General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Why one prominent doctor (Dr. Ezekial Emmanuel) says, "I hope to die at 75"
As a result of advances in science and medicine, humans are living longer than ever. It's hard to believe that at the turn of the last century, the average American life expectancy was just 47. Today, Americans can expect to make it to the ripe old age of 79 -- and an increasing number live much longer.
Though many people welcome the idea of living as long as possible and watching their great-grandchildren grow up, some view the prospect of extremely old age as burdensome on both a societal and personal level.
In his controversial essay that appears in the October issue of The Atlantic, the prominent bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel argues that longevity -- living into your 80s, 90s and beyond -- often comes at the expense of quality of life. Emanuel says he will be perfectly content if he dies at age 75.
By the time I reach 75, I will have lived a complete life," Emanuel writes in the magazine. "I will have loved and been loved. My children will be grown and in the midst of their own rich lives. I will have seen my grandchildren born and beginning their lives. I will have pursued my life's projects and made whatever contributions, important or not, I am going to make. And hopefully, I will not have too many mental and physical limitations."
Emanuel, the director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and head of the Department of Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, helped develop President Obama's health care reform law. Emanuel makes it clear that he is not arguing for euthanasia or assisted suicide at a certain age.
Instead, he wants to call attention to "a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining." Emanuel argues that in their oldest of years, people tend to see their creative output decline and contribute less to society.
Moreover, the efforts that go into living longer, including extreme lifesaving medical interventions, often result in lengthening the dying process and eventually in death without dignity.
"Ezekiel Emanuel did a remarkable thing: he created discourse. He made everybody start to talk about this," said CBS News medical contributor Dr. David Agus.
But Agus, author of the books "The End of Illness" and "A Short Guide to a Long Life," says we should embrace the extra years humans have been afforded as a result of scientific breakthroughs, better nutrition and overall improvements in quality of life. "If you start to live right, if you start to take the vaccines and preventive medicines you have, to move during the day, avoid smoking -- all of the things that have been detailed before --it will work," Agus told "CBS This Morning."
There was a time when "old age" was considered a common cause of death, but it has not appeared on a death certificate since 1951, says Agus.
Pushing the limits of the human lifespan is becoming more and more possible as cures are found for once-fatal diseases, and as researchers uncover potential ways to counter effects of the aging process.
More of an Interesting Read at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-one-prominent-doctor-hopes-to-die-at-75/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I suspect that this is actually part of some sort of plot of Rahm's to get back at the Chicago teachers' union.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'll check back with him in 15 years if I'm still alive.
greytdemocrat
(3,300 posts)What an idiot.
ProfessorGAC
(76,702 posts)Am i an idiot too?
whathehell
(30,468 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)pain may agree with that, while others who are active and have and feel good have a different view.
Relating the politics of Rahm to his brother is not fair. He is speaking to a serious issue that should be part of a dialog.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)to pack it in yet. I don't think he will see it the same way either if he gets to that age in good health. Imagine if Betty White had those sentiments when she turned seventy five. We would have been denied her gifts of laughter that we enjoy today.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)My mom's brother and his with of 60 years are getting ready to sell their mini-RV since they finally can't handle the semi-roughing it anymore. They are both in their mid 80's.
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)My grandmother is 89, and while I love her and I'm glad she's still around, seeing her struggle with early-to-mid-stage dementia has been difficult at times. More so because I look at her and see my mom in 30 years.
So for myself, personally - especially since I don't plan on having kids - 70-75 years seems like a long enough lifespan. I'd rather check out before my intellect (and therefore, my facility with language) begins to seriously decline.
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)right now. Don't know what tomorrow has in store...
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I drink moderately, and smoke a good bit of herb, but other than caffeine and sugar those are pretty much my only "vices." I've cut most of the red meat out of my diet in favor of poultry, and while I do still have a sweet tooth, I try to keep my sugar consumption to a semi-reasonable level.
JI7
(93,615 posts)and i mean that as a compliment . you always seem very informed . something i would expect from those who lived a bit more.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I've had friends of mine describe me as a walking encyclopedia. 
