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?

Your wish to live and keep going, your fear of dying and death and wanting to avoid it as much as possible, it's all there.

Only for some people. I have no fear of dying and want to live only as long as I have quality of life. I’m 70.

There are no atheists in foxholes (sic).

@Itsrainingten Regarding London.

According to Age UK
The capital has the UK’s highest rate of poverty for people of pensionable age.

The proportion of Londoners in poverty before housing costs is higher among the 80-84 age group than in any other age group.

Older Londoners are as diverse as any other age group and face significant socio-economic inequalities impacting all aspects of people’s lives. (Exactly my previous point about the ridiculousness of lumping large numbers of people into one group just because of their age)

24% of Londoners of pensionable age live in poverty (a quarter of a million people).

This is a 5% increase since 2017 and 7% more than the rest of England average.

One in 10 Londoners of pensionable age have lived in persistent poverty for at least three out of the last four years.face significant socio-economic inequalities impacting all aspects of people’s lives.

More than one in three fuel poor households in London include at least one person of the age of 60.

One on five pensioners in inner London Boroughs are unable access basic necessities such as a damp-free home, access to a telephone or having hair cut regularly

4 in 10 older Londoners don’t claim Pension Credit even though they are eligible. That’s over 125,000 Londoners missing out.

More from Age UK on London (and older people poverty in the UK in general).

Women are particularly affected it seems. Single pensioners too.

We know that the poverty rate for single pensioners is double that of couples.

Pension age women tend to have higher poverty rates

As Independent Age shows, since 2012 there has been a slow but steady rise in income poverty among older people and movement in and out of poverty mainly due to a loss of social benefit income.

And pensioners who enter poverty didn’t have high incomes in their working lives and those groups who are at greater risk of poverty in later life also have greater risk of entering poverty past State Pension Age.

The other noticeable trend is that inequalities within older generations are some of the most extreme in society.

Rich pensioners have seen their wealth increase, but the poorest older people experienced a drop in their wealth.

As I pointed out in previous posts,
The problem is also simply grouping all older people together as impoverished

Young people already can't afford the basic things we took for granted 20 years ago. The public sector can't work like it used to.

Young people already can't afford the basic things we took for granted 20 years ago. The public sector can't work like it used to.

As my posts above point out, the same goes for plenty of older people (because as the links explain, all age groups are diverse including social and financial circumstances).

I agree though that cutting funds to public services and not investing in affordable housing is a false economy. For all ages.

With older people it's not just pensioners. Over 50s are a hard hit group. This is a ticking time bomb because they're the next generation of pensioners, and are going to go into pension age in poverty and poor health (the two issues are interlinked, because poverty affects health). Age discrimination from employers towards the over 50s plays a large role here.

Failing to properly fund public and support services, and affordable housing, means a lack of timely and effective help. Which means people fall into and stay in worsening poverty and poorer health as they age. Which then ends up costing those public services, including the NHS and the benefits bill, more.

Related issue is the attitude that people who can't afford housing or find work opportunities in their area should all move somewhere else (which doesn't help anyway, as it just spreads the problem and adds pressure on housing, public services, and jobs elsewhere).

The mass displacement breaks apart communities, and it means the more vulnerable groups including the elderly and disabled are isolated from their families and support systems. So less able to have informal practical help and care, but also isolation especially for vulnerable groups affects health. Which means more, and more costly, need for NHS and social care.

The problem (for all age groups) is the false economy approach.

It really depends on the health of the 75 year old .
There are 75, 85, even 95 year olds still mobile and relatively pain free.

However, generalising too much is useless here.

There are people who are suffering daily with physical pain.

No point in saying oh they should have better pain relief, medication etc.

Even getting the attention of a medical professional is extremely difficult.

And God help you if the new tablets have side effects - you’ll wait and wait…

@Rosscameasdoody ,
DNR only covers resuscitation after the heart has stopped. It won’t stop you being sent back and forth to hospital, kept going via drips, etc.

If you want to specify that in x and y circumstances, you want no life saving or life prolonging treatments, you need to add it to a P of A and make sure your family are well aware, too.

Goes without saying. However our governments seem to prefer making themselves and their mates rich.

They always say they’ve no money but they can make it appear from nowhere when they want to.

State occasions - covid payments etc . Do they have a magic money tree?

You know, this one sent me off to do some research.

This type of scenario was covered when I did a first aid course a few years back and, where I live, this would be counted as "failure to assist" and yes, in the situation you described you would be prosecuted for murder.

If you are physically able to assist in such a situation you are legally obliged to provide that assistance or you must do your best to organize assistance.

Incidentally, I live in Germany, where quite a few laws have been determined with Germany's Nazi past in mind. As in, to ensure that such a past can not be repeated.

Many other countries have comparable laws. The UK is actually in the minority here.

Not aimed specifically at the poster quoted, but more as a general observation: I find the eugenic thinking of quite a few posters on this thread to ve pretty shocking.

It’s so hard to watch this happen. People have no idea of the trauma - both for the person suffering and those watching.

Pain is not always controlled and the side effects of the top shelf stuff are horrendous.

I agree there should be the option to bring about a gentle end to this suffering but anyone who dares say this is practically called a Nazi by those who deliberately choose to misunderstand in order to promote the ‘slippery’ slope’ argument.

It's a real eye-opener on this thread the way some people are arrogantly assuming that a person past a certain age and in a certain state of health could not possibly have quality of life or want to live any more. Who do you people think you are to make this pronouncement on behalf of other people whom you do not even know?

