Is it time to stop medicating to prolong life?

[MooseBreath]

You haven't linked to any useful figures though. All you linked too is something which shows that old people cost more in medication, which is obvious any way. What you haven't done is shown that this is extra cost is unsupportable, which is what you seem to be claiming.

Come back when you've proved that there is a problem, and then we might be able to give you a solution.

No offence, but if you're not intelligent enough to see the problem, I doubt any solution you come up with will be of any particular value, so if you don't mind, i'll pass. Google is a big help though, if you're curious enough to learn something for yourself. Start with basic maths and then go from there.

[MooseBreath]

He dresses everything up as a left and right debate, as he believes he is the right and everyone else who disagrees with him is the opposite of right, he doesn't really understand the difference between left and right, or that there are more than 2 political positions and uncountable variations within them, so don't worry too much about it. When ever he talks about right and left, what he means is right and wrong, in that everything he says is right (even when he expresses leftist ideas) and any other differing opinion is wrong. It is quite boring debating with him, so most people just don't bother any more.

I just do it because it winds you and rincewind up a treat.

There is some truth in it though, whenever there is a debate the left wing argument is always wrong.

[Rincewind]

Translation. I cannot prove it but as I don't think you are not as intelligent as me I don't need to.

[MooseBreath]

Translation. I cannot prove it but as I don't think you are not as intelligent as me I don't need to.

Lovely double negative there kenbo.

Actually the article I already linked to describes the problem. If people don't want to read and understand it and think about how it may play out on the future then I can't be bothered to help them. Voluntary ignorance is a cushy number, I understand why people don't want to give it up.

[Charl91]

No offence, but if you're not intelligent enough to see the problem, I doubt any solution you come up with will be of any particular value, so if you don't mind, i'll pass. Google is a big help though, if you're curious enough to learn something for yourself. Start with basic maths and then go from there.

 

You can't answer the question can you?

 

It may be an issue in the future, but it's clearly not a drastic problem at the moment. You're talking shit, basically.

[MooseBreath]

You can't answer the question can you?

It may be an issue in the future, but it's clearly not a drastic problem at the moment. You're talking shit, basically.

All throughout this thread I have made references to the fact that this will become a problem in the future. At no point have I ever said that the problem is serious today, only that it will become serious in the future, based on the fact that older people cost the NHS nore money, and the numbers of older people are getting higher and higher.

[Captain...]

I just do it because it winds you and rincewind up a treat.

There is some truth in it though, whenever there is a debate the left wing argument is always wrong.

 

I'm flattered, but I'm surprised you'd deliberately invalidate your arguments with such nonsense just for the benefit of little old me and Ken.

 

To be honest I generally only respond for the rep points, pointing out your idiocy is normally a sure fire way to get a bit of rep when my fragile ego needs a boost, it is easy pickings, but what can I say I'm a shallow rep whore.

 

Now you want a serious debate on whether we should stop medicating people after they reach a certain age leave political leanings out of it and maybe try responding to the apolitical discussions about assisted suicide, or expressing in what conditions exactly you would stop medicating on the NHS, would it be based purely on age, or on number of years contributing to National Insurance, or amount of medical treatment needed in their lifetime, or on their lifestyle and whether they have made a conscious effort to look after their health or abused their bodies.

 

Or just trot out your usual trolling and confirm what most people on here already suspect.

[MooseBreath]

I'm flattered, but I'm surprised you'd deliberately invalidate your arguments with such nonsense just for the benefit of little old me and Ken.

To be honest I generally only respond for the rep points, pointing out your idiocy is normally a sure fire way to get a bit of rep when my fragile ego needs a boost, it is easy pickings, but what can I say I'm a shallow rep whore.

Now you want a serious debate on whether we should stop medicating people after they reach a certain age leave political leanings out of it and maybe try responding to the apolitical discussions about assisted suicide, or expressing in what conditions exactly you would stop medicating on the NHS, would it be based purely on age, or on number of years contributing to National Insurance, or amount of medical treatment needed in their lifetime, or on their lifestyle and whether they have made a conscious effort to look after their health or abused their bodies.

Or just trot out your usual trolling and confirm what most people on here already suspect.

Purely on age. I expect your immediate reaction will be to point out flaws. Don't bother, because I don't care. If you've got a better idea, however, I'd be interested to hear it.

[Rincewind]

Quote from a well known book.