Not to mention, being long-term unemployed aside from odd jobs - as much as it sucks in other ways - gives me plenty of free time to read up on stuff. I really owe most of my knowledge to the Internet.
still_one
(98,883 posts)different view verses one who is in constant pain
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)they're probably not looking forward to an long life with that affliction.
tech3149
(4,452 posts)I'm still dealing with the passing of my parents at 90 and 91 respectively and they weren't "healthy" in their 70's but were very active and sharp mentally. Both had their decline in abilities expressed in different ways but they both resented and were angered by not being what they used to be.
I'm a decade behind you and I would not qualify my health as good or bad, just not what it could be. I've said for years that I don't plan on living forever. That's just one way of saying that I don't expect to live as long as my parents or grandparents.
I've had a pretty good ride and if it ended tomorrow, I don't think I'd feel short changed. The only regret would be all the things that I could have done and shared.
Either way when you get to the 50's we should all be planning for how we handle what happens when you are no more.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)And some very bad health 65 year olds.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I have 90-year old aunt who's in such fantastic shape that she lies about her age only because nobody believes she's more than 70 or so - she's tired of the weird looks she gets. Another is 87, wheelchair bound with dementia.
Really, really varies.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)couple years of her life, she was quite sharp and independent. Whereas my grandfather (also on my mom's side) had severe health problems, mostly drinking/smoking-related, by his late 50's, and died of a heart attack at 62.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)over the place. She looks 65 and her boyfriend is that age. I can't imagine wanting to pull the plug on her. I also know a dapper ninety year old fellow who exercises at my gym and I have a hard time keeping up with him on tha stair master.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)And while it's great that I still have him around (and that he enjoys his great granddaughter, my niece), I've seen him suffer from many health problems in the last decade and he's constantly in and out of the hospital.
Prior to his heart surgery 10 years ago, he never had any health problems. It's been really sad to watch his decline in health over this period.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)She loves life...other than a sore lower back...she makes the BEST of every day and sometimes gets more done than me! She keeps busy, still does the NYT crossword every Sunday in ink!
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And I'm sure you don't need me to tell you to appreciate each other as much as possible.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)problems that impact my life, i.e. CFS/ME, IBS, scoliosis, herniated discs, etc. i've lived a long interesting life, but i'm ready to go. my husband of almost 42 years passed 2-1-1/2 years ago of a brain tumor. it was fast and he didn't suffer. both my parents had dementia and i worry about getting it. i want to go while i still have some dignity.
i had lunch today with 2 friends. she's 74 and he's 76. except for glaucoma she's in good health and so is he. they have a very active social life. just having lunch was enough for me. as soon as i got home i had to lie down and rest. fell asleep for awhile.
enough
(13,759 posts)through yoga, dance, weight training. Not ready to go that soon, and I know wonderful people 10 years older than I who make the next decade look good.
But I completely agree about longevity not being the goal. I'm working on my plan for self-euthanasia if I should find my mind slipping into dementia. And that has to be done quickly, because if you wait, you won't be able to do it.
Interesting that they didn't say how old this doctor is, or maybe I missed it. I do believe he's opened a useful subject. He just has the number wrong.
JI7
(93,615 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I only hope that there is an option to die a peaceful, dignified death by the time I get there.
JI7
(93,615 posts)especially with people being more informed about things those who take care of themselves and even others can live that age and still be in good health and be independent.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
MADem
(135,425 posts)I wouldn't be at all surprised.
That's just a wild ass guess, I'm not "Fristing" the guy.
I don't know any 75 year olds who want to shuffle off this mortal coil. Hell, I know folks in their nineties who aren't done yet!
I just think this is an opening salvo for an argument to ration health care. Screw that!
TBF
(36,668 posts)it's just like the austerity crap. Adjust expectations so people convince themselves they don't want to live longer. Kinder, gentler fascism is still fascism.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)That's a separate issue. This is what he said:
Waaah, I'm not creative enough! I can't run a four minute mile! I need to DIE, now!
Please--some of our most creative people on this planet are older than seventy five. With age comes wisdom. This guy is prejudiced against OLD PEOPLE. He sounds DEPRESSED to me, as I said.
