Is it time access to free NHS care was age limited?

Sapphire

LHW99 wrote: »

Deserves to die - perhaps - many live who deserve to die, and some die who deserve to live - can you give that to them? *
If not don't be too quick to limit NHS care.

* with apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien

So true, Preciousss. :cool:

In passing, I'll add a bit more about examples in my family. I have a relative who is now 86 (looks about 60), and she had her last academic book published about a year ago. It was co-authored (with just one other author), and is a very hefty, technical tome about a subject I understand nothing. In addition, she still travels a lot (she has worked as an academic among others in the tropics). She does yoga and entertains friends whom she has known since her university days (and no, she did not have a university education paid for by UK taxpayers). She does not live in the UK. I'd say she and others like her are still very valuable members of society, very able to provide a good example to younger members of her family – and neither physically nor mentally is she is anywhere near the 'final solution' blanket cut-off point proposed by the OP.

For myself, I never received a paid-for university education, but paid for one after establishing myself in a career (I did it out of interest and to divert myself from daily work life, which I found degenerated in my profession once so many small, well-established British companies were taken over by giant corporations that cared nothing about their employees). My family was very poor due to circumstances brought about by the war, so could not help me financially – and the benefits that parents received when I was a child were far less than those that people receive nowadays.

An earlier post by the OP implied that I was some kind of property millionaire who had profiteered from future generations, etc, etc, ad nauseam. Well, to clear that up a bit, that is not the case. I have my own place, but bought it with a mortgage I worked hard and consistently over many years to pay, and I didn't invest in property like some others have done, always being overly cautious towards investment, probably because I was part of a family that had lost everything material. However, few friends of mine have done that either, possibly for similar reasons, so neither they nor I have 'stolen' anything from future generations. :cool:

Cakeguts

ruperts wrote: »

The example you've given perfectly illustrates the point so thanks for sharing.

A similar thing happened to a relative of mine who was to all intents and purposes ready to die after her husband passed away but was kept alive for several unhappy, immobile and fairly painful years.

I know it's a tough subject to talk about so completely understand the negative reactions. I think some people would prefer just to ignore the reality that every pound spent on keeping a person who has already lived a long and prosperous life alive is a pound that doesn't get spent on a child who desperately needs it. Unfortunately we are already at the point where we can't afford to care for both and this will only get worse. There will very soon come a point where we need to decide as a society where our priorities should lie.

Don't you think that keeping anyone alive and in pain with no prospects of getting better is cruel not just old people. The important aspect is quality of life not quantity. So a young person who has no quality of life is no better off than an old person with no quality of life but no one would ever suggest removing treatment from a child would they? So who decides?

Sapphire

Cakeguts wrote: »

Don't you think that keeping anyone alive and in pain with no prospects of getting better is cruel not just old people. The important aspect is quality of life not quantity. So a young person who has no quality of life is no better off than an old person with no quality of life but no one would ever suggest removing treatment from a child would they? So who decides?

I wonder whether the OP also applies his 'final solution' to this scenario.

A friend of mine has a sister who was born with Down's Syndrome. The sister has suffered numerous painful health issues since birth (among them a gut that gets twisted, causing her great pain). Costly medical treatment for her many health issues has been obtained through the NHS throughout her life. Though the sister is much loved by the family, neither the mother nor the rest of the family were able to look after her, and she has been in a home, paid for by the state (aka taxpayers) for the last 30 years. Neither she nor many others with similar issues (whether caused by Down's Syndrome or other physical or mental disabilities) have ever contributed financially to society.

So I wonder whether the OP thinks his 'final solution' should be applied to such people as well as the elderly. It should be borne in mind that, unlike the above, most of the elderly have contributed to society and to their families (while 'enjoying' a fraction of the types of benefit paid for by taxpayers that people make use of today), both financially and in terms of passing down their experiences to offspring and their offspring – which is how human societies have generally worked in the past. Admittedly, the latter element (the experience of elders/advice based on it) is sadly now greatly undervalued by many in British society, due to the fracturing of the family unit and the prevailing ageism that is being touted around. Hence, presumably, attitudes such as those of the OP (for myself, I revered my grandparents and would listen in fascination to stories of their youth, etc).

ruperts

Sapphire wrote: »

I wonder whether the OP also applies his 'final solution' to this scenario.

A friend of mine has a sister who was born with Down's Syndrome. The sister has suffered numerous painful health issues since birth (among them a gut that gets twisted, causing her great pain). Costly medical treatment for her many health issues has been obtained through the NHS throughout her life. Though the sister is much loved by the family, neither the mother nor the rest of the family were able to look after her, and she has been in a home, paid for by the state (aka taxpayers) for the last 30 years. Neither she nor many others with similar issues (whether caused by Down's Syndrome or other physical or mental disabilities) have ever contributed financially to society.

So I wonder whether the OP thinks his 'final solution' should be applied to such people as well as the elderly. It should be borne in mind that, unlike the above, most of the elderly have contributed to society and to their families (while 'enjoying' a fraction of the types of benefit paid for by taxpayers that people make use of today), both financially and in terms of passing down their experiences to offspring and their offspring – which is how human societies have generally worked in the past. Admittedly, the latter element (the experience of elders/advice based on it) is sadly now greatly undervalued by many in British society, due to the fracturing of the family unit and the prevailing ageism that is being touted around. Hence, presumably, attitudes such as those of the OP (for myself, I revered my grandparents and would listen in fascination to stories of their youth, etc).

