural causes etc... How?

And no it's still not the same as losing a child or a grand child.

@scaevola

No it's not idiotic. Or rather not for the reason stated.

If the person is on the approved-for-transplant list, and they are the best match, they should get it.

When they start looking at approved, on the list, recipients for any reason other than quality of match, then we are on a very slippery slope indeed.

It is not a first-come-first-served system, and never should be. But that's because of medical factors (quality of match) not age.

Whether a 100 year old should be on the list is a totally separate question, which would depend on clinical factors, not age. There are people of any and all ages who won't be put in the list because of other factors about their overall health.

The criteria for transplants is very rigid due to scarcity of donor organs. It differs depending on the organ but for kidney (the most common transplant) there is an expectation that the person was likely to survive five years after transplant but be ill enough to be starting dialysis in under six months, if they weren’t already on dialysis. Clearly a 100 year old isn’t going to be offered a kidney. A healthy 75 year old might be though. Age is a factor but not the only factor.
For lung transplant the criteria are much stricter with a maximum BMI, obviously non-smoking, no cancer diagnosis, use of other addictive substances, poor mental health and poor social support. Maximum age for single lung is 65. They must be likely to survive 5 years with transplant but at the maximum possible limits of non-transplant treatment. Age is one of many criteria set because of outcomes. These people are already dying. It is a last attempt to save lives.

That is a different argument than just setting people up to die by allowing the Coronavirus to run rapidly through our communities.

Where did you say it was a factor?

But that's because of medical factors (quality of match) not age

When you say X because of this and not that, you are saying that this is not that.

FFS.

The ultimate test I believe is that if there was an emergency (e.g. burning building) most people would opt to save the younger person over an elderly person if only one could be saved. I think if children are involved then again most people would rescue them as a priority over adults.

Actually, no, I wouldn't. If I didn't know the younger person or child, I would have chosen to save my parents or my best friend who I have known for over fifty years.

So many on here would happily put the elderly on the scrap heap but every life is unique and special. Before they do that to me, I have a savings pot for the day when I decide I've had enough and take myself to Dgnitas.

@Pickypolly

It does I think. From a health care perspective, caring for COVID patients when we have an older patient admitted I confess that my heart is filled with fear & dread for that person, survival is on a knife edge despite throwing every super power we have at them, and we do. We work so so hard on trying to get them better & home to their family. Age doesn’t come into it. Past medical history does though. Older people carry past medical history with them in terms of multiple medications and long term conditions.

Younger patients carry a harder emotional burden as they could have young families relying on them, so much sadness for so many people surrounding them. So much life & potential in front of them. Again, throwing every single thing we at them to get them better is the same as an elderly patient.

From a health care perspective it is so so difficult, emotional, sad and upsetting no matter the age.
We want to save them all.
Care in life (hanging by a thread) and care in death is the same. We wash them, put a lovely clean gown on them, comb their hair. I clean and replace their teeth, I put lovely fresh sheets on for them and say goodbye to them as if they are my family. That I/we do for everyone, regardless of age every single time.

This is so lovely, I’m so relieved that people like you are in caring professions

So many on here would happily put the elderly on the scrap heap

Evidence for that?

@Pickypolly, thank you for everything you and others do.

Yes I saw that on s thread years ago!

About on a plane, a poster said she wouldn't pause to undo the seatbelt of a small child placed next to her because it's not her kid. In response to a story about a couple of children who died in an incident because they couldn't do their seatbelts and everyone just left them.

So yes while I understand that some people feel that way I don't get it.

I've walked in front of a bus to make it stop (it wasn't going very fast! Just starting up from the lights) because there was a child crossing in front close and it was clear the driver couldn't see him.

People are all different and that's all fine. I think many would instinctively grab babies and toddlers and help higher children and I include older people in that as well. With not so much concern for themselves. IYSWIM.

Obviously you would save your own relatives (I hope!) before strangers of whatever age, but the scenarios here involve people you don't know , so would you save a child or an old person who you have never met, but just sitting next to on a plane, say.

I can only think it would be a very odd person who - given that there is no one else to help - would choose the 90-year-old over the 4-year-old.

@NiceGerbil I'm glad for your gran that in her 87 years of life, two were worth living. That's the point. What if someone who didn't know her had declared "There's no need to keep people alive over the age of 80, they have had their turn, they already had a good life"? Someone of 80 might at last be getting close to their first taste of the freedom and happiness others had as children, or others had as teenagers, or others had in their youth or middle age, or others had when they retired with financial security .

Generalisations often are entirely wrong. Another one I notice is that old people are inevitably "a burden", on everyone around them and on the health service. Untrue. Plenty of people never go near a g.p., never take medication, are not obese and are perfectly fit, and carry on work into their 90s, (It's not only the Queen, or the centenarian marathon entrants.!!)