In his final illness my dad was in constant pain and debility, unable to do the vast majority of things he used to enjoy, and yet he stated very clearly (no dementia btw) that he was not ready to die yet and wanted to hang on as long as possible. He was, quite rightly, helped to do so by the NHS until the end. But according to the scenario that some here are positing, presumably the hospital staff would have adopted a position of 'Tough luck, you're 84, you've had your time, and although you've been paying into the system for almost seventy years we are stopping your treatment as younger people need the resources. Don't be selfish, old-timer, off you pop.'

How would the 'the old have had their time' brigade feel if they were in that situation? Because I'm not sure I believe these breezy assertions of 'I'd be on the first plane to Switzerland'. How can anyone who isn't already elderly or dying possibly know for sure how they would feel in that scenario? But oh no, let's decide for 'the old' that the value of their existence is over, shall we? Because, y'know, they've had their time.

Honestly, the sheer arrogance of the assumptions being made by some on this thread makes me sick.

The issue is (genuine, unpressured) choice, which some on here don't seem to want.

Suggestions by PPs of blanket limiting medical treatment for all over 80s. Regardless of their individual health circumstances and personal wishes around whether they'd prefer the option of assisted suicide, or instead decent pain relief, palliative treatment, and good social care.

The choice of assisted suicide should imo be available (for adults with capacity of all ages in the circumstances you mention) but should never be suggested as an alternative to properly funded public services.

That's not ok. It is eugenics. Horrible, and it absolutely is a slippery slope.

With 'the cost burden' of NHS and social care, my point in previous posts is relevant. Poverty, and also lack of effective and timely support increases the need for medical and social care in older (and younger) age.

All ages would have a better quality of life if the false economy approach was dropped. Good well-funded public services, supportive benefits system including pensions, affordable housing, and more work, education, and training opportunities. It would cost initially, but pays off and saves money in the end.

Oh I agree with you. All these older people who insist on living longer, costing us money and cluttering up the human race. Why can't they do the rest of us a favour and just die instead? It would be so much cheaper than ensuring and financing a social setup that supports vulnerable people (like civilised countries do).

Some younger people don't seem to realise that when they are older they will still be the same person inside. Your body may be failing but the essence of who you are remains the same.

I still want to ride the rollercoasters at Alton Towers even if my body screams in terror at the thought of the 4 hour car journey to get there let alone the whiplash from the ride. I still want to be picked to be Mary in the nativity play. I still want my mum to bring me chicken soup and luncheon meat sandwiches when I 'm sick. And I still haven't decided what I want to be when I grow up.

?

The elderly culture in this country really doesn’t help either. People seem to want to retire in large rural homes - their right of course, but it means they increasingly struggle with their house/stairs/garden and live ages away from doctors, shops and useful services. They end up sort of retreating into their homes, living in a couple of rooms watching TV all day. Then the lack of social contact and movement means their health declines.

Non rural areas have as much social care pressure as rural areas, so it’s not people flocking to large rural homes.

Has anyone seem Midsommar? When people reach 75 they have to throw themselves off a cliff.

I was on another thread where some posters wanted affordable housing in big cities like London to be only for keyworkers and people who 'need to be there'.

I imagine older people from those cities feel unwelcome and pressured to move away. Especially as (I think?) there's even an official scheme in London to 'relocate' retired social housing tenants to rural areas.

My previous posts on this thread point out many pensioners are in poverty, and many don't own their home.

A significant minority of older people are private renting especially in big cities. Moving away could be their only chance to buy, or to simply continue affording the rent when on a state pension.

Most older people who move away from cities don't buy big houses. Lots, probably most, downsize. They sometimes opt for somewhere less urban, because the more affordable housing in urban areas tends to be tiny flats not designed for older people especially those with mobility needs.

There's been funding cuts to public services across the country. Sometimes support in cities is worse than rural areas, as support schemes there often focus on the young.

Also in cities, many older people's kids have had to move away (due to unaffordable housing). So the issue you mention, of lack of social contact, care including help getting to doctors, and isolation is a problem in big cities too.

Sometimes it's worse, especially as there's less informal community support in large cities because of more transient populations.

90% of pensioners own their home outright with no mortgage. They’re not a skint cohort. Some might be - but less than other groups by a long way.

No they don’t - they threw the people off a cliff as a human sacrifice which happened once every 100 years (or something)

It's not. People have to throw themselves off the cliff when they're 75 so they don't become a burden on Society. The sacrifice is at the end of the film.

Best & truest post in this horrible thread. Thanks @MrTiddlesTheCat for giving the younger posters some sense of the ageing process.

I can remember about 30 years ago, when I was in my early 30s, my grandmother (83) telling me that inside she was still 33 - it was when her beloved husband was still alive (he was shot down in WW2) and they lived a charmed life with great love. She didn't feel 83.

I'm coming to learn to understand what she meant - in my mid-60s I still feel I have much to accomplish. The other day I climbed a rope in the gym to the top. And there's still more to do.

We dismiss people because of how they look on the outside at our peril and to our detriment.

I understand it's 80%, not 90%, and owning a home doesn't mean no poverty. Many need to sell to downsize and move away to free up cash See below

People aged 60-64 now have the highest relative poverty rate at 25%.

The report also details that the average annual income of the poorest 20% of retired individuals is below the minimum amount needed to live on.

This means that the country’s poorest retirees, including those solely reliant on the state pension, have an annual income estimated to leave just £41 for a weekly food shop and insufficient funds to run their own car or service their boiler.

The other thing is those who move away are mainly younger pensioners and people nearing retirement. There's growing poverty and more private renters in these groups. See below.

More than 4.6 million people 50 and older still having to pay off mortgages. No guarantee they'll eventually own outright. Life events like divorce, job loss, of illness, then can't afford mortgage payments...at an age when soon the only income will be a pension

The highest number of older people in rented accommodation ever (almost 2 million aged 50 and older).

More than one in three (37%) pensioners who rent homes privately are in poverty.