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?

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.

Yes this.

With Dignitas. I've thought for some time I'd want to go at some point in the future. I dread needing care or extreme unrelenting pain. However I'm very aware I might change my mind if and when it happens to me. I'd like there to be the choice, but that's the important thing. Free choice. Nobody should ever be 'encouraged' to do something like that because of being deemed 'undeserving' of care or 'a burden'.

Thank you so much @Rosscameasdoody yes he brings me a great deal of joy & I can't do without him. My biggest fear though is that in the future he could be at risk from people, and/or a society, which see him only as a burden and an inconvenience.

Judging from some of the comments on here, it is a very reasonable risk. I note that several of them bristled at references to Nazis....they evidently resent this as they consider themselves decent people. I am sure that they really are; but I don't think they understand or have thought through the implications of what they are saying, or how much distress it can cause.

I have a very frail elderly relative in a care home too. I don't know for sure what his current quality of life is (can't see into his head) but I do know that in assessing his value we should consider the whole arc of his life and the contributions that he has made throughout. We would conclude that he deserves to be cared for and respected, and his best interests prioritised, in this last phase of his life; rather than shunted aside as a defective 'unit of productivity'.

No. She is fine. My mum. Who another family member refused to let
go when she was ready and put her through 3 years of indignity being bed bound and having strangers wipe her bottom, only occasionally being in her right mind and realizing what a horrific situation she was in. 3 years of unnecessary suffering because life must be prolonged at all cost even when the quality and enjoyment has gone. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.
was I talking about your perfectly fit able bodied nan? Of course not. I do think the nhs needs to consider the cost benefit of expensive operations on people 90+ though. people are going to start dying because the nhs is crumbling. If you can save a 19 year old or a 90 year old, I think the younger person should win that decision.

No, not performing open heart surgery on a 95 year old, when elsewhere funding cuts mean there’s no ambulance to save the life of a dying child. I’m talking about sensible resource allocation, not killing people

Exactly,once you're on the road to iradicating A particular group that don't meet a certain criteria then where does it stop.
Past history tells us it didn't.

There are enough resources. They are misappropriated by the elite, stolen and handed over to the mates of our corrupt government etc. But rarely do we see anyone advocating for this to be addressed; just for vulnerable groups to be cast adrift to plug the gaps created by poor policy and greed.

There is no reason why a 95 year old who has been assessed to have a good chance of surviving surgery and recovering a decent quality of life should be denied surgery. And there's no reason why this should mean that a child wouldn't receive the life saving care they need.

@Uniqueusername2 I agree with this. If I was an ambulance dispatcher with only 1 ambulance on the road, if a call came in about a 90 year old having a heart attack and a 15 year old also having one, I'd prioritise getting the only ambulance to the 15 year old. I genuinely don't believe anyone wouldn't.

Or lets fund the service and the staff working in it? How about a different approach to the rather binary slant of old vs young.

I've been posting on the assisted dying thread. It's a very emotive topic. And I've explained my conflicted thoughts around it.

What is setting off alarm bells for me is a sudden uptick in general of open discourse over the "problem" of lack of resources all round, and the pointing at vulnerable groups - the poor in general, the sick, the elderly, the disabled - as the root cause.

It's all being carefully dressed up of course in terms of supporting policies that will actually help them of course - encouraging people to work because it's good for them and will cure their mental health issues for example - to be achieved perhaps by substituting money for vouchers for therapy or other immediate needs.

There is a seed being planted and encouraged to grow in the mainstream that state dependency is more about lack of resilience and personal responsibility than demonstrating the knock on effects the effects of living in a fast paced, ever changing modern world that has irrevocably changed the employment landscape, made housing an asset over providing secure homes, encourages atomisation and division of society and economically means it's incredibly difficult to survive without asking for state assistance for a rapidly growing number of people.

While the OP of this thread may have been genuinely interested in a philosophical debate around the issues of whether all the progress made to address all the ills of society has indeed improved things, or created new problems of its own, it has quickly turned to a discussion of worthiness in terms of application of that progress from an economic point of view.

Talk of pragmatism, hard choices, people having to "take one for the team" and accept the results of engineered economic policies means if you are even (hopefully) temporarily disadvantaged you are "part of the problem". You are supposed to feel guilt and shame and be striving to avoid "taking".

There's alot of weasalling going on. The dehumanisation is meant to bring those who "don't really need" the state assistance they are entitled to, yer have had to prove they are via means testing and often humiliating medical scrutiny, to the realisation that they are taking from the even more vulnerable. It's not the government's fault.

The poor government has so much to deal with, what with being hamstrung by global affairs, and making sure money goes where it is really due - into the pockets of those whose pockets already overflow.

