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

antrobus

the_flying_pig wrote: »

I think that at a minimum there could be a totally stigma-free 'opt out' from resuscitation for say the over-85s,..

There is.

A DNAR (do not attempt resuscitation) form is a document issued and signed by a doctor, telling your medical team not to attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The form is designed to be easily recognised and verifiable, allowing healthcare professionals to make decisions quickly about how to treat you. It also called a DNR or DNACPR order

http://compassionindying.org.uk/making-decisions-and-planning-your-care/planning-ahead/dnar-forms/

There are also 'living wills' aka an Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment.

They are not age-restricted.

Sapphire

the_flying_pig wrote: »

I think that at a minimum there could be a totally stigma-free 'opt out' from resuscitation for say the over-85s, something like a donor card that says, you know: 'look, I'm 87 years old, if my heart stops then that's it, I'm dead, please don't try & bring me back'. it'd be interesting to know how many would sign up for it. I like to think that I would when I'm that age, though of course if I changed my mind then I'd hope that those wishes would be respected too. I know that towards the end my granddad very much wished that he'd been able to do something similar.

The case you mention is probably more straightforward than one involving people who have Alzheimer's disease (or other mental afflictions), and who are not in a position to make decisions for themselves. Some may be physically well, but mentally very badly affected by the disease and extremely unhappy (I know of one such case in my family).

I don't think any relative could be expected to make decisions to (in effect) murder someone in such cases, and I think few people affected by the disease in the early stages would agree to being killed when their symptoms become much worse.

The problem is likely to become much worse for future generations, especially given the huge explosion in the world's population. This is increasingly beginning to affect the West through mass migration from far poorer countries that produce large amounts of offspring which they cannot afford to support (even though the birth rate did slow among the populations of Western countries). It's largely due to the elimination of the deadly diseases that once killed millions (though war is a distinct possibility as a means of culling populations, as is a global pandemic that may be uncontrollable, or the brainwashing of people into adopting a 'Final Solution'-style option, of the type proposed by the OP, because it would be to their financial advantage, etc.). In the end, one way or another, Mother Nature will win, as always…

rtho782

People in retirement age now earn on average more than those of working age.

The least we could do is expect them to pay the same rate into the pot. e.g. merge Income Tax and NI.

No reason pensioners should get tax breaks.

Andy_L

suki1964 wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan's_Run_(film)

That should sort it

I used to be in favour of that approach. But for some reason I've changed my views ...

System

rtho782 wrote: »

.

The least we could do is expect them to pay the same rate into the pot. e.g. merge Income Tax and NI.

.

That's a good idea, but you'd first have to split NI between pension funding and everything else. Obviously people drawing state pension don't need to make any more contributions for pensions or unemployment, but they do need health insurance.

StevieJ

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.

.

A bit of a delay in receiving your inheritance was there

lisyloo

I don't think any relative could be expected to make decisions to (in effect) murder someone in such cases

I agree with you there.
I've spoken to my husband about taking his mother to Switzerland and he simply can NOT answer the question.

the_flying_pig

Sapphire wrote: »

The case you mention is probably more straightforward than one involving people who have Alzheimer's disease…

well, nothing's straightforward about Alzheimer's. I suppose I maybe think/hope that it's going to become such a big part of so many of our lives over the next few decades that some decent-sized steps will be taken in terms of one or more of prevention, treatment, management, & whatnot. the way we deal with it now certainly isn't ideal.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

In all seriousness, years down the line this decision may end up being forced upon us as we have a massively aging but unhealthy population.

As has been noted by several respected scientists humans are no longer subject to the forces of natural selection (in the developed world). Therefore even the weakest people are managing to reproduce and pass on there faulty genes. These people would have died or be unable to reproduce as recently as the last 100 yrs. To recognise this problem does not mean you hate the old and decrepit.

westernpromise

Andy_L wrote: »

I used to be in favour of that approach. But for some reason I've changed my views ...

Apparently in the book it was 21.

Which raises an interesting question. Once ruperts gets his way and people over 75 are just allowed to die off, what stops a cost cutting government lowering that to 50? Or introducing a minimum age of, say, 5? Average life expectancy in the past was lower because of child mortality. If you made it to 5 you had a good chance to make it to 75. But these parasitical little toddlers of 2 and 3 years old have never paid a penny in taxes in their lives, the leeches. So why not say the NHS is for those aged between 16 and 50 who can produce a current payslip?