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?

"See my previous post. My great nan had a hip at 90 and died at 98, 2 weeks before her 99th birthday. Should she have just been left?"

Honestly. If I was in charge of budgets, no I wouldn't have signed off on a hip replacement for a 90 year old. That's the truth. I'd have absolutely signed off on painkillers or whatever meds would have made her remaining time more comfortable. But a major op? No.
But it's irrelevant really. Because she got one and it apparently went well. So good for her.

Honestly, that's disgusting.

Good thing you’re not in charge of budgets then. Hip replacement isn’t a major op, incidentally - it’s not even done under general anaesthetic.

I agree but lots will be outraged. The cost of such operations is almost 20k. There is only so much money in the pot and decisions have to be made as to how it is allocated.

the number of economically inactive people in an economy starts exceeding those who are working and paying for them, that is a major problem unless you have a magic money tree.

Slight problem here.
There's 916,000 total job vacancies in the UK, but over 1 million people on non seekers benefits. That's not even including other 'economically inactive' groups (the retired, the disabled, students, children).

There's not enough jobs for everyone.
They're all economically active though. First, everyone pays tax, and secondly everyone buys food and other goods (keeping businesses afloat and people in employment), and groups who need public service including schools, the NHS, and social care are responsible for keeping loads of people in employment.

With a deficit of jobs to the number of jobseekers, denying support to the 'drain on resources' groups would mean a hell of a lot more 'economically inactive' people because it would mean much higher unemployment.

Reducing human beings to only their 'economic worth' also ignores that value isn't only financial, and that financial contribution isn't only direct.

Everyone is a member of the community, and contributions in a civilised society aren't only financial, but anyway as I said everyone contributes financially whether through actively working themselves or by being responsible for the employment of others.

That isn't my nans fault is it.

They can only last 15 to 20 years before revision anyway, and it gave her another almost 9 years of mobility.

But instead people who have chosen for her to be bed bound and in pain. Where does the money come from for the carers?

Well chances are most 90 year olds will be needed carers anyway. Maybe not your nan but most.

Well she didn't. And neither does my 87 year old nan. Her daughter, who still lives alone and has my dc for tea twice a week

I don’t understand why people are objecting to treatment which keeps elderly people active and independent for longer.
Treatments that prolong life that is already painful and unhappy, yes I see that is an issue. But withholding treatment that would get a recently active person back to independence again would be a false economy no matter what their age. £20k might sound like a lot for a new hip but without it more than that amount can easily be swallowed up by carers.

Thing is, not doing the hip op might have actually cost the public purse more because she might have then needed care workers looking after her. I suppose being brutal, you could say we will only do hip ops on poor 90 year olds, ones whose care would be publicity funded, if you are self care funding, no new hip for you because you won't cost the public as much.

Well I wonder if that person wouldn't be considered for a hip op anyway? If they have carers that suggests poor health, and so less likely to benefit or even survive such an operation.

Am I being unreasonable to say that the advancements in medicine and healthcare have led to a decline in living standards for our society?

Yes YABU.

I replied earlier in the thread explaining the reasons for the decline in living standards (financial, social, and moral) in society. All three are interlinked btw.

Simply put, the decline in quality of life is due to false economy policies (and actually eugenics lite thinking).

Investment pays off.

Good & well funded public services including the NHS and social care (for all ages, child, working age disabled adults, the elderly).

Health and social care, for example. Long wait lists and underfunded social care mean people end up needing more (and more costly) help later on.

Council housing (the unaffordable housing issues affect health, again meaning higher demand on health and social care).

Better child support system

Supportive benefits system (poverty and stress affect health, yet again meaning more need for health and social care).

Work, education and training opportunities

Early and effective access to public services for everyone in need of help improves standard of living for everyone.

Finally you'll be reassured (I assume?) to know that, as far as I'm aware, life expectancy is no longer rising.

@Futurascope My turn to ask a question. If you think (wrongly imo) that people are 'living too long', do you think we should end healthy living laws and campaigns? Eat less healthily, drink up, smoke, don't bother exercising. Then lots of people will die of massive heart attacks in their 50s, 60s, or 70s. That would solve the 'problem' of an ageing population'.

Up to my neck in my own adjacent shitstorm but keeping an eye on the thread while I smoke myself to death in the hope of release (only partly joking....)

Anyway just wanted to thoroughly commend @Againname and a few others who are so patiently explaining things from a humanitarian point of view that is important for everyone in the long run.

Keep it up. I'll be weighing in at some point, when I've finished packing to move and figured out what the hell is going to happen to my Dad, as on Tuesday the nice man at the council said he wouldn't be left homeless but the deadline is Monday, they're shut over the weekend and we've heard absolutely nothing. Yes, we're chasing. And waiting. And waiting.