If you're seventy five, in good health, no major problems, why should you be treated differently based on what is "presumed" to be an "appropriate" life expectancy? I'm not talking about people at death's door, in constant pain, or crippled to the point where they can't get around. This guy is saying that if your "powers" are declining, you should jump before nature pushes you.
I don't buy it.
Like I said, I know plenty of people between the ages of 75 and 100 who are still kicking it--to include two teachers who are still working in their NINETIES. The world would be a poorer place without them.
still_one
(98,883 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)the article.
I'm not saying that issue isn't "out there," it's just not part of this author's argument--he specifically excludes it.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,209 posts)I suspect you haven't actually read the Atlantic article, but just the CBS one with the occasional quote. From The Atlantic, which Emmanuel actually wrote:
I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75. 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. This has become so pervasive that it now defines a cultural type: what I call the American immortal.
...
Again, let me be clear: I am not saying that those who want to live as long as possible are unethical or wrong. I am certainly not scorning or dismissing people who want to live on despite their physical and mental limitations. I’m not even trying to convince anyone I’m right. Indeed, I often advise people in this age group on how to get the best medical care available in the United States for their ailments. That is their choice, and I want to support them.
And I am not advocating 75 as the official statistic of a complete, good life in order to save resources, ration health care, or address public-policy issues arising from the increases in life expectancy. What I am trying to do is delineate my views for a good life and make my friends and others think about how they want to live as they grow older. I want them to think of an alternative to succumbing to that slow constriction of activities and aspirations imperceptibly imposed by aging. Are we to embrace the “American immortal” or my “75 and no more” view?
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/
kcr
(15,522 posts)Because I sure do, especially given what he does for a living. He doesn't see much personal need for living past 75? I see no need why he had to share that with the class unless he feels there are moral and ethical reasons that extend beyond his own personal needs.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,209 posts)We moralize on DU too. This is no different. What we shouldn't be doing is misrepresenting it. If someone starts a thread on DU, we ought to discuss the article, not distort it (or, which some other DUers have been doing, dismiss it as a backdoor move by the author's brother, who is the Emmanuel Goldstein of a significant section of DU).
I could maybe understand it if he'd put the age at 85 or higher, even if I wouldn't agree with that kind of talk. But 75? Ridiculous.
MADem
(135,425 posts)setting arbitrary "Well, YOU've had enough, now, haven't you?" limits is a good thing. And putting that kind of stuff in the ATLANTIC? It does open the door to other discussions about how well we treat the elderly, how much care they "deserve." I do see this as a prelude to discussions about rationing.
If someone wants to live to 125, and they think they can diet, exercise and do brain puzzles enough to make that happen, well, LET 'em!! I'd hate for a doctor to say "Well, I know you have a horrible infection, but no CIPRO for you--you're old, this stuff is pricey, and, well...you've had ENOUGH medical care for one lifetime, haven't you?"
By the same token, if someone (not clinically depressed or in need of mental health intervention that might alter their perspective) is sick and tired and in pain and that pain cannot be relieved sufficiently to give the person a reasonable quality of life, I think they should be allowed to make the decision to turn out the lights in a peaceful, respectful and dignified way. I do think there should be a few hoops to jump through, though--I don't like the idea of any relative named in the will pushing grampa to drink the hemlock because they're old and in the way, or anything on those lines.
steve2470
(37,481 posts)kcr
(15,522 posts)A proper smack down by the father of one of his colleagues http://www.salon.com/2014/09/27/the_atlantic_is_wrong_about_aging_why_our_anti_elderly_bias_needs_to_change/
MADem
(135,425 posts)Maybe our ambitions don’t constrict with age, as Dr. Emanuel fears. Maybe they evolve into new — and more selfless — ambitions like mentoring, that are at least as important as producing papers or rounding with your residents, and just as much of a contribution. The social scientist Lars Tornstam refers to these collected experiences as gerotranscendence, the ability to feel more like a part of the larger whole. Anyone who has gone through crisis at any age can attest that this ability can make a great difference in how well we cope.
