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?

More than half the social care budget is spent on working age adults, many of whom are in employment. That is, 18-65 year-olds with disabilities or illnesses that mean they need help to live normally. This includes people with time-limited diseases like cancer. The medical treatment is free, but if the disease and the treatment leave you frail and needing care for a while, any state provision is strictly means tested (apart from PIP).

By contrast, only one in twenty elderly people need residential care for a significant length of time, and this age group is more likely to have the means to pay for it.

NHS spending on an individual is largely concentrated in the last year of life, whether they die young or old.

And the increase in life expectancy over the last fifty years is down to inter alia fewer neonatal deaths, vaccinations, and improvements in treating cancers and cardiovascular disease. Yes there are more centenarians. But that's not because old people live to be even older. It's because more people survive the perils of childhood and middle age and so get the chance to live out their natural lifespan.

So it's complicated. But my own hunch is that better medical care (and accident prevention/sanitation/nutrition/whatever) should lead to a lower care burden, not higher.

In a couple of decades hence, after climate change really kicks in, after huge populations of insects have died, we won't be worrying about the niceties of things like libraries versus social care for the elderly.

Thank you @fromthegecko Very well said and well thought out 👏

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.

I suppose you could argue that advancements in medicine mean that people who need support do survive nowadays and use up resources, but that’s not confined to the elderly. A quick Google tells me that in 1920, the child mortality rate for under- 5’s was 141.8 per 1,000. In 2020, it was 4 per thousand.

Back then, if you weren’t fairly healthy, you didn’t make it, and not much was done for you if you did survive with underlying conditions, certainly not if you had poor mental health, for example.

But surely we don’t want to go back to those days? Should we withdraw medical treatment? How do we determine who’s worth saving and who isn’t?

You are right to some extent op. I think of the cost of care a family member recently received to keep him alive in pain with no quality of life for those few extra months when I can't get an educational placement for my autistic child. I'm waiting months for treatment for a degenerative health issue that while can't be cured could be slowed. Promt treatment would cost the tax payer less in the long run as I will have care needs much younger due to this delay.

But morally we just can't have rules where some can get care but others can't. I would have supported not pouring thousands into keeping a terminal patient alive just a few extra weeks/ months then a very close friend became termilnally I'll and after waiting years to be a grandmother died just a few weeks before her dd gave birth. With better care she may have died of her illness not the dehydration and infection that killed her

And I agree with what others have said. It's the rich getting richer at the expense of our public services that needs addressing this is the root problem.

Advanced directive if you haven't already, I used the website below

For me it's not about elderly, it's about choice
I don't want to live with dementia. Neither does my dad. I want to live and not just survive. If I'm 45 and have a huge brain injury I don't want to be kept alive

But people don't have the choice and sorry if this offends anyone but it's fucking ridiculous
Sat watching my mum die and said to the nurse "why does she have to go through this process of dying? We know she's dying, she won't get better but we can't do what we would do for an animal? And if we didn't PTS an animal it would be cruelty?! Give me strength"

Instead I had to sit listening to her die over the course of a day not to mention the suffering from Alzheimer's before that

compassionindying.org.uk/how-we-can-help/living-will-advance-decision/

I agree,the vulnerable,the ill, disabled, elderly, benefit claimants.
All have been fair game lately and any of the above could happen to any of us.
Rishi's latest mouthings of stripping GPS of the power to sign people off is so wrong.
I know what would replace it ..a box ticking exercise by a private company that would be result driven.
What company would get the millions pounds contract.
Mmmm PPE contracts does that sound familiar.
And just who would they be connected to.

Yeah, they're currently being a few older people because of the baby boom era.

That is only temporary as births have declined slowly since then.

At what point do we stop though? Are we going to stop with the elderly or are we going to get rid of any kind of person who is defective and needs extra care too?

That just doesn't seem quite right when you think about it.

Yeah for some reason this particular generation of older people get so much hate.

Don't worry OP. Thanks to austerity life expectancy is now falling.

It’s true on many levels , not only the care side but people work longer so less jobs for the younger , less houses as people live longer and as you so well put less opportunities for the young .
The hard answer is more tax

Yes, exactly! I am 50, I was diagnosed with stage 3 ovarian cancer age 49. I have been kept 'artifically alive' by chemo, radiotherapy and other cancer treatments. I can't work atm, so I rely on benefits. Should I be denied my 'artificial treatments' and let nature take it's course ? If not, what age is the cut off?
My mum is 85 and fit as a fiddle, she is totally independent and has never needed any' artificial treatments ' to keep her alive

A modest one, perchance?

Perhaps use the script of Logan's run.where the government execute anyone over 30 and any who go AWOL are hunted down.
Some of the hate for other sections of society pisses me off.
What's so wrong about a fairer society for all.
You can bet conservative MPs aren't going without.
Remember that line...we are all in this together.

Utter bollox.

Soylent green?

the real answer is of course improving quality of life with education in life style choices. Easy to say harder to implement

Its done quite successfully in Australia. I think it is a good system.

I never understand why we have a public health bodies absolutely desperate for people not to die too soon and also social infrastructure that can’t cope with everyone leading a very long life. leaders need to pick a side.

I was widowed three years ago. I had been my husband's carer for some time. I'd say that he still had a reasonable quality of life. He had hemiparesis following a stroke, but had learned to walk again. He made it to his early 80s. I reckon that if it hadn't been for lockdown, he'd have made it a bit longer - there was a medication issue that wasn't dealt with because GPs were avoiding seeing patients.

