jef

iTrader: (13)

with all the problems that everyone faces one way or another, from extended human life. and the amount of effort put into extended human life, through drugs, treatments ect. do we really need it?

we have a life expectany set by the natural degredation of the cells in the human body. i think this is positive in situations where painful conditions are endured by people, but ultimately we cant live forever and to extend life just for the sake of extending it seems abit strange.

speaking to many old people, most seem happy with there life and its experiences and have come to the realisation that they will die, which seems quite acceptable.
so why the huge drive in attempts to extend life spans? disease ect limits our lifesapn, and without it the population would soon reach a critical point where all people could not be sustained.
im all for medicines that alleviate pain or make the last years bearable, infact id push for more of that, just not the attempt to make everyone live forever more.
many old people are happy to accept there death, it doesnt scare them, theyve accepted its part of the cycle.

we already have huge social/financial problems due to increased life expectancy.

do we or people near death want things to be extended you think?

Turbohot

Some eat healthy, live healthy etc. because

1. they just don't like unhealthy rubbish, and

2. because they're making sure that they live good quality of life and die with least pain, if they can help it. It doesn't matter when they die today, tomorrow or day after, they are not bothered.


However, I think people are generally afraid of dying, no matter how hard they pretend themselves to be. They don't want to leave the company of their loved ones and this hypnotic world behind. Dying is a lonely activity, let's face it. The ultimate truth. The perception of death in this world is generally quite melancholy, which doesn't help. We all know the death is the end of our earthly being, and we know nothing about any other being of ourselves. So, I can imagine why some want to live on as long as possible, although they know they are destined to die one day- like any of us.

Personally, I don't want to live on when I have to be dependent upon others too much. That'd do my head in. I'd rather be gone before I get to that stage.

jef

iTrader: (13)

id say younger people are generally more afriad of dying, those in later years have accepted it, even want it, in some cases or just know its inevitable.

eating well or healthy lifestyles doesnt really have an effect of how much pain actual death will include - imo. being healthy is a lifestyle choice or an attempt to maintain maximum function up until the point of death.
i dont really mean those that are incapacitated and rely on support to live, but are just old and happy with there lives, they know death isnt far and have accepted it to themselves, but dont feel its been before there time. hard to describe.

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

Many medical and surgical treatments do not make people live longer, what they do is make the remaining life better quality........and then you die quickly from a terminal event.

Shaun

jef

iTrader: (13)

id agree many are for improving life without extending - but wheres the proof they die quickly or quietly from any event?

at the same time trying to tackle old age illnesses is an attempt to extend life, in one quality form or another, but not always successful, is being addressed - is it really needed?

Turbohot

Well, for example, if you were leading unhealthy lifestyle e.g. smoking ****, then there are more chances of you dying with some painful lung disease, yes? Now, if you didn't smoke, you might still die whenever (the One up there unfortunately doesn't ever disclose the final date of pulling us puppets up) but at least you wouldn't die of some terribly painful lung disease. My ex's nan had it who recently passed away. It was not nice to see her sit alone with an oxygen cylinder in terrible discomfort.


That's correct, too.

Carlh

if something came out with life longevity, only the rich and powerful would get access to it anyway. Do you think us plebs have a chance? Nope.

Turbohot

Just because someone's legs are dangling in the grave, we do not kick them into it, or make sure they voluntarily fall into it sooner than later by seizing our care for them. I don't think the law would look at it very kindly either. It is the 'end of life' care, not just an attempt to extend people's lives; although it ends up extending people's lives.

My view on the need of it is that you let people pass with as much dignity, care and comfort as possible. If people are left to just die without those, the moral fabric of the society will transform from tweed to bleddy mosquito net! In the process, if you have ended up extending their lives, so be it. The ones who have taken the burden of the society all their lives can become a burden on the society at their old age, I don't mind. I'll share their burden with the like-minded.

I still don't want to be a burden myself on anyone at my old age, though. This relates well with your opening post's final question. Many old people don't want their lives extended, and their relatives must be very tired, too. But the law wouldn't allow them to have medically assisted blissful injection for eternal sleep. Suicide isn't an easy thing to do for many, either. Catch 22 everywhere.

jef

iTrader: (13)

as side issue from that ^^^ i think its shocking that old people that are dying, and its agreed there on last legs, and in immense pain that no opiate can control - cannot choose to be "put to sleep" gently and painlessly. but instead have to endure agaony for long periods, causing a long painful, slow horrible death. seems a kindof torture almost.

but lung disease how does it compare in pain to any other condition. the end result is going to be death, so whatever people die from, the condition is going to be serious enough to cause death. its not going to be pleasant - unless your lucky enough to pass away peacfully in sleep, altho im not sure thats the norm - and then that doesnt consider the likely preceeding months of possible agony while the condition to cause death works up to its critical point

Leslie

Believe me, most of those who reach an advanced age and are not suffering any serious or crippling disease want to continue living just as much as they did when they were younger. I think they should have that right.

