SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the but-what-dreams-may-come-when-I-have-shuffled-off-this-mortal-coil? dept.
Ezekiel J. Emanuel, director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the US National Institutes of Health, writes at The Atlantic that there is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. "It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic." Emanuel says that he is isn't asking for more time than is likely nor foreshortening his life but is talking about the kind and amount of health care he will consent to after 75. "Once I have lived to 75, my approach to my health care will completely change. I won’t actively end my life. But I won’t try to prolong it, either." Emanuel says that Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible. "I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:41PM
"Contributing to society" and "Financially productive" are not the same thing, by any stretch. You can contribute to society by mentoring, volunteering, even watching the grandkids when they get home from school. You can contribute to society by telling stories of the good old days and reminding the young 'uns of their place in history. You don't contribute to society by lying in a hospital bed tethered to an oxygen tank, sleeping 22 hours a day.
He's not calling for forced euthanasia, and claims to have campaigned against assisted suicide. He's not calling for public policy changes. He's saying he's looked at the statistics and decided that, for himself, the benefits of medical care past age 75 do not seem to justify their cost.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 23 2014, @03:04PM
"Contributing to society" and "Financially productive" are not the same thing, by any stretch. You can contribute to society by mentoring, volunteering, even watching the grandkids when they get home from school. You can contribute to society by telling stories of the good old days and reminding the young 'uns of their place in history. You don't contribute to society by lying in a hospital bed tethered to an oxygen tank, sleeping 22 hours a day.
Is this an attempt to disagree with me? You've pretty much just reworded half of my post...
He's not calling for forced euthanasia,
No, he's just saying that people past 75 are sad and feeble and pitiable and a drain on society.
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Tuesday September 23 2014, @04:27PM
He's probably unfamiliar with the rare cases of extraordinary people who are still healthy at 75 and beyond, it isn't like the world has a lot of them.
He's probably more familiar with the elderly you will find in a long term care facility; and didnt bother to ask questions about age - and that would be a HIPPA violation anyway.
LTC will take anyone who requires that kind of care (and can pay them)
If he wants to go out at 75 that should be his own right. it isnt like anyone is getting mandated extermination.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 23 2014, @05:12PM
> extraordinary people who are still healthy at 75 and beyond, it isn't like the world has a lot of them.
WHAT?!?!?!?! If somebody isn't healthy at 75 then they haven't been taking care of themselves at all. I know of very few over-75s whose quality of life is so poor that they don't think life is worth living. Modern medicine means that most people in the 1st world keep on pottering along very well into their 70s, 80s or beyond, experiencing gradual and totally manageable deterioration, until something big comes along (cancer, heart attack, a nasty fall, antibiotic-resistant infection from the hospital) and from there it's usually a rapid slide down into death. Exceptions include dementia/ alzheimers and long battles with cancer, which can really screw with your quality of life for years and years.
I assure you the world has many, many active and healthy 75+ year olds. (Admittedly, a lot less of them in undeveloped countries.)
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 23 2014, @05:15PM
> If somebody isn't healthy at 75 then they haven't been taking care of themselves at all.
Or they are quite unlucky. Should have added that earlier, sorry. You can take great care of yourself and still fall foul of some nasty disease or accident.
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Tuesday September 23 2014, @05:40PM
And I spend time with my Dad in one of many many LTC facilities who are crowded with people of 65 and up. I also spend time with a friend who is dealing with lots of other age related issues (at age 70+) and lives in an elder community (full of other old, but otherwise able) and since i never SEE them it doesnt make as big of a difference in my opinion.
What we need to take out of the original article is that people should think about when and under what conditions that want to go out on. Specifying a specific age is foolish; if quality to life is still there. You ought to be making those decisions for yourself - before you are incapable of communicating it.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Tuesday September 23 2014, @07:23PM
Interestingly, in some underdeveloped countries there are a lot of very active elderly, in part because of the increased amount of physical labor. For example, in third world countries where women do things like carrying heavy buckets of water, Osteoporosis is all but unheard of.
I totally agree with your assessment of this guy. His "advise" is borderline criminal. It seems as though he's trying to make some flawed statistical case that things like exercise don't help you live better. Insane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @11:19AM
You're only looking at the people who survive, and who survive largely on the strength of their genetics and activity. People who can't keep up with the physical demands of a difficult life just die. Emanuel is claiming that modern medicine keeps people alive who would otherwise die "of old age," and that those people are less healthy, less mobile, and less active than people who naturally survive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23 2014, @05:04PM
Not so much to disagree, as to point out that you've mis-stated TFA's argument. Your paraphrasing replaces every instance of "contribute to society" with "contribute economically," thus turning what was an argument about one's participation in society into a discussion of their financial value. Having created in your own head this 'economic contribution' argument, you proceed to demolish it by claiming that there are great ways to contribute to society without economic impact. Good for you, you beat up the strawman!
You must be a very angry, defensive person to get that from TFA. He states some facts: older people are less healthy; older people have more mobility problems; older people perform less well on cognitive tests. He says that the age discrepancy has gotten worse as lifespans have increased. He admits that many people are, in fact, quite happy to have more years, even if they are lower quality years. Good for them: let them all live to 110.
What's your problem with a guy wanting to refuse medical care after age 75? Would you be satisfied to require all of us to undergo annual physicals, or would you also demand that we have a battery of cancer and chronic illness screenings? Chemotherapy? Liver transplants? What gives you the right to force medical care on people who don't want it? So, fuck you "GreatAuntAnesthesia," fuck you, your Christian agenda, your ridiculous nick, and your terrible reading comprehension.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 23 2014, @05:18PM
> your Christian agenda
Ha ha ha, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.