Is it time to stop medicating to prolong life?

[MooseBreath]

How long have I got then?

Should I book a holiday?

Get the car MOT'd?

Sign up for a new phone contract?

My inlaws are in their 90s and have always managed by themselves never taken a penny of benefits other than their earned pensions, rarely if every use the NHS even when ill, the old guy is still wearing glasses he bought 50 years ago. judging by some of the comments on here they should have been put down years ago.

Who said that, apart from mattp who was clearly joking?

Nobody is talking about putting anyone down, just allowing nature to take its course.

[Houdini Logic]

At 70 I would expect he'll be fine. I'd imagine the cut off point would be a bit older than that.

 

And so where does the 90 year old professor looking for the cure to cancer fit into this when it is decided he needs medicine to keep him in routine health?

[MooseBreath]

And so where does the 90 year old professor looking for the cure to cancer fit into this when it is decided he needs medicine to keep him in routine health?

 

if he is past the cut off point then you have two choices:

 

1) you apply a strict blanket cut off point and so the professors health deteriorates (not necessarily, of course, but I assume that's what you're getting at) and eventually he dies and the world misses out on the knowledge he may have contributed had he have been kept alive.

 

2) you keep him alive on the basis that he may potentially contribute something of enough value to justify the cost of keeping him alive, in doing so setting a difficult precedent and opening up the question of who is kept alive and who isn't.

 

Personally I'd choose option 1. Such examples will be extremely rare. Going down the 2nd path opens up a huge grey area which would in all likelihood negate the benefits of the approach. So effectively you're choosing between a cut off point or no cut off point. If you choose no cut off point, the professor will be kept alive, but eventually the increased cost will mean we are no longer able to afford to produce any more professors.

[Captain...]

3) You download his brain and transfer his knowledge into a younger drone body to continue his work.

[Houdini Logic]

if he is past the cut off point then you have two choices:

 

1) you apply a strict blanket cut off point and so the professors health deteriorates (not necessarily, of course, but I assume that's what you're getting at) and eventually he dies and the world misses out on the knowledge he may have contributed had he have been kept alive.

 

2) you keep him alive on the basis that he may potentially contribute something of enough value to justify the cost of keeping him alive, in doing so setting a difficult precedent and opening up the question of who is kept alive and who isn't.

 

Personally I'd choose option 1. Such examples will be extremely rare. Going down the 2nd path opens up a huge grey area which would in all likelihood negate the benefits of the approach. So effectively you're choosing between a cut off point or no cut off point. If you choose no cut off point, the professor will be kept alive, but eventually the increased cost will mean we are no longer able to afford to produce any more professors.

 

 

You're either taking the piss or a bit simple so I either way I won't bother replying

[MooseBreath]

You're either taking the piss or a bit simple so I either way I won't bother replying

 

 

 

Very convincing.

 

 

Criticising others is easy, coming up with your own ideas is where it gets hard. Your own ideas are conspicuous by their absence, yet criticisms of others abound. All in all a typical lefty. Problems problems problems, never a single solution.

[Captain...]

I think anyone that wants to continue living deserves and has paid in to get the best medical care available to do so...

...what I would like to see is assisted suicide to be legal for those terminally ill patients who would rather die quickly, pain free and with dignity.

 

Well before we start killing people off, I still think it is very important and morally correct to give people the right to die in comfort and dignity if they wish. 

[Guest MattP]

Well before we start killing people off, I still think it is very important and morally correct to give people the right to die in comfort and dignity if they wish. 

 

I agree with this but it's a bit dodgy tbh. It would have to be restricted to terminally ill people etc who we know are going to die and we know it will cause them sever pain.

 

My mates Grandad was always going on about legalising it, he wanted to die for years as he was in pain with his back and said life wasn't worth living, ten years later he's having the time of his life, new treatment has cured him and he's back going on holidays, trips etc.

 

It's the biggest decision you would ever make and to think people would be getting it wrong nearly brings me to tears. A open invite to anyone really isn't the answer.

[Captain...]

I agree with this but it's a bit dodgy tbh. It would have to be restricted to terminally ill people etc who we know are going to die and we know it will cause them sever pain.

 

My mates Grandad was always going on about legalising it, he wanted to die for years as he was in pain with his back and said life wasn't worth living, ten years later he's having the time of his life, new treatment has cured him and he's back going on holidays, trips etc.