 

In the World State, people typically die at age 60^[14] having maintained good health and youthfulness their whole life. Death isn't feared; anyone reflecting upon it is reassured by the knowledge that everyone is happy, and that society goes on. Since no one has family, they have no ties to mourn.

[Captain...]

Purely on age. I expect your immediate reaction will be to point out flaws. Don't bother, because I don't care. If you've got a better idea, however, I'd be interested to hear it.

What age? Put an age on it.

I already have suggested one way, but you got so caught up in being 'controversial' that you probably missed it, legalise assisted suicide following the Swiss model, further to that I would add relax laws around euthanasia and allow families to terminate braindead or seriously brain damaged people instead of keeping them alive in vegetative states.

[MooseBreath]

I'm sure you could calculate the average amount paid into the NHS and then the average age said money would run out if a person suffered the average ills. That would give you a nice clean cut off point.

This is how I would determine the age. Don't have the numbers to hand so can't work it out, but I'd imagine it would be fairly old. 85+.

As for assisted suicide, I broadly agree with making it legal. However I'm unsure on whether or not that would make a significant impact on NHS costs. I don't imagine the number of takers would be particularly high.

[davieG]

If it's the future then we don't know what medical advances there will be and their impact on the costs of treatment/support.

 

Greater understanding of genetics and how that can be used to provide medical solutions may provide  affordable alternatives. Maybe even robotics will provide a solution to the high costs of care, we've already seen how technology has enable disabled people to lead a more 'normal' life with less support.

[Captain...]

This is how I would determine the age. Don't have the numbers to hand so can't work it out, but I'd imagine it would be fairly old. 85+.

As for assisted suicide, I broadly agree with making it legal. However I'm unsure on whether or not that would make a significant impact on NHS costs. I don't imagine the number of takers would be particularly high.

It may not reduce the burden by much, but it would reduce the burden, likewise relaxing the rules around euthanasia, I think the first stage though is not to get people reliant on medication in the first place, my Gran for example has been on all kinds of pills for ages and is now completely reliant on them, and it was determined when she changed doctor that a lot of them were unnecessarily prescribed and have significantly weakened her to have actually caused further problems later in life, but now they couldn't stop them. She is 92 and despite limited mobility has all her marbles and enjoys a comfortable life.

There are many many improvements we could make to the NHS before we need to get to the stage of letting people die, and not of all them are fluffy liberal, such as refusing to perform major surgery on people over a certain age, such as transplants or costly treatments such as chemotherapy that will only serve to prolong suffering. What you seem to be suggesting is a blanket stop of all NHS treatments, including flu vaccines, cheap heart medication, arthritis medication etc, which just maintain a decent standard of life and alleviate unnecessary pain in our elderly. I can't agree to that.

[MooseBreath]

Routine medication like pain killers will still be available. They'll just have to be paid for. Most people would take out health insurance paid for throughout their lives or ensure they're saving enough into a pension so that they can afford to buy them.

[Captain...]

Routine medication like pain killers will still be available. They'll just have to be paid for. Most people would take out health insurance paid for throughout their lives or ensure they're saving enough into a pension so that they can afford to buy them.

 

They already do that, it is called national insurance, that is why we pay it when we are young fit and healthy, to cover us when for when we need it, now one option would be to increase it across the board, the other option is to have levels of it, so instead of it being salary based everyone has to contribute the same amount to get it, rather than the rich subsidising the poor, but you can choose to take out level 1, 2 or 3 insurance where by 1 is covered for all emergencies only, 2 is emergencies, doctors appointments and prescription drugs, 3 is fully comp including self destructive behaviour. But then we are getting away from a health care system that is free for all regardless.

 

Ultimately in my eyes you can't use a quantitative value such as Age or Money to judge someone worthy of treatment, it can only be a qualitative value that looks at the quality of life before and after the treatment, and how long that quality of life will be maintained, then you can judge the merits of operating, if we deem the NHS to be a finite resource then we need to ensure that those resources are shared out to the greatest benefit of the population for example a liver transplant: A healthy octogenarian who is expected to live another 20 years, should take priority over a terminally ill/chronically obese/self destructive teenager who isn't expected to make it to their twenties, but putting such a qualitative value on people's lives is practically impossible and puts way to much pressure on the person who has to make that decision.

[Houdini Logic]

Here you go Moosey -

 

Source: Kings Fund

 

NHS spend over the last 4 and next 2 years shows an increase in 0.96% or around £1billion in financial terms.

 

In the same period total government spending has increased from £660 billion to £728 billion, a rise of just over 10%.

