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 slope is so slippery that it's been made illegal.

What a great thread for MN, finding out that 60% are ageist. So much for expecting the world to support the rights of women when the majority don't care at all about the rights of the elderly! Truly a shocking thread.

Care homes can keep people going for years and years due to modern medical interventions. Imagine lying in a bed, unable to communicate or see/hear properly, subjected to a blaring radio playing foul electronic music, doubly incontinent, in constant pain/discomfort, no say in anything and only able to eat mush. Antibiotics every month or so prescribed by a disinterested GP with no real understanding or interest in palliative care and who sees every death as a personal failure. And relatives who scream blue murder at the staff if the resident shows any sign of deterioration whatsoever. I'm so relieved I left nursing. I didn't train so that I could spend my days and nights torturing people.

It goes beyond ageist. Apparently a life is not worth living as soon as you need to rely on someone else. Still waiting on a response from that poster on multiple things.

It’s not just elderly is it. It’s anyone who has a huge cost of social care to be kept alive basically. We have grown this life at all costs to be the only acceptable answer. We have babies being born who will live hooked up to tubes for every second of their lives breathing and feeding them, never to walk or talk or anything pretty much, because life at all costs.

We have people with bodies that are trying to give up but the answer is always to pump more drugs more antibiotics. Just stick a plaster here and there. The person isn’t ever getting better. It’s prolonging the inevitable or in the cases with infants bringing them into a life of nothing to start with.

People are too afraid to ever say goodbye or that they will be judged if they don’t push for every thing possible when honestly it’s not always in the persons best interests.

There is no pot of gold the debt just gets bigger and bigger untill something has to give.

That isn't a life. I agree. But there are posters on here saying that people of 75 plus shouldn't receive joint replacements!? Ffs. Going to dignitas as soon as they need to rely on someone.

What a horrible thread - conflating two vastly different areas for political manipulation no doubt.

People are too afraid to ever say goodbye or that they will be judged if they don’t push for every thing possible when honestly it’s not always in the persons best interests
Does this apply to children who suffer brain damage? Even if they are living a seemingly happy life but relying on heavy meds to prevent seizures, mucus build up in the lungs anf more.

Should these happy yet very disabled children be taken from their parents and what? Killed? Because as you say, it's not just the elderly!

Joint replacements are quite something though, when you think in terms of the NHS being set up and what we can do today

Projections for hip and knee operations are eye watering by 2030

Not say they shouldn’t be done but a discussion on how we fund it is no bad thing

If you can still live a genuine happy life sure.

But lots of people of all ages are alive who don’t actually have a happy life or life at all. Just hooked up to machines and left to just life out their life unable to talk or even eat. Not be able to let anyone know how they even feel because they just are not in there anymore.

Look at cases that have ended up in the papers with parents fighting courts to keep children alive who really should
of been allowed to pass peacefully.

But lots of people of all ages are alive who don’t actually have a happy life or life at all
So who gets to become cops of happy lives?

I think it isn't a question of age, but of quality of life. Someone who will never again be able to feed or wash themselves, communicate with loved ones, or do anything independently should not be medicated to the point that they are being kept alive artificially. They should have pain relief and palliative care, but prolonging life in this instance is purely selfish.

Those in this position are generally elderly because the body and mind deteriorate after 80+ years of life, even if lived extremely healthily. It's not ageist to say that the elderly are generally more frail and closer to death; it's entirely natural.

If there were a form that I could sign right now to ensure that I could die peacefully at the point where I no longer had a decent quality of life, I would. I do not want to exist in a world where I do not have any capacity or recollection of my loved ones, nor do I want my care to be a burden on my children. I want their memories of me to be of an independent, vibrant woman.

I don't think it is lifespan that is the problem, rather that the distribution of wealth is so insanely skewed these days.

I'm 33. I've had both hips and both knees done. I should have had my elbow replaced by the end of the summer. They should last me 20 years, maybe more maybe less. At what point should I be told 'nope, sorry. You can't have anymore!'?

@EasternStandard Well, my 52-year-old friend had a knee replacement in December, no contributing factors such as obesity, she’s just unlucky to have bad knees.

She’s back at work as a dentist so the operation was definitely worthwhile.

From relatives you’ll get your next set but might be hard pushed for the ones after.

We have a 80 year old who won’t be given a hernia op because not worth it basically.

Look at cases that have ended up in the papers with parents fighting courts to keep children alive who really should
of been allowed to pass peacefully
Exactly! The needs of these are considered by experts and judge by the law. It's possible because they are so extre rare, thankfully.

So how do you otherwise decide when loved ones don't agree?

I was on a ward this time with a 90 year old woman and a 87 year old woman. So thankfully, the NHS doesn't have the same view.

I meant I have a relative who isn’t getting one because of age not personal view.

It can't be just their age. They must have some under lying reason they aren't operating at 80 on a hernia.

Haha, yeah, let's stop old people getting hips and knees replacements.

For the 81,130 hip replacement procedures, a majority of patients were 50 years old or older (93.8%). Patients aged 50-69 accounted for 41.9% compared to 51.9% for those over 70 years old

Who are you replying to?

@OhmygodDont I definitely think that older people should be given the choice to turn down treatment. My Dad (86) needs a hernia op, he’s been offered one in recent years, but he’s not having it. Fair enough.

Studies have found that people in their 80s and 90s benefit from hip or knee replacement as much as younger people

Sure it’s not just limited to age or obesity

The projections are there though, and they go up a fair bit each year