 

It's the biggest decision you would ever make and to think people would be getting it wrong nearly brings me to tears. A open invite to anyone really isn't the answer.

 

Just finished a book which covers the process used by Dignitas in Switzerland, and it is very thorough, it is only available to those that are going to suffer a serious decline in standard of living, they have psychological screenings to ensure it is not for depressive reasons that someone wants to die, and there a number of safe guards in place, there are a number of consultations and checking of medical records before you can make an appointment, and further consultations and a 3 day wait when you actually arrive in Switzerland to ensure that this is their wishes and it is the correct course of action. The poison is prepared by a nurse, but it has to be taken by the "patient" (not sure if that is the right term) under their own steam, they have to drink it, either normally or through a straw. It is not taken lightly and it shouldn't be, and it should never be undertaken to lighten the financial burden on the NHS, that would just be a happy coincidence, it should be done to avoid pain and suffering.

[Houdini Logic]

 

Very convincing.

 

 

Criticising others is easy, coming up with your own ideas is where it gets hard. Your own ideas are conspicuous by their absence, yet criticisms of others abound. All in all a typical lefty. Problems problems problems, never a single solution.

 

You understand I don't think there's an issue, right? and therefore I don't need to come up with ideas. Surely that's not difficult to understand?!

What I'm doing instead is making you think through the detail of your absurd proposals and make you sound like the twat you are (which to give you credit I didn't think you'd actually go through with saying there should be a blanket cut off)

 

OK let's put it another way then, we'll start simple and keep away from any conclusions which may lead to your bonkers ideas.

I put it to you that in fact there's not a problem with people living longer - people live to an older age because people are more health aware these days, eat better, live better and simply die later on in life. It's not like people get to 65, turn into a vegetable and are kept alive using expensive equipment and a wide range of medicine.

Can you show me figures which contradict this and show that there has been a significant decrease in the number of people dying natural causes over the last 10/20/50 years?

[MooseBreath]

I put it to you that in fact there's not a problem with people living longer - people live to an older age because people are more health aware these days, eat better, live better and simply die later on in life. It's not like people get to 65, turn into a vegetable and are kept alive using expensive equipment and a wide range of medicine.

Can you show me figures which contradict this and show that there has been a significant decrease in the number of people dying natural causes over the last 10/20/50 years?

 

Oh right. I didn't realise you didn't think there was a problem. Fair enough then. No need for any proposals if there is no problem.

 

I'm curious as to why you don't think there is a problem though? "People live to an older age because people are more health aware these days", you sure about that? Nothing whatsoever to do with medical advancements?

 

It's a documented fact that elderly people cost the NHS more than younger people. It's also a fact that due to people living longer, we have more pensioners than ever, and that number is forecast to rise and rise and rise. Therefore the costs to the NHS will also rise, presenting a problem as to where the money is going to come from. But you think this problem simply doesn't exist?

[Charl91]

Oh right. I didn't realise you didn't think there was a problem. Fair enough then. No need for any proposals if there is no problem.

 

I'm curious as to why you don't think there is a problem though? "People live to an older age because people are more health aware these days", you sure about that? Nothing whatsoever to do with medical advancements?

 

It's a documented fact that elderly people cost the NHS more than younger people. It's also a fact that due to people living longer, we have more pensioners than ever, and that number is forecast to rise and rise and rise. Therefore the costs to the NHS will also rise, presenting a problem, which you think simply doesn't exist?

 

Give us some figures then. Don't just say "it's a documented fact" without providing any statistical evidence.

 

You can't expect us to come up with an answer if you're not going to define the extent of the problem. The onus is on you to prove there's a genuine problem, not the other way round; it's like telling someone to prove that God doesn't exist.

[MooseBreath]

Give us some figures then. Don't just say "it's a documented fact" without providing any statistical evidence.

 

You can't expect us to come up with an answer if you're not going to define the extent of the problem.

 

Thought it was fairly obvious that older people are going to require more medical attention than younger people. That seems to be the nature of things. Nevertheless if you do need a source then here's one of probably thousands you could find online.

 

"Growing numbers of elderly people also have an impact on the NHS, where average spending for retired households is nearly double that for non-retired households: in 2007/08 the average value of NHS services for retired households was £5,200 compared with £2,800 for non-retired.  These averages conceal variation across older age groups, with the cost of service provision for the most elderly likely to be much greater than for younger retired people.  The Department of Health estimates that the average cost of providing hospital and community health services for a person aged 85 years or more is around three times greater than for a person aged 65 to 74 years."

