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?

I have two elderly relatives (89+) who aren't in the best of health, but aren't dying either. Their spouses have passed, their friends have all passed, and they spend every day in their care homes. They have both signed DNRs and have stated explicitly that they are ready to go.

As much as I love them and want them to be around forever, I wish there was a way to help them pass peacefully on their own terms, without waiting to die sick, in pain, or without their precious memories.

perhaps we just need a 'Final Solution'? There is a template for it but for those who want to try it I'll suggest you and all your family can be the test subjects

They’re not a skint cohort. Some might be - but less than other groups by a long way.

I really need to get on with work and also don't want to take over this thread, so just one more thing.

Within any group (age, or whatever other unhelpful and unfair generalisation) the ones with less do matter, and need and deserve empathy and support.

Their needs shouldn't be ignored just because others in their designated group (age or whatever) might not have those needs.

One of the reasons why pensioner poverty is a growing problem is precisely because of the lumping together of people by age, who are in varied social and financial circumstances. Limited help or concern for them, because 'lots are ok'. So the ones who aren't ok are ignored and forgotten.

That about covers it!

Indeed.

This happens all the time and one of the things I objected to when I was nursing. Sometimes they'd return from hospital with a DNAR, but often they didn't and the cycle would continue.

You do know that Final Solution is Nazi language don’t you ?

This. One hundred percent. Well said.

The elderly are not the only 'drain on resources'. There are a lot of people in society that are economically inactive and need looking after, as well as the elderly. It's a major problem for a modern developed society.

I pretty sure @Pedallleur knows exactly that. I suspect that was her point. And I agree with her.

The Nazi "Final Solution" was to kill all the Jews - a way of controlling events by applying a hateful criterion. Using age is pretty similar - an arbitrary criterion for getting rid of human beings who you regard as in the way - in this case, old people who are in the way of @Futurascope 's DD being able to buy a house.

It's chilling.

Absolutely!

They have a lot to learn, as I did when I was 25.

The Nazis also killed disabled people, homosexuals, gipsies and many other groups of people they regarded as being undesirable in some way.

Yes, on re-reading I get the point. It’s just chilling seeing the words ‘final solution’ as it has connotations for me. Big girl pants back on now !!

No worries @Rosscameasdoody sometimes it's hard to get satire when you're reading fast on a messageboard. Many's the time I've not got the joke ...

It doesn’t mean they have cash assets or an easy to release asset to fund social care though.

I have a real issue with the framing of economically inactive - ie elderly, disabled, otherwise vulnerable - people as a 'major problem'. Rather, I think it is the collective responsibility of a society that considers itself civilised to care for all its members; and to do it freely rather than begrudgingly.

What does it mean to call them a 'drain on resources'? The implications of that phrase really worry me. Believe me there are plenty of people - including young healthy employed people - who are a net drain on the rest of us, and plenty of disabled & elderly people who are net contributors during their lives and/or continue to be so.

I have a real issue with the framing of economically inactive - ie elderly, disabled, otherwise vulnerable - people as a 'major problem'. Rather, I think it is the collective responsibility of a society that considers itself civilised to care for allits members; and to do it freely rather than begrudgingly.

IMO so much of this lack of compassion stems from Thatcher's 'no such thing as society' ethos. A whole generation (and probably the ones before and after it, tbh) internalised that message to make themselves feel better about being self-orientated and self-serving. 'If it doesn't affect me or someone I love, it's not my problem.' That kind of thing.

Most elderly people's lives are not artificially prolonged. They're not on ventilators or similar life-sustaining equipment. They're in nursing homes being fed and watered. So, what's the suggestion? Stop feeding and watering the elderly who can no longer do it for themselves?

Inside I'm mid 40s because I'm not immature. When I'm 80, if I'm 80, I'll be 80 inside. Just because you feel young doesn't mean you have a right to be kept alive at huge expense (zero sum expense for others).

Fuck me OP, you are actually saying elderly people should be left hungry, dirty, uncomfortablenfotcold so your little darlings can have a cheap swim at the leisure centre.
For starters , you clearly do not understand what social care means. It is not medical care, it is giving them the help they need to look after themselves eg feeding, getting up, washing themselves.
Secondly elderly people have to spend virtually all their money on social care before the council steps in.They are allowed I believe £25 a week for their own expenses

And you might still be perfectly capable of living a happy, able life. Like my nan and her mother before her. My great nan had a fall at 90, broke her hip, had it replaced and lived another 8 years. Would you have said no to that hip? She lived at home until the end. On no medication apart from paracetamol.

Wow, just wow.

(I don't usually use that phrase but it's fitting here).

Bet you change your mind when you get older.

PPs didn't mean they think they're younger than they are. They meant they still have the same joie de vivre, zest for life, passions, hobbies, interests, and families and friends who they love and who love them and want them in their lives..

If you want to go down the road of deciding who 'deserves' medical treatment (or any other support service), very slippery slope. Perhaps the childfree, for example, might feel entitled to pay reduced tax. They don't use schools or maternity care, so why should they pay as much tax as us parents, if when they do need something back they're told nope you're old and 'worthless' now?