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

[Futurascope]

Possibly controversial…,

https://www.itv.com/news/2024-05-14/one-in-three-councils-not-confident-they-can-provide-basic-adult-social-care

“The fears about meeting the legal requirements come despite eight out of 10 councils forecasting having to cut spending on other community services such as parks, libraries and leisure centres to try to protect funding”.

So - libraries, leisure centres, parks, all vital for young children, families and others - being closed because the elderly desperately need social care.

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?

Completely agree. I’d go further and say it is immoral that in wealthy countries huge resources go into treating diseases of old age (cancers for example) yet in the developing world people die for want of basics like clean water. This is only going to be exacerbated over time with climate change where resources come under more pressure.

I'm so sorry this happened to your mum. It's not right is it? No one would want that kind of prolonged assistance, it's suffering. We wouldn't be allowed to do that to an animal.

Do those societies have a cost of living requiring two incomes to be able to afford to even rent if you’re proposing to have a family ? And let’s face it, the burden of care will always fall to the woman. And if you have the means to pay for care - property or savings, you are expected to use that before the state will step in. It’s usually only the rich ‘higher rate taxpayer’ who can afford the financial planning necessary to avoid losing everything they own to pay for care in later life or due to disability.

For those that say "my MiL was kept alive with antibiotics, when she was 134yo with advanced dementia...."

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/antibiotics/antibiotic-antimicrobial-resistance/

My mum was 83, chest infection, after a stroke, allowed to die with palliative care only & this was 8 years ago.

Life expectancy is now falling, hardly surprising given the state of the public services and our ever increasing waist lines.

That's quite a simplistic view that again sweeps over the root causes of these societal, and often global, issues.

Who would be providing this family care in the UK? Most adults with elderly parents are working outside of the home, which has historically not been the case. We have never required two full time salaries to support a family in the past. And now people have fewer children, because it's less affordable thank ever before to raise a family, there will be increasing numbers of elderly people who don't have younger family members.

Again, the finger can be pointed at corporations and the elite. Greed, pure and simple.

Spot on.

The tone of the last sentence

Dementia does seem to be a biggie

Just listening to Danish bio medical scientist who led to Ozempic / Wegovy branded drugs - they’ve done well plus to boost Denmark’s economy

I fully agree with Dignitas and the right to end ones life on ones own terms shoud be an unassailable right.
I am so sorry about your mum. Such a horrid place to be

Thank you so much.
It's horrific.

Nothing wrong with Dignitas etc but relatively few people want it & by the time they do, its too late.

571 uk citizens have gone to Dignitas since 1998 despite it being very affordable for many in the UK and legal (approx £5000)

I guess when it comes down to it, most people want to live.

In Switzerland, one can join a society whereby one can choose to be euthanised when one is gravely ill and possibly partially mentally incapacitated. The only requirements are that one has to be a member for at least 5 (or thereabout?) years, the decision to join the society has to be made while in good mental health and a yearly subscription for membership be paid. A Swiss friend of mine has done that though he's only in his 50s and in perfect health. I think that is a mighty good idea and don't understand why we can't offer that here in the UK.

Eugenics by stealth is already happening.

My 84 year old DF has had declining health for years, and it's gone rapidly downhill in the last 6 months. Multiple chest infections not helped by antibiotics, urine infections, and now on a fast track to "rule out" bowel cancer. Thing is he had a splenectomy due to lymphoma some years back. He has an annual blood test and since Covid a chat on the phone with his consultant. Looks pretty logical that early investigation and intervention might have helped but it's taken till now to get a GP appointment and any sort of tests. And still they're not looking at the big picture. He's mentally sharp as a tack. Although exhausted and stressed. It's going to be a long unpleasant decline most likely but his impending dependence has been engineered in my opinion.

He had to leave his marital home because my mentally ill SM (who may also have dementia that no-one will diagnose) was violent to him and he's too frail to take it and scared of hurting her if he defends himself. She has capacity and the right to cause chaos according to her CMHT. Because they keep messing around with her medication and won't admit she lacks capacity.

The lack if early intervention will probably lead to their early deaths, or the need for more intensive resources. No logic, no care, no compassion.

They are human beings FFS. Just like you and me. Not "drains on resources". So easy to be pragmatic if you're a robot following party orders.

Money is generated artificially too you know. Distributed and garnered and manipulated by humans for their own ends.

Never felt quite so much like shouting "Wake up sheeple" as I do now to be Frank.

Urgh.

My mum is 95 and has an advance directive that she doesn’t want any life saving/prolonging treatment or to go into a care home unless it’s absolutely necessary. She also has a DNR because she has vascular dementia and cardio vascular issues - her consultant advised that if she were resuscitated after an event she would have no quality of life. I have her LPA and she lives with/is cared for by myself and partner who are retired, with other family members pitching in as they are able.

She was recently hospitalised after a fall and a couple of days before she was due to be discharged l went in at visiting time and found the hospital social worker ‘interviewing’ mum with a view to putting her into care. Mum had no idea what this woman was proposing and it was clear to anyone with half a brain that she lacked the capacity to agree to anything.

l asked the social worker if she was aware mum had dementia, or that she had an LPA in place - all of which were noted in her records. She did not. She’d been advised by the discharge team that mum was vulnerable and needed evaluation for care before discharge and hadn’t even checked the records before coming to see mum. I hadn’t even been advised that this had been put in motion, despite being actively involved in her care as her LPA and advising the hospital of her living arrangements.