 

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/value-for-money-in-public-services/the-ageing-population/

[Charl91]

Thought it was fairly obvious that older people are going to require more medical attention than younger people. That seems to be the nature of things. Nevertheless if you do need a source then here's one of probably thousands you could find online.

 

"Growing numbers of elderly people also have an impact on the NHS, where average spending for retired households is nearly double that for non-retired households: in 2007/08 the average value of NHS services for retired households was £5,200 compared with £2,800 for non-retired.  These averages conceal variation across older age groups, with the cost of service provision for the most elderly likely to be much greater than for younger retired people.  The Department of Health estimates that the average cost of providing hospital and community health services for a person aged 85 years or more is around three times greater than for a person aged 65 to 74 years."

 

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/value-for-money-in-public-services/the-ageing-population/

Of course it's obvious that older people need more medical attention. I've not seen any evidence to show that this is unsupportable though.

[Webbo]

Of course it's obvious that older people need more medical attention. I've not seen any evidence to show that this is unsupportable though.

Do the maths yourself, more and more pensioners, living longer and longer.It's patently obvious.

[Rincewind]

In some cultures parents are looked after by their children in return for being looked after. They do not moan about it but consider it their duty and have a respect for their elders.

[Guest MattP]

In some cultures parents are looked after by their children in return for being looked after. They do not moan about it but consider it their duty and have a respect for their elders.

 

Asian mainy. One of the finest things we could learn from these cultures is the way they treat their parents and grandparents.

 

I'll never know how anyone could shove their parent in a home.

[Houdini Logic]

Oh right. I didn't realise you didn't think there was a problem. Fair enough then. No need for any proposals if there is no problem.

I'm curious as to why you don't think there is a problem though? "People live to an older age because people are more health aware these days", you sure about that? Nothing whatsoever to do with medical advancements?

It's a documented fact that elderly people cost the NHS more than younger people. It's also a fact that due to people living longer, we have more pensioners than ever, and that number is forecast to rise and rise and rise. Therefore the costs to the NHS will also rise, presenting a problem as to where the money is going to come from. But you think this problem simply doesn't exist?

I don't think it's anymore of a problem than its ever been. I like how your 'evidence' is to keep saying people are living longer. We all know that and rightly that's an issue to worry about in terms of pensions, but what does that have to do with the price of the NHS? Show me that these people living longer are much more expensive in medical terms. And be quick so we can get onto your excellent solution

[Webbo]

I don't think it's anymore of a problem than its ever been. I like how your 'evidence' is to keep saying people are living longer. We all know that and rightly that's an issue to worry about in terms of pensions, but what does that have to do with the price of the NHS? Show me that these people living longer are much more expensive in medical terms. And be quick so we can get onto your excellent solution

We all die of something. If you save someone from dying of a heart attack at 70, you'll probably have to treat them for cancer or something at 75.

[davieG]

I don't think people being 'kept alive' is just age related. There are plenty of people of all ages through medical advances living on where previously they would have died requiring full time care and medical support.

[Monk]

To go back on the original point - I had a kidney transplant 13 yrs ago.... and I am 'being kept alive' by some fairly expensive medications that stop my body from rejecting the organ. Without them, I wouldn't be around.

 

So who out of you lot would make me pay for my tablets if you were in power?

[Rincewind]

Asian mainy. One of the finest things we could learn from these cultures is the way they treat their parents and grandparents.

 

I'll never know how anyone could shove their parent in a home.

I   avided mentioning which culture.

[Webbo]

To go back on the original point - I had a kidney transplant 13 yrs ago.... and I am 'being kept alive' by some fairly expensive medications that stop my body from rejecting the organ. Without them, I wouldn't be around.

 

So who out of you lot would make me pay for my tablets if you were in power?

Not me. I wouldn't support not treating anyone, even if they were 106 but we have to accept that there is a problem. What the answer is I don't know.

[MooseBreath]

I don't think it's anymore of a problem than its ever been. I like how your 'evidence' is to keep saying people are living longer. We all know that and rightly that's an issue to worry about in terms of pensions, but what does that have to do with the price of the NHS? Show me that these people living longer are much more expensive in medical terms. And be quick so we can get onto your excellent solution

http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/88661-is-it-time-to-stop-medicating-to-prolong-life/page-4#entry2619151

[Guest MattP]

I   avided mentioning which culture.

 

Why? It's a positive thing.