I’m sure I’ve already answered this type of question but I’ll oblige anyway. No this solution would not apply to your friends sister. It would only apply to people beyond a certain age limit (this being the central point of the idea). The reason why it is, perhaps, morally justifiable to allow nature to play out on its own - as it has done for millennia - is because older people have had the opportunity to live the fullest life possible for them. Your friends sister, being younger, has not, so this doesn’t apply to them.

I’ll not comment on the rest of your post as it is irrelevant, except to say that your idea of a typical historical family including old grandparents is pure fiction - for all but the tiniest speck of history, the average human lifespan has been below 35. The concept of grandparents who are part of the family as a child grows up is something that has only been feasible in very recent years.

ruperts

armchaireconomist wrote: »

The system you're proposing is one where your entitlement to life is dependant on wealth.


Have you considered joining the Conservative party? Jeremy Hunt would love you.

The current system is one where your entitlement to life* is dependant on taking wealth and opportunity from other people.

*i’ve used your phrase here to allow for symmetry between the posts but I do not consider letting nature run its course as preventing anybody’s entitlement to life

Sapphire

ruperts wrote: »

I’m sure I’ve already answered this type of question but I’ll oblige anyway. No this solution would not apply to your friends sister. It would only apply to people beyond a certain age limit (this being the central point of the idea). The reason why it is, perhaps, morally justifiable to allow nature to play out on its own - as it has done for millennia - is because older people have had the opportunity to live the fullest life possible for them. Your friends sister, being younger, has not, so this doesn’t apply to them.

I’ll not comment on the rest of your post as it is irrelevant, except to say that your idea of a typical historical family including old grandparents is pure fiction - for all but the tiniest speck of history, the average human lifespan has been below 35. The concept of grandparents who are part of the family as a child grows up something that has only been feasible in recent years.

Good grief, what an attitude! So you think my friend's sister is living a 'full' life, do you? How very convenient of you to assume that as a support for your 'argument'.

And no, what you say in your second paragraph is simply not true – both grandparents and great-grandmother in our family were very much part of our lives, as in many other families. Until recently, grandparents certainly did live with their families, and no one begrudged them this (indeed, they were welcome and contributed much to families with their wealth of experience). The average human lifespan may have been around 35–40 in, say, the Georgian period, but even then many people did survive into their 50s, 60s and even their 90s, even, remarkably, in the poorest sections of English society, which were sometimes healthier than the wealthy sections. And they lived as part of their family, and rarely on their own.

There's no point in continuing this discussion with you – it's a shame that some people have recently been educated in such a morally defunct way as to spout forth offensive view such as those in the OP.

ruperts

Sapphire wrote: »

Good grief, what an attitude! So you think my friend's sister is living a 'full' life, do you? How very convenient of you to assume that as a support for your 'argument'.

And no, what you say in your second paragraph is simply not true – both grandparents and great-grandmother in our family were very much part of our lives, as in many other families. Until recently, grandparents certainly did live with their families, and no one begrudged them this (indeed, they were welcome and contributed much to families with their wealth of experience). The average human lifespan may have been around 35–40 in, say, the Georgian period, but even then many people did survive into their 50s, 60s and even their 90s, even, remarkably, in the poorest sections of English society, which were sometimes healthier than the wealthy sections. And they lived as part of their family, and rarely on their own.

There's no point in continuing this discussion with you – it's a shame that some people have recently been educated in such a morally defunct way as to spout forth offensive view such as those in the OP.

You appear to have read very little of what I actually said. If you’ve already made your mind up then why are you asking me questions? This thread is meant for people with holistic vision, an open mind and a willingness to consider difficult questions. If that’s not you then there is no shame in not participating, but continuously misrepresenting what I’ve said is not really serving either of us very well.

I made no comment on how “full” I considered your friends sisters life to be. The principle I referred to was that older people have had the opportunity to live the “fullest life possible for them”. You appear not to have read the final two words.

Your second paragraph is frankly ridiculous. I referred to tens of thousands of years of human history and you’ve discounted that on the basis of your experience over the last few decades. You simply cannot deny that the concept of grandparents being part of a family unit is a very recent phenomena in the context of human history. To do so would be utterly ignorant of basic facts about historical human life spans.

MobileSaver

ruperts wrote: »

Is it time access to free NHS care was age limited?

So what I'd propose is age limiting the NHS to something like 75.

I think you have a valid point but have obviously got it completely the wrong way around!

Free NHS should be age limited to those who have paid into the system for say at least seven years so only those aged 25 years or older. There'd be an exemption for under-18s who would be allowed to use their parent's NHS entitlement and more expensive treatments would only be available on a tiered system depending on how long and how much you'd paid in tax over the years (so in simple terms the older you are the better treatment you'd receive.)

lookstraightahead

Are we saying here that every 75 year old has had the same amount of opportunity? Very odd way of looking at life. Not holistic at all imo.

Arthurian

ruperts wrote: »

You simply cannot deny that the concept of grandparents being part of a family unit is a very recent phenomena in the context of human history. To do so would be utterly ignorant of basic facts about historical human life spans.

Surely, you are thinking of historical average life expectancy, which is life expectancy at birth? Infant mortality was huge in the past, but obviously those infants who died did not grow up to raise a family. People who survived their infancy and teenage years grew up to raise families and lived to be around 70 years old - so becoming grandparents.
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/life-expectancy-myth-and-why-many-ancient-humans-lived-long-077889