Your style of thinking could so easily stretch with time into deciding that beyond a certain age, it would be far more convenient, and cheaper, to "help" elderly people to die! It is very easy to recommend euthanasia when you are young only to regret it when you are much older. There should never be room for a version of "Logan's Run".

Maintaining lives is a far more humane way I reckon.

Les

jef

iTrader: (13)

your mis-understanding my meaning i think mate. im not advocating a cut off age or anything.
just once life becomes a hardship without pleasure and mostly spent in pain, then id think many of the elderly may consider the option of a peaceful, pain free passing, no?
i agree with future development of aids to help in old age. for a person to still enjoy being alive, carrying on with things they enjoy eg hip replacemnts ordrugs to restrain certain debilitating conditions.
but just to live longer for the sake of living without any degree of standard is more what i was meaning.
difficyult to express what i mean, but do you get the point?

i think many oap's will be happy up to a point where some major change takes place and severly restricts there previous lifestyle and enjoyment.
my gran for example enjoyed the benefits of free buss passes, oaps lunches, and get togethers, was self relaint up until about 80. she never spent a day at home and often went into town just to do something and enjoy the experience with her buddies for many years after retirment. now she has failry sever dimensia where she cant remeber one sentace from the next, cant remeber to take medication, or where to get the bus from, peoples names, and has developed painful conditions like arthritis amongst many others - but shes now house bound and alone for long periods between family member check ins, or support staff as she refuses to go into a home (dont blame her).

im not saying she be happy to die but if that continued for 5 years now, im not aure ahe would be reluctant to happily reflect on her life and wouldnt fear dying as much, as shes already lost so much of what makes her as a person?

by the way i dont ever want my dear old gran to die ever - shes given me so much, this is hypothetical.

jonc

I for one would like to think that I never get to that stage. Having witnessed the suffering and distress of my dear grandma with advanced dementia before passing away, it is not something I would like to inflict on my dependents if I ever were to suffer the same fate. I would hope I would still have the sense to seek the services of Dignitas before that happens.

jef

iTrader: (13)

i agree inpart there, but its easy to say as a youngster when the chances are its a long way off,
plus by the time mental illness sets in to any significant degree - are they then making a judgement in sound mind? it would be extremely difficult to be sure i think. but maybe as family members with a genuine love and concern of the person would know the person best and be able to voice an opinion?

DYK

Should just accept that you're here for a certain amount of time,the catch is you don't know how long that will be.
You Born,you live,and you die,that's how life/nature is.

boxst

I certainly do not want to die and have a fear of death. Any medical advances are welcomed by me.

HOWEVER, having been to hospital yesterday (my daughter broke her arm) and seeing that state of some older people I think there should be an option for you to end your life. There was one poor chap who couldn't control his limbs properly, was dribbling, in pain and appeared to have a form of dementia or alzheimers and a long suffereing relation looking after him. I do not want to be like that.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

I would rather live till 70 being fit and healthy and drop dead than linger till 85 with degenerative conditions but I can't find my crystal ball!

Leslie

I was not accusing you of that Jef, but what I meant was that if such a system was accepted now, believe me eventually in the future what I was saying would eventually happen. Each step might be small initally but eventually human life would be restricted to a person's useful years and once you had passed that-it would be curtains, except for a chosen few of course!

Les

boxst

I was doing my daughters homework on population and specifically China. My conclusion (that'll get her in trouble probably ) is that China will introduce some form of euthanasia or will at least restrict access to medicine for the old in the very near future. It is the only way that they will survive. The 'One Child' policy has worked very well but you now have multiple generations relying upon one income earner and society cannot sustain that.

jef

iTrader: (13)

i beleive there will always be the privelaged that have access to the best products around - but thatsnever going to be everyone - plus i truly beleive most people dont want to live forever, but just to have there years alive at a reasonable standard.
i beleive its quite likely over population will become an ever increasing issue and cause huge burdens on any where that has a welfare state - unless some changes are made during working life to increase the ability of the state to adequately support everyone right to the end.

its a difficult and emotive subject, but is trying to extend everyones life as par for the course, wanted, needed or possibly be detritmantal to societies and subsequently everyones wanted standard?

i dont mean kill people at 80, but just less research and expense put into areas where its sole purpose is extending life - without necissarily improving a living standard.
its just a discussion topic, not the start of a paper that im planning to submit to parliment lol

i disagree with your part that eventually rights would be chipped away until the point of people who do not contribute loosing the right to life. as human beings that would not imo be a realistic scenario

Leslie

Well I have to disagree with such a selfish attitude. I also believe that the elderly in a proper constituted welfare state should have all the medical attention they might need even if it is required because of their age.

If that is too difficult for you to accept, then you might look at the situation as if it was you who was poorly placed at an advanced age but could be cured with a bit of effort by the NHS. Would you be prepared to tell them to forget it and allow you to expire for the sake of the NHS's expenses?

