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

ruperts

the_flying_pig wrote: »

OP is obviously trolling but semi-related we are imo a little bit too hell-bent on preserving life for the sake of it without perhaps giving very much thought to *quality* of life.

So some small changes might be appropriate.

We should have something like dignitas.

We might start to think if there might be a way for us to pause for thought when tossing round treatments for the very old, e.g. my grandad was (no doubt expensively, particularly when factoring in subsequent care costs) resuscitated from the very brink of death after having a heart attack in his late eighties, the couple of extra years of exceptionally poor quality, unhappy, life that it bought him really didn't do anyone, the patient most of all, any favours.

Very widespread dementia throws up another difficult set of issues.

Depression rates amongst nursing home residents are very high.

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.

Hedgehog99

I would argue that people cannot help getting old and the associated ailments some old people have.

Young(er) people also cost the NHS a lot of money: care of premature babies, IVF costs and its associated multiple birth costs, and the self-inflicted things like gastric bands, repair of cosmetic surgery disasters, rehab of people who've suffered sports, DIY or motor vehicle accidents/injuries.

The current situation is only temporary. The Baby-boomers are now retired and rightly enjoying the property and pensions they've paid for during their working lives. They were born before the contraceptive pill and the general shift in family size choices, so there are disproportionately more of them. If from now on couples stick to one, two or no children, our birth rate will stabilise and so will the population and there'll be enough workers paying current contributions to pay for those currently retired. It'd be better if everyone's contributions saved for them independently (rather than spent on the currently-retired whose contributions paid for the generation above them in turn), then there wouldn't be these accusations between working and retired generations.

What we should not be doing is encouraging more "costly" low-wage people to migrate here. The government sees them as today's tax-payers to temporarily plug the gap, but they will be tomorrow's retired and, if they've only worked in low-wage jobs, their taxes won't cover the cost of their retirement or their children's schooling and healthcare.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

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.

I agree to an extent but I'd up the age limit and don't be so black and white with the no more health care aspect. I think stopping life saving treatment for those over the age of 80 could be the 1st step if they already have a cancer/ dementia type illness etc, take your pic.

Because I certainly won't want to be a burden on society and family especially if one gets little enjoyment out of life due to existing medical/health issues.

Cakeguts

You are looking in the wrong place again. Older people are not obese, they don't binge drink, they don't have premature babies or use IVF they don't text and drive causing accidents.

What you need to worry about is who is going to pay for the health problems caused by obesity in your generation. Overweight unfit people who sit and watch television or play computer games get serious illnesses. Type 2 diabetes is increasing in young people. It use to be confined to the elderly.

Premature babies often have disabilities. Many of them will need care for life. IVF babies often have disabilities they will also need care for life all paid for by your generation's taxes.

A few years ago I spent some time with a friend in A&E they had something wrong with their eye. It was a Saturday night and the ambulances were bringing a steady stream of young drunks into the department. These drunks were taking up ambulances that could have been used for people who were ill. Most of the people in the A&E department of that hospital were young people who had been binge drinking.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Cakeguts wrote: »

You are looking in the wrong place again. Older people are not obese, they don't binge drink, they don't have premature babies or use IVF they don't text and drive causing accidents.

What you need to worry about is who is going to pay for the health problems caused by obesity in your generation. Overweight unfit people who sit and watch television or play computer games get serious illnesses. Type 2 diabetes is increasing in young people. It use to be confined to the elderly.

Premature babies often have disabilities. Many of them will need care for life. IVF babies often have disabilities they will also need care for life all paid for by your generation's taxes.

I recently had a stay in hospital and the amount of over 80s admitted for treatment with little quality of life was eye opening. Why we spend so much much money keeping old people alive who don't even know where they are is baffling.

Cakeguts

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

I recently had a stay in hospital and the amount of over 80s admitted for treatment with little quality of life was eye opening. Why we spend so much much money keeping old people alive who don't even know where they are is baffling.

This is because relatives of the old people will sue the hospital if their father or mother are not kept alive as long as possible. No one wants to say that their parent can be allowed to die. Would you?

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Cakeguts wrote: »

This is because relatives of the old people will sue the hospital if their father or mother are not kept alive as long as possible. No one wants to say that their parent can be allowed to die. Would you?

Yes, of course I would. Why subject someone to a hopeless existence foe your own selfish enjoyment. We are so incapable of dealing with death in this country it's embarrassing.

zagubov

Cakeguts wrote: »

You are looking in the wrong place again. Older people are not obese, they don't binge drink, they don't have premature babies or use IVF they don't text and drive causing accidents.

What you need to worry about is who is going to pay for the health problems caused by obesity in your generation. Overweight unfit people who sit and watch television or play computer games get serious illnesses. Type 2 diabetes is increasing in young people. It use to be confined to the elderly.

There's a truth in there. The OP divides the young and the old as if they were Venusians and Martians colonising somewhere else (:wave: hiya Earth).
The young people are the old people. Well some of them are eventually/get to be, just as some maggots are eventually/get to be, flies.

If the young don't get some understanding of ageing they may lose the ability to take part in it, just as the OP wants them to lose the right to take part in it.:(

Cakeguts

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Yes, of course I would. Why subject someone to a hopeless existence foe your own selfish enjoyment. We are so incapable of dealing with death in this country it's embarrassing.

I think you may be in a minority. At one time we had a next door neighbour who was a geriatric nurse and they had to keep very ill elderly people going as long as possible in order to stop relatives from suing the hospital if the ill elderly person died before the relatives thought they should. They had to revive extremely ill geriatric patients if their hearts stopped beating because younger relatives wanted everything done to prolong the life of their relatives.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Cakeguts wrote: »

I think you may be in a minority. At one time we had a next door neighbour who was a geriatric nurse and they had to keep very ill elderly people going as long as possible in order to stop relatives from suing the hospital if the ill elderly person died before the relatives thought they should. They had to revive extremely ill geriatric patients if their hearts stopped beating because younger relatives wanted everything done to prolong the life of their relatives.

Resuscitation is a violent and painful procedure. It's not just a zap em back to life procedure as portrayed in film and TV. If I'm already frail the last thing I want is to be Resuscitated.

Hospitals won't be sued if they're not allowed to give free treatment to ill geriatric patients. That's the point.