In older age, we contribute not only the wisdom collected over many years, we also contribute by serving as models of survival. Or, as my granddaughter says, “survivors of life.” And as role models for how to cope when things don’t work, including various body parts.
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)developed it in the years prior.
That's just Alzheimers. It doesn't count all the other people with serious health issues. I think the chances of being over 75, in good health, and with no major problems, are smaller than you think.
And he's not saying you should "jump before nature pushes you." He's not advocating suicide or assisted suicide. He's saying that he expects to refuse medical tests or treatments at that age, so that nature will take its course -- whether it's pneumonia or cancer or heart disease or whatever. Shouldn't that be his choice to make?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Where are you getting that statistic?
I think you're mistaken on that percentage. "1 in 8 older Americans" per this report isn't forty four percent. Not even close.
The "estimated lifetime RISK" for an eighty five year old woman to get altzheimer's is 20.3 percent; for men of the same age, the "risk" is 12.5 percent. That's in the linked report, too.
But most importantly, as I've iterated throughout this thread, apparently to no avail, I understand that this guy is not talking about suicide. He specifically excludes it from his discussion. But really, if you're refused medical treatment, and you're unable to receive treatments because you can't afford to pay for them privately, that's just another way of killing yourself, slowly as opposed to jumping off that bridge...even if it is involuntary.
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)There are actually more people with Alzheimers among 75-84 year olds than among over 85's, probably because the Alzheimers reduced their life expectancies, so they didn't live past 85. The oldest old are the ones least likely to have had debilitating illnesses, or they would have died at younger ages.
OTOH, what difference does it really make whether it's 30 or 40%? It is still only one of the many debilitating conditions elderly people are faced with.
http://www.alzheimers.net/resources/alzheimers-statistics/
Proportion of People With Alzheimer’s Disease in the United States by Age: (Alzheimer’s Association)
85+ years – 38%, 75-84 years, 44%, 65-74 years, 15%, <65 years, 4%
muriel_volestrangler
(106,209 posts)38% of them are 85+, and so on.
What that does have is proportions of ethnic groups:
65-74 Years of Age
2.9% White
9.1% African American
7.5% Hispanic
75-84 Years of Age
10.9% White
19.9% African American
27.9% Hispanic
85 Years of Age and above
30.2% White
58.6% African American
62.9% Hispanic
Wow - a huge problem for Hispanic people, and almost as big for African Americans.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's TWENTY percent "risk" for eighty five year old women, and TWELVE percent "risk" for eighty five year old men.
Your link is even more sanguine than the one I provided. Your link says "one in nine," mine said "one in eight." And your thirty percent figure referred to people OLDER than eighty five.
And I think you've got those numbers messed up with that 44 percent. I can't find that number anywhere in the AO literature. Why would fewer people above eighty five have the condition than people seventy five to eighty four?
And while "1 in 3" seniors may die from a dementia related illness, the truth of the matter is that many of those people were just fine until shortly before they died. For example, I had a cousin who died recently. She lived alone, was independent, did her own driving, shopping, and hauling herself to social events up until she was ninety one, when she had a serious and profoundly debilitating stroke. She contracted MRSA in the hospital, got a raging and intractable infection, and died within three months of her stroke of the infection with "dementia" as part of her diagnosis. That said, she didn't spend years wasting away in a demented state. Her life, save her last three months, was pretty full, useful, and enjoyable. She volunteered up to the day before she had the stroke, and she paid taxes all her life.
I just think this article is an opening salvo for giving older people marginal care, because, oh well, they're gonna die anyway. It's a path smoother to a future attitude of "fuck all those old people."
I don't care for it at all.
TBF
(36,668 posts)not continuous but I have a chronic illness and would love to know that I could live to 75. Frankly I don't even expect that. This article is BS.
still_one
(98,883 posts)And vice versa
As I read it the op is not saying this should Not be mandated, but personal. I view it as the door Dr. Kovorkian opened years ago. Not a nice subject to talk about, but an important one, similar to end of life decisions
At least that's how I view it
TBF
(36,668 posts)is concerned ... kill them all off by age 75 and you save a heck of a lot of money you would've paid in health care and social security.