Les

jef

iTrader: (13)

sorry les we seem to be crossing wires here, im in no way advocatin the shortening of anyones life mate - i see nothing selfish in what im saying. is there a part of this thread that makes you think im being selfish in anyway(considering this is a completley hypothetical scenario with zero interest in what ways thoughts are expressed or put over)

ill try clarify - how long should we try make people live? 100 years, 150, 200, forever is that the aim with development? using medical aids developments or drugs to further survial that has a benefit to the patient is valid, but not just for the sake of extention, ignoring the patients thoughts feelings, as happens now - and where quality of life is well below what a persons expects or even wants.

not every old person wants to die, but many are equally unhappy being alive in the circumstances that they are.

do you get what i mean

because i dont get your part where you consider me "selfish" atall?

jef

iTrader: (13)

reading again your post les, you seem to have picked me up entirely wrong mate, dont know how you could have come to that conclusion, where if i could be cured by a bit of effort by the nhs, i yet would decline in order to save NHS expenditure??

jef

iTrader: (13)

to me thats not a side step of evolution - it IS evolution, just taking evolutionary path. regenrating body parts ect i dont think is a million miles off tbh, we probably ahve to be semi thankful on the grand scheme of things that viruses ect evolve to beat us at times.
i wouldnt advocate a war or such drastic measures

evolution through natural selection (survival of the fittest) is no longer as appliciable to the human race, as we support the weak and those unable to support themsleves in equal measure to those that can, evolution now is imo in the shape of being able to grow/replace/enhace bodyparts once our own have ceased to operate as we wish/cure treat diseases ect - that will only develop (for a section of society) admittedly initially imo

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I've tried to quietly follow this thread to see where it goes, but feel free to call me thick, (or missing the point) but what do you mean by 'old age illnesses'?

From a general point of view, I don't think we should aim to make people live 'forever' so to speak, but I'm not 100% clear about what you mean???

velohead66

I would say that ....
young people are invincible, and not afraid of death, as it is (generally) so far off.

Old people are less afraid of death, as they have lived their lives, acheived their goals, accepted that other goals are too late/unobtainable, and come to peace (in their mind) with the unavoidable, ie death.

Middle aged people are different, death is coming closer, and they are not ready for it, and they have not accepted it, yet. I think I myself have just moved into this phase.

velohead66

I can't beleive that euthenasia is not more mainstream in this day and age of financial hardship / over-population etc etc.

I don't mind people paying $$$ to extend their lives, if the technology exists.
I also beleive there should be a basic level of free medical care (including drugs/prescriptions) to the elderly that need those medications/operations.

But there should also be the other choice, pay your $$$ to end your days in a dignified painless end, rather then some auwful disese, of which I am sure there are many.

Elderly people should have both choices available to them.

urban

iTrader: (1)

I agree

jef

iTrader: (13)

ive quite likely not been clear hear, nor maybe do i have a clear meaning. old age is infact the degeneration of the human body- in normal circumstances leads to death or the contraction of a condition wiich itself is likely to lead to death.

old age illnessess are just purely conditions or afflictions associated with the deteriorated state of the human defence system and can result in death, through the bodies inability to fight off the infection/disease/virus ect. - thsu leading to what would be currently accepted as a naturally caused death.

any clearer, or missing the point entirely?

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I think I see where you are coming from. However, say an older person gets some sort of infection, in making them feel better or more comfortable they could end up well again, if we went with 'let nature take it's course', would we just leave them completely alone (no treatment) and if they die a possibly painful death then that is ok?

Or do you mean, instead of giving antibiotics to hopefully sure, you would just give pain relief if needed to relieve any suffering?

jef

iTrader: (13)

lets be clear i dont want anyone dying in pain or slowly or lonely ect, before i get a name for mself lol.
im more saying should we continue to chase away the inevitable end? esp so if the said person is not enjoying life and is of the position where theyre happy withthere lifes acheivements, and no medical advance would be able to get them out there bed of many years an suddenly give them the ability of movment, sense of mind and genral freedom they once enjoyed previously - theyve succumbed to realising everyone dies, its likely not pleasnat, but considering there current limitations death does not induce fear.

where id advocate medicine and research is if said person was used to relative health up until say 70, still mobile and sound of mind, able to look after themselves and genrally be happy with live and genrally painfree living - if they had a suddena afflication which severly impaired this lifestlye then use medical advances to combat it and return them to formar functinality and subsequent happiness then hoo-raa.

but its when there the medical advances provided can no longer provide the provious standard there used to and then its possibly a very slow degredation towards ultimatley death, but then at 105 a scientist says he ive got a treatment that wouldnt improve your quality of living but it would ensure you had another 10-20 yars of the same ahead - would that be welcomed or indeed needed atall?

hope ive been a wee bit clear lol