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?

You think things are bad now just wait until the demographic time bomb hits.

This is exactly my thoughts

I'm 51 and I'm dying so that'll make a bit more room eh.

I’d like to pin this to the top of all mumsnet boards and take out a big advertisement for everyone to see it! Spot on.

They stopped Meals-on-Wheels here (for the vulnerable) so they could build a huge great big cycle lane.

If you want to think about it that way, so you can apportion blame, there are lots of 'groups' of people taking money out of the system and, therefore making it 'worse' for everyone!

Why single out the elderly?!

The world is doomed when we finally find a cure for death.

This would be true but it’s not going to happen, so I wouldn’t worry about it.

I think planning for future personal care needs is really important - as a society and individuals.

If it became the norm that people were prepared to downsize to safe, warm, affordable housing - and this was widely available (not necessarily rattling round empty family homes with difficult stairs and unsuitable access/bathrooms). AI in medicine could be used to tailor treatment, to identify problems with drug interactions and incorrect prescribing. The Technology must exist suitable for creating personal care devices that patients could control themselves and carers could spend a lot more time with their clients on social and wellbeing activities rather than spending their days on menial work and driving between homes. Care work has not seen the technological progress that other industries have because it’s mainly low paid and predominantly done by women.

But none of this is popular to talk about because no one likes to think of themselves getting old or infirm.

Why keep anyone alive then?
Premature babies? We now can keep them alive even before the legal limit for termination. Their care is expensive and some can require input for a lifetime.
Those who become disabled through accident ( dangerous sport, crashes, bomb injury) or disease (diabetes, vascular disease, etc)? We now can keep people alive who previously would have died of severe injury and/or disability.
Those with genetic disease, those with allergies, cancer patients...??
All use resources on a day-to-day basis be they care, support, clinical or medical.

But so much easier to pick on the elderly, the low-hanging fruit who are less likely to argue for what they need/require.

So if you want to start discussing who is using all the resources, fact-find about how much other resource-users are taking from local libraries to keep them alive, and then perhaps we can draw straws to decide who is refused them.

I think eventually the state pension will have to be means tested. But it will be a very brave government which does this as it won't be a vote winner.

The Government chooses not to fund social care properly. Councils’ budgets have been cut to the bone by this lot so it’s not surprising they can’t afford to fulfil their statutory responsibilities.

It’s about time we had another government and the public demanded improvement in funding for the vulnerable in this society. Other countries manage it. They are also shooting themselves in the foot by limiting who can work here. We need a young work force. Most of us are going to be old, get chronic diseases and become vulnerable and those who are saying we should stop treating the elderly, the ill and, dare I say it, the disabled, might well find themselves in this position. I bet you will change your tune then.

I think many of those blaming the elderly forget about all the other groups that have limited 'quality of life' . Spending on children with severe and complex needs has rocketed. In years gone by they would have died at birth or during childhood, now they are becoming adults with severe and complex needs.

DM at 85 has outlived both her parents - currently we manage all her needs (Alzheimer’s) as know how limited social care offering would be
DF died at 93 only needed nursing care for last 12 months due to a stroke but it was hard to ensure his needs were managed within tight nhs and social care budgets
I’m 60 and could easily creak on for another 40 years - not sure I want to but until they sort out a U.K. affordable dignitas what choice do I have?
By the time I retire I will have paid into the system for 51 years - I would even pay more in both tax and NI willingly if I thought it would be spent wisely x sadly I’ve had to go private to meet my needs

That's such a bastard thing to be happening to you. I'm sorry, @WrenNatsworthy .

I do not see why the OP has singled out the elderly population. It is crass, and leads on to other sections of Society who are being kept alive unnaturally. Are people who have life saving medications included as well, for good measure!

I don't think anyone is blaming the elderly. It's going to be us soon enough if we make it that far. Who will care for us and who will pay for it? I think the answer will be not enough folk. There need to be some tough decisions. And yeah I think a premature baby should be prioritised over an 80 year old even if that 80 year old is me.

This. Presumably OP would advocate that at birth we just put them in the sluice room and let them die? Why not? They are and will continue to take up huge amounts of resources to live a non-productive life.

How about this -

%3D

Logan's run -

It depicts a future society, on the surface a utopia, but soon revealed as a dystopia in which the population and the consumption of resources are maintained in equilibrium by killing everyone who reaches the age of 30.

Love a bit of ageism on MN.

Wait till you’re 75 OP. you might think a bit differently then ….

Dear God 🤦‍♀️

Maybe people should stop having children instead!

The level of need is now far beyond what is reasonably taxable

I agree.

I’m not proposing any age to cut off medical treatment because that would be inhumane!

to a number of other posters - I am also not suggesting cutting social care support for any other sector of society that needs it.

I am pondering what will happen when the % of people reliant on social care support vastly outweighs what is possible to support from the % of working people - and what will happen to society, and those vulnerable people, at that point

So I have a son with autism. We (well, his grandparents) funded therapy for him privately for years when he was a toddler, and it made the world of difference. It was probably about £60K worth of therapy in total. Always hard to say how he would have turned out if he didn’t have it but his initial diagnosis was that he was severely developmentally delayed, but now, if you met him, you’d probably never guess he had autism. He is doing well in a mainstream school with no support and will likely go on to be a reasonably productive member of society.

Most people could not afford this therapy - trying to get it paid for by the council is like getting blood out of a stone. I find the lack of state support for disabled children so distressing.

Now, would I rather my tax money went to helping another disabled child like mine, where that help could completely turn their life around, or would I rather it going to keep alive a 90 year old in a care home for a year - someone who can’t look after themselves and is only going to deteriorate? Well I think you can guess which I would choose.

The OP probably resents the support I'm getting from the local hospice.

Although my husband is a librarian. I'll ask him, shall I?

@Sageyboots I think human like robots would be the best option for providing personal care, such as continence hygiene, washing, dressing perhaps. They would never get tired, ill, impatient or injured, and they wouldn't need payment. I think there could be a lot of equipment invented that could help as well. Human connection is important and humans would still be needed in care, of course. I think I would feel more empowered if I had my own robot that I could program to assist me with my personal care as an older person, than I would feel if I was cared for by a tired, low paid, overworked human.