When mum was discharged l was given a copy of her discharge notes. Despite her having a DNR put in place by that same hospital and noted clearly on her records - with the mandatory ‘purple form’ issued to me as her LPA - the consultant had judged her as ‘for full resuscitation’ in the event of any emergency.

l made a complaint through PALS and eventually received an apology and an acknowledgement that mum should never have been interviewed by the social worker without my presence as LPA - although l never received a satisfactory explanation as to why it happened. They also acknowledged that there was a DNR in place and rescinded the direction for full resuscitation.

Your sad experience was much worse and my own echoes your view that it’s very difficult to actually put directives into action when the time comes. The lack of communication within the NHS was appalling in both our cases and the thought of introducing voluntary euthanasia into what at times is a chaotic system is concerning to say the least.

Ok so I’ve not yet read the whole thread, I will in a bit. But I think you’re on a slippery slope OP.

Ok, so we cure diseases in older people and they live longer and therefore need more care when they get dementia or are frail and can’t live alone . Yep. But we also keep babies alive from very very premature births , often causing huge long term health effects and care needs. The cost ( per person) of home care packages is actually higher for children and adults of working age (up to 65) than it is for older people ( this is my experience in a field I work in so I can’t link stats but it is accurate where I live) So what do you suggest? We don’t intervene in pregnancies and premature babies ? We don’t resuscitate anyone over the age of 65? 70? 80?

where is the line? Because the cost of social care isn’t all due to older people ( and the cost will increase not only due to an increase in population but an increase in the needs of those people with lifelong conditions we now know how to manage )

I agree.
The deserves a thread of its own. Its not the 1% though. At the bottom of that you have senior doctors and headteachers and other people doing really important work. It's a tiny, tiny percentage, much less than 1% suckling up all the wealth.

I think anyone over 75 is incapable of dying early, to be honest (my parents both over this age agree - but get extensive and expensive NHS care for ongoing conditions while I have to pay privately for mine because of waiting times / total NHS disinterest in the working age population). Anything you have beyond then is a lovely treat and I don't think you can ask for more than not being actively harmed.

Your story is terrifying @Samlewis96 and I'm going to sort my living will now. It's horrific that they keep people alive in a hellish state.

If you were him, would you refuse the treatment? He must have paid quite a lot in tax and NI by now, and he could expect on average to live another seven years. Or are you saying that his condition is terminal and chemo will only prolong the agony? (Still his choice though.) If patient doesn't have capacity, how is the decision made?

Have advancements in medicine have contributed to the decline in living standards and quality of life? No. As a previous poster has pointed out, more than half of UK social care expenditure is on adults aged 18-64. I would suggest that if the government improved their (currently piss poor) funding of dementia research then the spend on the over 65s might see significant decreases…you know, thanks to those pesky advances in medicine allowing older people to live independently for longer.

The moment I have to rely on anyone else is the moment I’ll be hopping on the first plane to Dignitas.

No you won't.

So many people say this, including celebrities, and others who can well afford to hop off to Switzerland. The will to live is very strong, even if you're old and feeble.

My point is at the age if 33, I am one of the people OP is talking about. I am never going to be 'well'. Am I a drain? I work but I won't be able to forever. Is my life not worth living as I have to rely on others?

He won't have paid more than he's cost by this age. That's part of the problem.

Your kid is 12. Most girls go through phases of wanting to be teachers when they grow up. Nothing is set in stone at that age.
You have no idea what the world will be like when she is old enough to buy a house.
You blame old people living longer. The birth rate was high in the decades after ww2. Those children are now the elderly. There are a lot of them.
Governments have not been allocating enough money to health care for years whilst still implementing cut backs. That's why we are in the position we are in now.
Of course billions can be found to fund wars. The world is a very dangerous place right now. You cannot possibly know how life will be for your kids or for yourself when you become one of the old people.
I wonder if you will care about the same things when it's YOU needing the care?
Time will tell.

As far as I can see there are three different questions going on in this thread, all important and should not be ignored.

1. The super rich sucking up all the wealth leaving the rest of us to scramble around and arguing over the crumbs. They didn't make this money on their own, the people staffing their warehouses made it for them, they deserve their fair share.
2. Keeping very elderly people alive in extremely poor health in pain and suffering with constant rounds of antibiotics and vaccines instead of letting illness like flu end their suffering quickly. I think assisted dying is a bit of a red herring, is extending very, very poor quality of life that's more of an issue imo. And please don't come on saying ' my nans 89 and run marathons, you want her dead' you know full well that's not what I'm talking about.
3. Demographics and the challenges this will create. It's no good saying 'oh just fund things better' this is head in the sand. For example, in South Korea in (I think) 15 years, there will be more people over 65 than under, birth rates there are 0.7 and still heading down. The UK is much more protected from this than SK because of high immigration but Demographics will still be a challenge, even here.

40% of cancer now directly linked to obesity. The biggest cost to the NHS is diabetes, of which 90% is caused by lifestyle choices. Heart rate issues mainly caused by lifestyle issues. Correlation between obesity and dementia...I could continue....

So before killing the very old people who most will have managed to make it there due to healthier lifestyles, how about killing the younger ones who are the biggest drain on the NHS and then social care due to unhealthy choice. In all likelihood it will be the majority of posters by the time they reach 60.

Honestly, these threads are utterly disgusting for it's sexism. Imagine saying a race should be killed because they are a bigger drained to resources.

Shame on the majority of posters here!