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 can see the OP has also updated and clarified her view in the meantime. Regardless of whether or not you, the OP or other posters actually share these views or are merely presenting them, the fact is that such ways of thinking are widely held and I agree they are dangerous.

It has been pointed out on this thread that failure to invest in public services is false economy, and that the failure to properly support old, & sick people as well as others who are vulnerable (the poor, asylum seekers and refugees etc. means that we are in danger of no longer being a civilised country.

We are one of the richest countries in the world. It suits the current leadership of this country to have people squabbling between themselves and begrudging scarce resources, rather than question the transfer of more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands. That is the elephant in the room.

Still, on the subject of asylum seekers - at least someone is getting rich on the back of them:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/17/british-asylum-housing-tycoon-breaks-into-sunday-times-rich-list#:~:text=Graham%20King%2C%20the%20founder%20and,Times%20rich%20list%20of%20the

'Researchers at the Greenwich University worked out that the wealth of the 200 richest families has ballooned from £42bn to £711bn since the rich list began 36 years ago, while the overall public wealth of the country has fallen from £337bn to a shared debt of £1tn.
Ben Tippet, a lecturer in economics at the University of Greenwich, said: '...
"During this time, the wealthiest 200 people have seen their wealth grow on average by 15% per year in real terms, compared to just 2% for GDP. As the economy continues to stagnate and the UK government accumulates more debts than assets, we need to remember that the UK does have a growth model – it’s just for the super rich.”

I've got another really busy day and although trying to stop myself I keep taking over this thread which I know is annoying. I'll try harder to step back and get on with my work instead!

I just want to say one more thing now regarding false economy that occured to me after my post mentioning eating unhealthily and smoking so die younger and 'solve' the ageing population 'problem'.

Situation today is public services funding cuts, insufficient social housing, punitive benefits system, a child support system that needs improving, lack of work education and training opportunities.

Poverty and (often related to poverty) chronic stress affects health. Which then increases the need for NHS treatment, benefits, and social care for all ages, and people go into older age less healthy and with higher needs.

I don't mean everyday or short-term stress. Also it's not only mental health affected. Diabetes, heart problems, even cancer. I read an article about this recently (although I've personally long had a feeling it's an issue). Can't remember what I read but I found some other links I can post when I come back later in case anyone's interested?

Austerity is a false economy policy. Related, an approach that decides which groups are more 'valuable' (and only seeing value as financial) lowers the quality of life for the whole of society.

The end result of the above two approaches is extreme individualism. Doesn't happen overnight but gradually bit by bit things get worse.

Divided societies.
Loss of sense of community.
Everyone outside immediate family (even friends) become potential rivals and 'enemies', competing for unnecessarily heavily rationed resources (with the thresholds to access always potentially being raised, excluding more and more groups).

That's an unhappy and miserable society.

@MistressoftheDarkSide You got the flat? I'm so pleased for you if that's the case, but so sorry you've still got the battle to get your dad the help he deserves. I so hope he gets that help and things start to turn a corner for you and your family xx

Why?

Plenty of money here in the UK, why is it acceptable for the wealthy to pay either 20% or no tax on their incomes?

You don't even have to be particularly rich to avoid tax on investment income, just use your couples ISA allowances and you'll soon have your entire investment protected from any tax at all.......

If we had more social housing, as we did during the first 35 years of the post war period, people would be able to afford more as they'd have more disposable income, with it not all eaten up by rent and mortgage payments.

Instead, we've driven up house prices and rents, the time bomb being the state will have to pay these rents as people retire.
Rnts in Plymouth on a 1 or 2 bed property can easily be as much as the current state pension, so what will people live on?

OP, I don't think you want to get rid of people, I just think your question is based in a wrong false cause fallacy, when the situations about the degradation of the welfare system is more complex than that.
This is not the example of two kids and one apple, take the apple from one to give it to the other.
Some Libertarian voices claim that the pensions system and the welfare system as a extend is a Ponzi scheme. And somehow, there are some true behind it because it is a system that support the few with the effort of the many and it doesn't work when the numbers are even or the many have to have support of the few.
As I said, they worth every penny, the same as the rest of us.

Do you have any experience of extreme pain? Because if so, I'm staggered by your position on this. And if you haven't, it's still disgusting to suggest leaving someone in terrible pain just because you don't think they will be around long enough to benefit from treatment.