Great way to treat an 84 year old nuclear test veteran battered by his mentally ill wife on an urgent two week cancer referral because of dramatically declining health over a 5 month period that will cost more to sort out now than if a GP had been a bit more pro-active earlier on. Or just given him, you know an appointment. Or considered that the lymphoma in remission might have come back - they're still dithering about exploring that. The weightloss and blood in poo is probably just age related wear and tear apparently 🙄

Are they hoping he'll just die quietly,? He's beginning to wonder - and so am I.

@Againname In reference to your last paragraph, from OP's view, I can only say we need those people in their 50's and 60's to work and pay taxes. Also getting seriously ill in their 50s and 60s would mean we still have to spend money treating them. So that won't do. They have to keep healthy and work. Once they can't work or pay taxes anymore, time to stop healthcare. God forbid they should enjoy a few work free years, albeit with declining health. Be fit for work, or go. Reminds me of a dark period of history.

OP, is not the elderly, the younger, the middle age. Is the system it self. During the last millennium the system had changed, we don't have the same values and standards that 100 years ago. Neither them the same as 300 years ago.
Under a humanist perspective of your question the answer is not them. Is all of us, we need to modify the system. Is called progress, evolution.
Societies evolved, past records shown us for a better human living. Whether we make the next changes towards a better or worst is up to us.

Blaming a collective of the society miseries never ends well. Take a look to the history.

Focus in old people, young people, whatever people, only show us that the trees don't let us see the forest.
Old people worth every penny, same as the rest of us.

Hi, I bowed out of the thread for a while when it just became a series of people accusing me of being a Nazi.

I work in the public sector with vulnerable people and it keeps me awake at night worrying about how stripped back everything is. I can’t do my job properly because the funding isn’t there. As a society, we are letting people down. When I saw the ITV headline about councils not even meeting basic legal requirements, it’s soul destroying. Those are real people with basic health needs not being met.

If the tax burden is higher than ever, which I have heard politicians say, then how can everything be so bad unless we statistically have too many people dependent on support compared to those paying for it.

Again, I am not looking for ways to kill people off early. I was never looking for a solution. I was asking if I am right in thinking the increase in living age is what is leading to our depleted public services - or if there were alternative explanations. Thank you for suggesting some.

I'm really sorry you and your poor dad are going through this.

I think there is a question here
I had grandparent and aunt live to 94 or so. It does become either falls or hospital etc.
I dont think it is like generally disabled people as elderly have had a shot at life when younger.
But dementia is the main issue as obviously it doesnt improve and lasts to the rest pf their natural life. I personally think if we had to save and had to pay fpr pwn care many wpuldnt choose to spend their own money on that quality of life.

At the point cancer hits at the same time as dementia

That's actually an interesting question in there.
If it was only my own money would I rather have two years in a care home at the end of my life or take my whole family on some fabulous holidays in my 50s or pay for my kids university education, or have a smaller mortgage for years or something like at???

@Futurascope I've got massive respect for you. For doing what you do for work (and caring about the vulnerable people you help) especially in the current budget cut climate which makes your job even tougher than it already is.

Also though respect for doing what a lot of people don't. Willing to consider replies suggesting alternative explanations and solutions to the problems.

Maybe you and I will never agree on all of it, but none of us will get anywhere with tackling the problems if we're not willing to listen to others.

I get where you're coming from in your above post. Taxes are high but public services funding is cut. Seems like there's perhaps a question about where's the tax going. Imo privatisation including part privatisation is one of the problems.

Contracting out public services to companies whose main concern isn't good provision of the service but instead profit for themselves. Often the winning bid for a contract is the cheapest but that means false economy because there's too much cost cutting (except for the company CEOs. So they offer a failing bare bones service, low pay and or poor working conditions for overloaded staff, and the people needing support from the service don't get the timely effective support they need. So end up with more (and more expensive) need.

I believe leading economists have said many times that austerity was and remains a false economy. A lot of the current problems go back to that.

It doesn’t have to be a choice if you own a house that you no longer need if you live in a care home.

It’s disgusting to suggest keeping someone in pain and managed by meds when a simple surgery would give them better quality of life. Hip replacement is not major surgery and if the surgeon feels that it’s feasible and will improve quality of life then it should be done. Glad you’re not in charge of the budgets because you clearly have no concept that despite the aging process, the person you are remains. I feel the same at 66 as I did at 16. Unfortunately you have to get there to appreciate that fact. Something that a lot of you on here wouldn’t allow if you had your way.

My dad regularly played nine holes of golf when he was 98. 🤷‍♀️

Haven't RTFT so apologies, but the issue I have is prolonging the life of those in a half life state in nursing homes. Zero quality of life and the big drugs companies continually finding ways to sell their products. I think the solution should be a consent form authorising doctors to withdraw medicine at a certain time under certain conditions, kind of like a DNR form. For ethical reasons this needs to be signed long before the persons mental state deteriorates. I would definitely sign something like that, maybe it could be done at retirement stage when the next phase of life begins. My worst nightmare would be lingering for years without mental capacity and stressing my family, I think most people agree with this.

And how common do you think that is? Most people have passed away by then, so already they’re a minority