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?

The government has done everything it can to destroy familial inter generational care. Women now in full time work, raising the pension age, propping up house prices so people have to work longer to pay their mortgage, selling off social housing so people have to move away from their family.
At each of these steps people have pointed out that it would destroy any culture of intergenerational care. Now the country is reaping that reward.
So the "solution" is simply to let people die.

@JL690 Well, thank goodness the law says different.

So what age are you killing off your parents? Or other elderly relatives?

Sorry aunty Ida - you've been around too long now. Time to die (its for the greater good!)

Don't forget - that's also the age you have to take the pill and step off the plane too (probably younger by time you get there... what with the population getting bigger - makes sense to get rid quicker by your calculation)

Do women want to be the answer though? We have higher education and maybe that’s a factor, I mean it’s a bit regressive for women in some ways

I hope to God you don't work for the NHS.

You'll understand when you're older.

Some people miss out. Those who have lived a full and long life have had their turn. And elderly people are so, so, so expensive in healthcare terms. I would not want to be kept alive at 85 while 50 year olds are immobile and out of work waiting for knee operations
I see. So if my 85 years old, very healthy and fit dad, who has worked hard all his life, ensured to keep a healthy lifestyle, did volunteering until a year ago, has all.his brain and still do arithmetic quicker than I had an accident through no fault of his, he should be left to die so that a 50 years old, needing a knee replacement due to self inflicted obesity and total lack of exercise, can have one, despite the fact they will still do no exercise and conti he with their unhealthy lifestyle afterwards?

Thankfully it is illegal for the NHS to discriminate on age because indeed, you can a much healthier 80 year old co pared to a 50 year old.

It sounds like many posters seem to forget that age IS a protected characteristics!

Leaving a 90 year old woman with a hip that dislocates is compassion is it? She was up and on her feet quicker than me and she was almost 60 years older. Compassion my arse. If they are lying there at the end stages of dementia, shitting and pissing themselves, then yes, you have a point. But a completely ok old lady who just needed a hip replacement? No.

I hope to God you don't work for the NHS.
She's be sacked very quickly thankfully!

Don't be an ageist, abelist.

I hope they need a new hip on the day after their 75th birthday.

And what criteria works for your "time to die" scenario?

So there's a car crash - one passenger in each car injured.

car 1 - you have the fit and healthy 85 yr old - who has run marathons weekly since they were out the womb

car 2 - the 35 stone 44 yr old, who has never not eaten a ready meal, lives on crisps and chocolate, thinks vegetables are just pretty plants and smokes 40 cigarettes a day

Which one deserves to get the treatment more in your "we don't have enough funds to treat the old people"?

@ThisNoisyTealLurker Have you ever worked with someone who chose not to take their medication and/or refused interventions? What happens in that situation?

I’m asking because I could see my Dad (86) do this at some point or felt that he’d had enough and was ready to die after a long life. I feel that it’s his choice, tbh.

@toomuchfaff I do see the point you’re making.

You didn't ready my post earlier in this thread then?

Well... The NHS makes decisions not to treat older people every day. The principle is necessary because there's no alternative.

It won't be due to their age alone. It would be due to their quality of life if any and the outcome if successful. That isn't just a decision for the elderly. It's for any age.

I find it mystifying that a terrible health service is in general accepted but the idea of shifting expenditure from the very elderly to the younger population is beyond the Pale. It's very like COVID thinking all over again. I wonder if this mentality will change as the dominant older generation ebbs away.

75 is not 'very' elderly

Well... The NHS makes decisions not to treat older people every day. The principle is necessary because there's no alternative
Yes, when they ascertain that interventions can do more damage than good AND after discussion with the patient and their family.

No other alternatives, you mean none that suite your narrative, that is illegal and immoral!

I find it mystifying that a terrible health service is in general accepted but the idea of shifting expenditure from the very elderly to the younger population is beyond the Pale
Because noone gets to decide who is more worthy just based on age. Just like some race is not more deserving, nor sex, nor the non disabled.

Do you have the same attitude with other protected charities or is it just the older population you seem less worthy?

I understand where you're coming from, OP, but this is a slippery slope. So we set an age when somebody comes and says "oh hello, Anne, your time has come, move aside for the young people, we have come to take you over the rainbow"?
On the other side - when you see people dying with cancer and begging for death which doesn't come because they must be kept alive no matter what...
I still believe there's enough money for care and things like that; however, it absolutely doesn't go where it should, and there's almost nothing we can do about that. Pessimistic, I know.

@ChristmasGutPunch Completely agree. It’s like those people during Covid who said “if lockdown saves even one life then it will be worth it”. They don’t seem able to accept any kind of value calculations - the kind which are actually made by the NHS and government every single day.

There is no price on a life? Yes there jolly well is.

@Elvisthedonkey I think you misunderstand the "price of a life" concept. Life is priceless i.e. too precious to be valued in monetary terms alone.

Exactly, @twoblackdogs , because where do you draw the line? What about people born severely autistic, for example, who are unable to ever live without support-what’s the point of keeping them alive for decades? The slope is just too slippery.