Of course it would be disgusting to leave someone in extreme pain. Which is why I didn't say I'd do that. I'd have signed off on whatever meds were needed to ensure she didn't suffer from pain.
And it's not just a financial thought anyway. There's also the likelihood that at 90 most people who are incapacitated due to such a major op aren't going to be able to regain the strength afterwards to be back on their feet. In which case it would have been pointless. Plus the strain to the body of a general anaesthetic, plus the length of time needed to recover in hospital (assuming they did recover at all). In fact the more I think about it, the more unlikely it seems that a hip op would be done at that age at all!

But it happens. I live next door to OAP bungalows, they're all well into their 80s. Living alone. Most have got little dogs they potter about the block with. If one of them fell, they should be OK to be treated like any other member of society. Not, as some on here have said, have treatment withheld because they're older then 75 and 'lived their life'

You’ve clearly never experienced the pain associated with the kinds of conditions requiring joint replacement. Painkillers don’t restore quality of life. Surgery does. If the patient is fit for surgery, regardless of age that’s the optimum treatment. My mum was 85 when she had a hip replacement. She was up and out of bed the same day and was home within a few days. I also have a relative nearly 80 who has had two knee replacements within a few months of each other.

Again, after having experience of this, 4 times being on wards with women well into their late 80s and one in their 90s, there was only 1, that failed to be out of bed before me. I was 27 when I had my first hip. The knee I had 3 weeks ago I had to stay in an extra night and 2 women, one who had a hip one who had a knee were discharged a day before me, because I, a 33 year old, had complications. They didn't.

I mean to be fair to all of you saying hip replacements should be given regardless of age - I just read this, which surprised me:

"One year after hip replacement surgery, the survival rate was 94.4% for nonagenarians without any major complications versus 79.8% for those with major complications"

I'd have thought the survival rates would be lower than that which was partly affecting my opinion on it .

I responded to this poster and was told it’s unlikely that someone of that age would be selected for surgery and that it would cost a lot to hospitalise. I agree with you and I beg to differ. My mum aged 85 had a hip replacement and another relative nearly 80 two knee replacements. Both ops revolutionised their quality of life and their mobility, and there was no need for further pain meds. And both were up and about and out of hospital in a couple of days. Some of the opinions here are shocking. People would do well to remember that although the body ages, the person remains the same.

It’s not about the survival rates though, it’s about improving mobility and quality of life. Pain meds can’t do that with the type of pain from conditions requiring this type of surgery. If someone is deemed fit for surgery, then regardless of age they should have whatever they need if it’ll make life better for them.

Erm of course it's about survival rates! Or at least partly. There's no point in spending out on a new hip if the person isn't likely to survive the op. That's why I was surprised to see that the vast majority do. And it has changed my view a bit.

It might also mean they are very careful who they chose to operate on. For every 90 year old deemed in sufficient health to benefit, four others might be refused the op as they're health is to poor.

Typos!

So you think that rather than life enhancing surgery she should be doped up on painkillers and left to wait it out until she dies?

How about we leave it to individuals to make these decisions, in consultation with their doctors about their best interests, rather than seeking to dictate these within a social policy?

Agreed.

Last year, at the age of 63 I was told that I'll have to wait 'at least 10 yrs' for knee replacements. At the same consultation I was told for the first time that my problem is a genetic condition - patella alta. Basically, my knees are set a bit higher up than they should be, meaning that they sometimes spontaneously dislocate, particularly when I'm going down a slope or downstairs. (A fortnight before I quit my permanent post, I had a spectacular fall down the main staircase at work, much to the delight of some of the fourth years: quoth one, "AAAAW! I just missed it!" I was just relieved my skirt didn't go up and reveal my bloomers.)

There's a bit of osteoarthritis in the knees as well, but that's not causing the main problem.

I asked about exercise, physio...Was simply told not to cycle, not to run, not to do the breast stroke, avoid slopes/hills (in Scotland?!) and avoid working in schools with stairs...Oh yes - he also helpfully told me that if I have to get down on the floor to make sure that I have something to grab onto so that I can get up again and to kneel on a cushion.

I pointed out that I was already using that 'strategy' whenever I have to kneel. I managed to bite my tongue in order to stop myself from querying whether he thought I was stupid.

Fortunately for me, I was given the shoulder decompression I needed (for a problem caused by years of moving and handling my late mum and my late husband). The consultant who operated on me - God bless him - did refer me for physio. (I had stressed that I need to be able to live independently and to be able to garden and to play my musical instrument again.)