Why have we bothered to strive for progress over the last couple of centuries at all? If you really overthink (as I am unfortunately wont to do) what is / has been the point of trying to improve things at all? It's just created its own issues so back to simple survival of the fittest - and richest - seems to be gathering popularity.

It appeals to the worst facets of human nature, capitalises on desperation and flies in the face of decades of encouragement to nurture better mental health and create a more equitable society.

Ideologies are spread at dizzying speed due to the advent of technology which should be used to improve things for all (where is my flying car?) yet it is used more for propaganda, the promoting of division by culture wars and honing the tools of actual war than anything else.

But what I'm really getting at is that we are being encouraged to think this is just the law of unintended consequences and that there is no agenda. And we have to just "do our bit" at the bottom of the heap to improve things, which now seems to be to consider ourselves "drains on society" if we don't have a six figure salary. Which overlooks that apparently, according to some on MN on those salaries are also feeling the pinch.

None of this makes any sense. We keep calm and carry on (mostly) with less and less idea of where we're going as a species in general, but also economically.

The daily cognitive dissonance brought about by just existing is dizzying.

I know what I'm getting at, but it's so complex I'd better shut up and go and make my Dad his breakfast. At least that's one thing I can achieve with guaranteed success.

Thank you, that’s a wonderful post.
I hope your dad enjoys his breakfast.

Superb post @MistressoftheDarkSide , thank you.

Absolutely spot on. Fabulous post - nails the whole crux of the problem.

What leads you to think that denying open heart surgery to a 95 year old would necessarily mean there’s no ambulance for this dying child ? Do you really think this is how funding is allocated ?

No, you’re advocating killing older people to save younger ones. That’s what this muddled thinking amounts to. We’re squabbling for crumbs off the table of the rich and being duped into thinking there aren’t enough resources to go around. ‘Trickle down economics’ doesn’t work while the richest 1% are sucking up all the resources. Unless we address that, we won’t get anywhere.

Rishi Sunak’s speech on welfare reform is one of the most divisive things I’ve ever heard, and is designed with the same thing in mind - making the British public think that there aren’t enough resources to properly support the sick, the disabled and the vulnerable, and sowing the seeds of discontent by suggesting that benefit fraud is out of control, and advocating cutting loose the sick and disabled from the crucial benefits they receive to mitigate the huge cost of disability. These are ideological cuts and not remotely necessary, but convincing the public that we can’t afford it as a country means they can pull the rug out from under the most vulnerable with no real opposition. Sheeple. Baaaaaaaaaa !!!

Wonderful post @MistressoftheDarkSide Thank you.

Jumping on to echo this.

Yes it's 2 totally different scenarios. One improves quality of life the other just extends life but doesn't help the person

This really.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we stop caring for elderly people. But I do think we need to look at how we continue to fund this care because the current system wasn’t created for a population that live this long. It’s becoming increasingly unrealistic to expect triple lock pensions and free care for life. Yes we all ‘pay in’ but very few of us contribute enough to cover our care as we age. I think it’s right that people pay for their own care homes if required and I certainly don’t think it’s unreasonable to discuss future planning and perhaps even means-tested pensions. Although I very much doubt there’s a politician in the country brave enough to do this.

As a physically disabled person this thread scares me a bit.

I don't think it's fair to say that my life is worth less than others because of what you can see on the outside. I don't think that keeping someone alive while they still have senses is prolonging life at all costs. I have a degenerative illness and have sometimes spent weeks in a bed, unable to move or eat. I find joy in small things every day.

Please keep me alive even if my bowels don't work, or I can't eat, or see. I don't see someone helping me change as demeaning. I can still see and smell that the cake my family is enjoying tastes nice and brings them happiness. I can still hold my DDs hand when I can no longer see her. I know that for her, her mum being there for a hug is everything... even when my life means nothing to some.

When I can't work I can be a good citizen, neighbour and friend. I'm still useful in society. Maybe we should just... fund the NHS.

Well said.

@TomatoSoz I totally agree.. I care for ppl with dementia, end stage COPD and other chronic conditions & each of them show me in different ways that their life is worth living.

I think it was the Nazis who only saw value in the economic worth of a human being

But the whole idea is it should be a CHOICE . Of the person concerned.

You are happy with your life so that's fine

My mum on the other hand was not happy and wouldn't accept the restricted life she wouldvr had if the hospital managed to keep her alive. Hence why refusing treatment

Both are individual choices and equally valid

Is it the choice of the person involved. I don't think so. You only have to look at Canada to see that anyone who is not economically productive is made to feel like it is their duty to commit suicide. Down on your luck, off you go. Living rough, off you go etc. Unless you are one of the elite, of course. That is the danger we face.

Yes @JL690 there are worrying reports coming out of Canada, particularly about women, who have persistent mental illness, who are very vulnerable. The combination of stigma associated with mental illness, with sexism & thinking women aren't fully human anyway, could be quite murderous ...