 

Source: www.ukpublicspending.co.uk

 

This means that the NHS bill has gone from 15.5% of government spending to 14.2% in the last 5 years

[Parafox]

Amusing, if not frustrating personal clashes between Moose and Houdini.

 

Can I recap that my OP did not suggest a cut off age, nor did it refer to those with terminal conditions. I was trying to prompt a (mature) debate about medically maintaining a population to artificially live longer, in particular the elderly population. Generally the younger people that are kept alive by medication or technology are those with a terminal illness and that is a different debate to the one I hoped to prompt.

[MooseBreath]

Here you go Moosey -

Source: Kings Fund

NHS spend over the last 4 and next 2 years shows an increase in 0.96% or around £1billion in financial terms.

In the same period total government spending has increased from £660 billion to £728 billion, a rise of just over 10%.

Source: www.ukpublicspending.co.uk

This means that the NHS bill has gone from 15.5% of government spending to 14.2% in the last 5 years

I don't doubt it. That's not much use to me though. I'm thinking about the long term future as the demographic changes will really start to kick in.

If you accept that it costs more to treat elderly people, then all you need to look at to see the problem are projections of how the elderly demographic is going to increase massively, and with medical advancements continuing, the rate at which that demographix grows is likely to get steeper.

[Captain...]

Amusing, if not frustrating personal clashes between Moose and Houdini.

 

Can I recap that my OP did not suggest a cut off age, nor did it refer to those with terminal conditions. I was trying to prompt a (mature) debate about medically maintaining a population to artificially live longer, in particular the elderly population. Generally the younger people that are kept alive by medication or technology are those with a terminal illness and that is a different debate to the one I hoped to prompt.

 

 

To be honest Para, your original post was a little confusing, and it did sort of suggest stopping treating the old, what examples of artificially maintaining a population to live longer do you want to stop funding?

[MooseBreath]

Amusing, if not frustrating personal clashes between Moose and Houdini.

Can I recap that my OP did not suggest a cut off age, nor did it refer to those with terminal conditions. I was trying to prompt a (mature) debate about medically maintaining a population to artificially live longer, in particular the elderly population. Generally the younger people that are kept alive by medication or technology are those with a terminal illness and that is a different debate to the one I hoped to prompt.

What do you think then? You're probably more qualified than most of us to comment on the type and expense of medical treatment given to the elderly. You seemed to suggest in your op that you considered it unsustainable. In which case what kind of solutions would you expect and consider "mature"?

[MooseBreath]

but putting such a qualitative value on people's lives is practically impossible and puts way to much pressure on the person who has to make that decision.

Agreed. So, assuming action does need to be taken, and qualitative assessments are ruled out, what options have you got left? The problem won't go away just by ignoring it. You need to choose the least imperfect approach.

It would be interesting if we had some people in their 60s, 70s or 80s on here. Would they accept their fate knowing that their treatment is unsustainable, or would they deem it unfair that the younger generation aren't willing to work day and night to pay for it? These are questions for us, most likely, as we'll probably be elderly when the problems really start to bite. Having lived well until you were 80, would you want your 20-year-old grandson being held back in life, because he is being forced to pay a fortune just to keep you alive? Or would you have the dignity to say ok, I've had my turn, I've taken what I've earned and deserved, now i'll let someone else have a go.

[davieG]

There's plenty of other expenditure that could be deemed to be holding the young back that could be done away with not least our expenditure on wars in the belief that we still hold some significant influence in world affairs.

As someone in their 60's I've always taken the view that I'd rather opt for euthanasia than be a burden to my family. Granted until something happened it's difficult to define what I mean by burden but if it means someone's got to wipe my arose for me then that would be one yardstick.

[Guest]

I don't doubt it. That's not much use to me though. I'm thinking about the long term future as the demographic changes will really start to kick in.

If you accept that it costs more to treat elderly people, then all you need to look at to see the problem are projections of how the elderly demographic is going to increase massively, and with medical advancements continuing, the rate at which that demographix grows is likely to get steeper.

 

No. You're thinking about YOU.

[Guest]

It would be interesting if we had some people in their 60s, 70s or 80s on here. Would they accept their fate knowing that their treatment is unsustainable, or would they deem it unfair that the younger generation aren't willing to work day and night to pay for it?

 

Yet in so many other threads you bemoan the young people who sit around doing nothing and yet get government handouts. Try to have some consistency, please.

[MooseBreath]

Great contributions there fif. Run along now, let the adults talk.