Right.
My only question is why this is coming out right before midterms.
still_one
(98,883 posts)I know a lot of people would like to say this is about Rahlm, but it isn't
This is one doctors view for decision, which incidentally will be rejected by most.
TBF
(36,668 posts)of the mayor of Chicago (who incidentally was very prominent earlier in the current administration).
I question the timing of anything released right now in the political realm (like it or not the Rahms are in the political realm).
This was a very stupid move.
still_one
(98,883 posts)will be evidenced by the MSM hardly covering it
TBF
(36,668 posts)why would his ideas on euthanasia for the elderly escape their notice?
WSJ covering his role in creating Obamacare: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303824204579421553914382752
still_one
(98,883 posts)it? The ACA was a major event because it was the first actual implementation of health care coverage and insurance reform since Medicare.
We just don't agree on the impact, it is as simple as that
TBF
(36,668 posts)about euthanasia? Think about that: the person who engineered ACA is talking about the merits of euthanasia. You really think that will escape folks attention?
still_one
(98,883 posts)TBF
(36,668 posts)and relates only to his own body we're fine. It becomes part of ACA and healthcare over age 75 isn't covered anymore - then we have a far different issue.
It isn't a big deal if "still_one" or "TBF" decide at 75 that he/she won't treat a medical condition. Many people do that - decide they just don't want to have that biopsy or pursue the chemo. That's a personal choice. But deciding for everyone else - that's different. My opinion is is that when the architect of ACA starts opining we'd better pay attention, because historically his opinions have a lot more weight than yours or mine.
still_one
(98,883 posts)ballon
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)"compassion and choices" formerly "the hemlock society".
Logical
(22,457 posts)enough
(13,759 posts)but having lived through the long-drawn-out dementia-related deaths of both my elderly parents, I do not assume that questions of euthanasia are based on a desire to ration healthcare. At 70, I'm feeling great and hoping to live quite a while longer, but if I develop dementia, I very much hope there will be a way for me to have my wishes carried out and not have to linger on to destroy other people's lives who have to take care of me.
Please don't assume the only issue here is healthcare rationing. There's another issue about how to let people find ways to end their own lives with dignity without involving their relatives in criminal activity. If one is incapacitated by physical or mental debilitation, one may not be able to simply commit suicide.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Look, I don't argue that anyone suffering a debilitating illness might want to cut it short, but absent that, I say keep on trucking. Would you like an arbitrary date to be "cut off" from hospital access? To be told "Hey, your time is up--step aside?"
People who are accepting of an upper age limit of seventy five (like this guy) might be told, down the line, that they're "cut off" at age seventy instead. Before we know it, by the time we're eligible for social security they'll be lining us up for the firing squad.
I don't think the only issue is healthcare rationing, I just think that will inevitably be a BIG piece that is brought into the conversation. "Hey, you're too old--you don't need that new hip--use this wheelchair, it's cheaper and you'll only be around a few more years, anyway..." That kind of thing.
If healthcare is rationed in a sufficiently aggressive manner, euthanasia becomes an academic exercise, too--you'll die of that pneumonia before anything else!
still_one
(98,883 posts)He is only opening a discussion on it. Dr. Kovorkian actually took it a step further
MADem
(135,425 posts)From the piece, above:
Emanuel makes it clear that he is not arguing for euthanasia or assisted suicide at a certain age.
still_one
(98,883 posts)This country. Most didn't believe in what Kovorkian did, they sure are not going to subscribe to what Emanuel is suggesting
It opens up a discussion, as can be seen from this thread, and the emotion it provoked
MADem
(135,425 posts)widely promulgated.
This is an opening salvo, make no mistake. It's an argument for denial of care based on age. Discrimination, if you will. Rationing...because we humans just aren't smart enough to find better ways to do stuff, I guess...!!!
It reminds me of Francis Fukuyama's hubris laden "The End of History?" that Rand published back in 89. He managed to parlay that essay into a BOOK...and he was dead WRONG.
