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?

Bitchy thing to say

If we all new we were tapping out by say 80 at the latest, it would make planning for retirement easier. You can always go sooner but 80 seems a good age to say byeee. Although my eldest grandparent lived to 88 and was great up to about 85. We all vary so much.

perhaos if we offered to go earlier our offspring could get a tax bonus or something….. or like if you choose to live longer than 80 you could have to fund it yourself… a long the lines of university funding for those choosing to take higher education.

@SnoqualmieRiver But no one is suggesting euthanasia? And I’m quite sure no one here would.

Why would money for adult social care be used for children? If a child needs an EHCP they obviously have significant needs.

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.

But what if you asked that 90 year old? He or she may very well still be happy and enjoying being alive. I know my father is.

You might well be one day

A civilised society should be able to care for their old and sick

They have.

No it is not. Thank you very much. You just do not understand what I mean, and I am not going to bother explaining to you.

No, at no point have I suggested withdrawing care from anybody. I posed a question around whether the advancement in medicine has contributed to our decline in living standards.

"But what if you asked that 90 year old? He or she may very well still be happy and enjoying being alive. I know my father is."

I'd imagine the average 90 year old, given the choice between themselves being saved, or a young child, would choose the child!

I don't think it's about playing off generations. But I do worry about my quality of life when I'm aged if we don't get a wriggle on with legislation for assisted dying. I don't want my last 5 years to be about being kept alive and cared for when my quality of life is shit. But aside from the lucky few who have a thing that kills them quickly this is the reality of people who make it the their late 70s and beyond. At some point (whether it's in yout 70's, 80's or 90:) the gardening, bridge, yoga, walking holidays phase of your retirement are long gone and you're in to the long term conditions, multiple hospital visits, needing care phase. At that point I want the option to call it a day thanks. It's bloody outrageous that some random consultant will have the right to stuff me full of antibiotics/steroids/insert life saving but unwanted medication and keep me going unless I'm able to vociferously and competently argue that I don't want it and I have retained capacity.

Better to be Soylent Green; at 27, people killed. Bodiesd turned into nutrition tablets (called soylent green) for those remaning.
That'll keep nhs costs down

@YourPithyLilacSheep The role of the state should not be to do what each individual wishes - it should be to do the most amount of good for the most amount of people. I don’t believe that the state should act as a charity.

I don’t think I will change my mind aged 90 years old - I certainly hope I don’t. I hope I’m courageous enough to stick to my convictions.

An EHCP can last up to the age of 25.

At that point I want the option to call it a day thanks. It's bloody outrageous that some random consultant will have the right to stuff me full of antibiotics/steroids/insert life saving but unwanted medication and keep me going unless I'm able to vociferously and competently argue that I don't want it and I have retained capacity.

You can have an advance directive to ensure that doesn’t happen. I’ve got one.

What about if we start to withdraw medical treatment from anyone with a BMI of over 30, or an IQ of below 120?

You see, this is the problem when you start to make stupid pronouncements about human beings’ relative value, based on some quantitative Criterion which bears no relation to humanity.

This thread is why I hope we never legalise assisted suicide in the UK.

The ageism is shocking.

Lots of posters jumping on the idea that I suggested withdrawing care and killing people off. Or that I would support vulnerable groups not receiving the care they need. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

I am worried about the future quality of life for all sectors of society as the public sector is decimated.

My question was whether the advancements in medicine have contributed to the decline. If we continue the trajectory, I don’t know how society supports itself in generations to come.

Councils are saying they can’t provide the legal basic minimum level of care - that is not OK.

So who's going to choose then? These are actual human beings. Very loved and wanted even those with dementia. A lot of the elderly have given working life times of service to this country. They deserve to be looked after decently.

I think one issue we have this that we go to great lengths to keep people alive in a really terrible state. Its just cruel imo. Example, a women in her late 80s to early 90s I know. She living in a care home with advancing dementia and multiple other painful health conditions for five years. The last three years she spent screaming in terror because she didn't know what was happening or who anyone was. She was also first in the queue for every vaccination going and only had to sniff for the GP to be round with antibiotics for her because if she got flu or something she might die. That poor, poor women, being kept alive in pain and terror for years extra when a short illness like flu could have freed her from her suffering. And people act like the moral thing to do is keeping her alive as long as possible.

I speak here as someone who has skin in this particular game as an old and frail woman.

if the opening poster really means "should the medical profession put length of life above quality of life". I'd say they absolutely should not. Quality should come top.

If, on the other hand, the poster is saying it would be better for her family and for other families too, if I died, I'd tell her to fuck off.

I've been straight with my medical practitioners. I eat well (though not much but usually get my five a day) but if they expect me to give up my red wine and the food I like but is deemed "bad for me" (prawns, bacon ect) they may as well whistle Dixey. It ain't going to happen.

the problem is that we have an aging population and are also reluctant to welcome younger people who we call "economic migrants". These are the very same people who could work and pay taxes, just as I did for forty years. But we, as a nation, say no, you may not come here and pay tax. In fact, we won't even let you work.

madness

Yes there will be a decline in living standards. There is not an endless pot of money. The issue will be funding it.

Former Tory voter and I think the only way to fund it is that all savings and investments are sold to fund care. All. So no one inherits anything. It's radical. Insane.

University should be paid for by a tax. So you don't pay off your student loan, you just pay a percentage of your salary forever more. If doctors etc. leave to go and work abroad they should pay back everything.

That should raise some funds for the NHS (and keep doctors here), education is funded by those who benefit from it and avoiding inheritance pays for care.

Public services like the trains and busses should be renationalised. People should work more from home and cars should be banned.

Unfortunately the Govt in this country is so short sighted and driven by the next set of election results that no one thinks longer term. It's why environmental policy is abysmal and why in 30 years time we'll be struggling to grow crops because we've drained the soil dry like we did the mines.

We're so intend on living how we've always lived and not changing anything. And any change is met with wholesale resistance of "it will impact my mental health" or "having my nails done is a basic human right". The entitlement of people is bonkers.

I know, but the poster that I was replying to said it goes towards the schools EHCP students. They don’t go to school past 18. 18-25 they’ll still have their EHCP and some will still get support financially in a different setting.

Everything is going to shit.The only thing that the government pushes is ever increasing house prices.This benefits no one except the very rich.
Tens of billions every year is paid out in housing benefit.
Indeed the increased cost of accommodation means so much more is paid in benefits even to those on a reasonable salary.
The country has an ever increasing number renting who when retired their rent will be paid out of benefits.
With the cost of housing, work just isn’t paying any more.Is it any wonder so many are on benefits.
This money tied up in housing (ie benefits to keep it all going) should be going to all the things that are going down hill now.

I want to live in a society where every single person is looked after and has their needs met.

It's just bewildering to me that a demographic which is so much in need of high levels of care has overwhelmingly opted to vote for a political party determined to strip every last vestige of support from the vulnerable.