Following his death, I think I had a breakdown. I organised the restricted funeral which his kids didn't attend because one was shielding and the other was worried about Covid. I was on my own at the worst time of my life.

I had some medical issues which couldn't be taken care of straight away - a benign tumour on a digit (would you believe - though I didn't know it was benign until it was cut out), a gynae issue (benign again) and a shoulder injury caused by moving and handling on my own. The bereavement coupled with the medical matters meant that I was pretty much sedentary for two years with predictable results.

Luckily for me, my shoulder op surgeon referred me to a physio. After working on my shoulder exercises and some others, she referred me to a Local Authority/NHS exercise programme which I'm still attending.

it's specifically geared to getting people fitter after operations or trauma and it's made a significant improvement to my quality of life. I'm in my 60s. I worked full time and cared for my parents and then I cared for my parents and my husband. Now that I'm on my own, I need to be as independent as possible.

There's a waiting list for the programme, however. I'd say that if it could be expanded it would have a significant impact on health for many and would, therefore, save a great deal of money in the long run.

I was a carer for an ill old person for close to 5 years. The amount of support they needed was huge. So in a way them living so long (in poor health) did have a bad effect on the health and emotional well being of those trying to look after them. The doctors had anticipated that she would die alot sooner than she actually did.

The cost to the NHS also must have been huge - lots of tablets everyday (about 20). Lots of hospital stays, doctor visits, nurse visits. Tons of problems with teeth and gums due to heart problems. Thus 10-15 NHS dentist visits per year. She would also call out ambulances (999) really regularly even though her GP had told her countless times it was panic attacks she was having and to stop calling them. Special mushed up food and special tiny portions had to be bought in or made as she was too tired to chew. Incontinence, kept falling (more hospital visits).

Then she got attendance allowance which was 5K roughly a year (not means tested) and as in Scotland she got free carers paid for by council (they didn't do much to be frank but I think they were so so busy with too many old people and not enough staff).

The cost and effort of keeping her alive for the last 3 years was eye watering and quite frankly her quality of life despite all this was very poor.

I could never quite understand how she managed to get so much attention/money spent on her when there was so little help for mental health or gp access was terrible and waits in a&e were so long.

Finally a nursing home and so social and the council were involved there with assesments etc.

So yes in this case the amount of resources used to give a sick old person extra time could have been used better. I do understand how the council are struggling to provide other services when I see the pressure on them by the elderly population.

Also the state pension is struggling because people are living much longer than it was intended they get state pension for.

I think there is alot to be said for living as long as you are independent and in good health but then a quick death before you become a burden to your children and the state. I certainly would not want to be hanging about for years in and out of hospitals, doctors, carers changing me and feeding me.

@mjf981 Interesting, what happens in Australia? If you have a private pension and savings above a certain level, you don’t get a state pension?

Does everyone still have to contribute to the state system during their working life, or can they opt out?

I think Hitler and Goebels had similar views op. You would have got on fabulously!

PMSL

I mean maybe it is bad for society if those pesky old people stop dropping down dead, but anything other than “ah well that’s life let’s roll with it and redesign infrastructure to accommodate it” is completely dehumanising elderly people.

I think some people forget that they will probably be an elderly person one day.

The richest 1% are making life worse protected by many governments- think Cameron’s austerity.

1990: 15 billionaires in the UK
2010: 29 billionaires in the UK
2023: 177 billionaires in the UK

In 2000, globally, 470 billionaires are collectively worth $1 trillion.

Richest 1% captured 54% of new global wealth over the past decade.

In the two years to December 2021, the 1% grabbed 63% ($26 trillion) of all new wealth ($42 trillion) created on earth. Just 37% ($16 trillion) went to the bottom 99%.

2022: globally, there are 3,194 billionaires

2022: just 500 billionaires are collectively worth 2 trillion

2023: the richest 1% of Britons hold more collective wealth than the collective wealth of the poorest 70% of Britons

2023: just TEN absurdly rich people have as much combined wealth than the poorest THREE BILLION on earth.

I know we've all got very taxed on various fronts over this post!

I think what the OP is saying is that the NHS is a victim of its own sucess. When it was established, the idea was the it would work hand in glove with welfare reform, social care, etc. People would take responsibility for their own health, and only use health services when very ill. All paid for via NI.

However, after only 2 years, the Labour govt realised it was becoming too expensive, so reintroduced dental and presciption charges. In addition, initially people were v grateful and were more aware of how to prevent illness, and things like housing and sanitation improved. But as years have passed, people have taken less responsibility and think, oh, the nhs will fix me (gastric bands for example). Add to this the brilliant research, etc which has found cures for many diseases/injuries, and disaster ensues!.

People are living longer (yayy!)) but using more resources because they have become lazy about their health (not everyone, I hasten to add!). Over the years, NI contributions have dropped dramatically due to unemployment and Budget 'treats', the NHS has been constantly tweaked and now needs an army of managers and bean counters to ensure these behethmoths try to provide a basic service.

This has created a pefect storm, and a big fail.

So, the simple answer to OP is yes, living longer is affecting others, but being kept alivecat any age, where previously treatment wasn't an opition, is contributing to longevity.

🤣🤣🤣

An important point also is that many of these old, unwell elderly with poor quality of life and no chance of recovery WANT to die. They are ready to go but nobody wants to take responsibility for letting them.

Completely different if the old person is in relative decent health and still living a life with some quality.

Also different are younger people say 50's with cancer as their treatment should hopefully cure them and then they get back to a good life. With the very ill elderly there is no chance of a return to a good life.