The physio was marvellous - she looked at all of my problems. After a few sessions I was referred to the class I now attend weekly. Both she and the class leader emphasised that it's impossible to do as the knee consultant asked/advised - in order to stay mobile at all, I need to exercise my thigh muscles. In order to do that, inevitably, I have to use my knees if I'm to have any kind of quality of life.

I'm now trying to figure whether I can afford to go private. Apparently, there's an op for patella alta which sometimes means that you don't need the knee replacements.

I'm still in pain for my knees, but I'm ignoring that as best as I can. (Can only take so many paracetamol and they only take the edge off.)

If I hadn't been referred for that particular class, I'd have been better off dead. It was getting harder and harder to get myself out of a seat.

The class leader started me off by getting me to stand from a reasonably high chair whilst lifting a 2kg weight. I'm now increased my reps to a minimum of 3 sets of 10 and I'm using a 4kg weight. At home, I'm getting out of a seat without having to push up with my arms.

I'm still using stairs and going up and down slopes. I have to be able to live.

But with meds there are the side effects to contend with... I'm not medical but I do remember my dad suffering terribly from the side effects of strong pain meds to the point where he sometimes used to say he'd prefer the pain. Obviously that's just one person, but ykwim.

I take your point re the strain on the body from such a massive op, but then it does depend on the individual. My MIL is 85 and I reckon she could withstand a hip op, she's healthier than me (56). 😄

For my mum’s surgeon it wasn’t about survival rates. It was about the amount of pain she was in and progressing to stronger and stronger painkillers which were ravaging her health. He advised that at her age and with co-morbidities, there was a strong possibility that she wouldn’t survive the op, but that it was worth the risk because she had zero quality of life anyway and living in constant pain was wearing her out and shortening her life. He was right - after the op, she never looked back. It’s the mark of a civilised society as to how we look after the sick, the elderly and the disabled. We’re one of the richest countries in the world and we’re failing at all three. Meanwhile the top 1% are having a ball and would have us believe in trickle down economics. Nothing trickles down because it’s all sucked up.

There are some on MN who clearly believe that if you are ‘a drain on society’ you should be denied benefits, live on gruel, exist in the dark and wait quietly in the corner for the sweet release of death.

Please consider your rather sweeping statement of ‘The moment I have to rely on anyone else is the moment I’ll be hopping on the first plane to Dignitas.’…. Due to a brain tumour I am no longer able to drive so I have to rely on others to get around as public transport is very bad in our area…. I work full time remotely ( paying good taxes), volunteer online and locally and otherwise fell I contribute to family life. However, as I have to rely on others, should I be going to Dignitas?

@PuppyFeet Very sorry to hear that, it must be very scary and I hope the treatment works well.

'The moment I have to rely on anyone else is the moment I’ll be hopping on the first plane to Dignitas.'

You see, reading a comment like this sets my teeth on edge. Anything can happen at any time to anyone, so that they can find themselves relying on other people.

My DS is severely physically and mentally disabled, relies entirely on others and will do for the rest of his life. Some posters would want to argue that his life is not worth living? Try telling my boy that.....he is the happiest person I know.

And I am actually fairly sympathetic towards assisted dying. But only if it is freely chosen by the individual, as an informed decision, and with strong safeguards in place. From one or two of the posts on here I would really worry that it could lead to people being regarded as a burden and being persuaded/coerced into decisions not in their interest.

So: informed and person-focused decisions based solely on the needs and best interests of the individual. Anything less is uncivilised.

Don’t concern yourself. I’ll tell you why. The people who say something akin to ‘The moment I have to rely on anyone else is the moment I’ll be hopping on the first plane to Dignitas’ are talking utter bollocks. They’re not there yet. Most are years away and can’t comprehend what it’s like to be the person you’ve been all your life and now locked into a body that doesn’t work properly any more. The will to live overrides most things. You just don’t realise it until your 66 going on 16.

I’m so sorry for your situation, and yet so humbled by the joy your son so obviously brings you. Every life is worth living. It’s the mark of a civilised society to make sure that the vulnerable are cared for and have all they need to live their best life, and that those who care for them are supported in every way possible. . unfortunately we’re a long way from that in the UK and some of the opinions expressed here are a stark explanation as to why.