Again, this isn't about Kevorkian or end-of-life decisions. It has nothing to DO with euthanasia. That is specifically excluded in this argument, as you can see if you read the piece.
Response to MADem (Reply #41)
Name removed Message auto-removed
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)Having helped care for several relatives living into their 90's, I don't much look forward to that either. 75 or 80 sounds about right.
Let's line 'em up and knock 'em off, then!
Dustin Hoffman, Betty White, Morgan Freeman, thanks for your contributions to the arts--now go jump off a bridge. Diane Feinstein, Carl Levin, off you go! Get in line Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, John Lewis and Bernie Sanders--you're NEXT.
This guy is making a snide self-imposed "death panel" argument. The minute people think it's "OK" to die younger, then it's easier to tell all those old people to just shut up and get outta the way. No health care for you--after all, you're OLD!!! Get on that ice floe and just die already!!!
Longevity used to be an indicator of a nation's high quality of life. I'm astounded that anyone would think that a reversal of the current trends is a good thing in any way.
I've read some crazy shit in the ATLANTIC, but this takes the cake.
Damn!
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)But my 85 year old mother tells me every day that her "bags are packed." She has just enough dementia to know how much she's lost, and she'd rather not stick it out till the bitter end. I don't blame her.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)(75 would be roughly twice my age). I read the article in The Atlantic yesterday, and having been spending much of the last year dealing with aging grandparents, I can see the argument.
I have 3/4 grandparents still alive (the other passed last Christmas). Of all of them (including my late grandfather) ranging in age from 84-90, only one of them has what I would like to call a quality of life. My late grandfather was diagnosed with cancer on his 86th birthday and the last months of his life were spent in and out of hospitals. My paternal grandfather (just turned 90) had heart problems 10 years ago and his quality of life has never been the same (I've always been very close to him and it broke my heart watching him decline almost overnight). My maternal grandmother is in a nursing home and will never be able to live on her own. I don't think it's death panels if people don't want to go through what my grandparents are going through. (I know I would rather be shot execution style than live my last years in a nursing home).
Years ago, as a HS assignment, we had to write our own obituary. For the assignment's sake, we could either live a short but adventuresome life or a long but mundane life (we could not take the best of both worlds). I had myself dying in a car accident at the age of 26 (I'm older than that now, so I outlived my 17 year old self's predictions). When my grandfather died and I was helping write the obit, I thought back to that assignment and realized that I probably won't live to see 86 and I am fine with that.
As for the nation's quality of life. The Millennial generation (which I am on the tail beginning of) will not have the same quality of life as their elders on many levels (healthcare is all about the bottom line, our corporate food policies that are poisoning us, environmental factors, and economic factors have already caused a generation to delay life milestones such as marriage and home buying).
MADem
(135,425 posts)sixties and seventies. If DU is still here, come back to this thread and tell us if you still feel the same way. I'll try to hang on to read your comments!
I think your doom-and-gloom scenarios are premature. You quite likely won't die of AIDS, like people in the eighties did--that's pretty much a "chronic condition" nowadays, not the death sentence it used to be--and a rapid death sentence it was, too. You have a much better chance of being cured of cancer than anyone diagnosed back when I was your age. I have friends who survived polio, and were debilitated by it as children, or are feeling the residual effects in their old age. Plenty of kids didn't make it. You'll never see that kind of thing, lucky you.
Every year, medicine makes advances, cures are found, stem cell research is opening a lot of doors. Medical QOL is better --even with the patchwork system we work under today--than it was fifty years ago. And fifty years ago, it was leaps and bounds better than it was fifty or a hundred years before that.
And despite the "crappy" food, I don't even want to THINK about food standards a hundred years ago. There basically were none. FDA? You had your nose--sniff it, if it smells bad, don't eat it! Or cover it in spices and take your chances!
More and more stuff in my produce aisle at my plain old grocer is organic--and the prices for organic produce are coming down, too. Fifty years ago, everything was sprayed with DDT (see Rachel Carson's Silent Spring) and there was no "organic" unless your old uncle was growing peppers and tomatoes in the back yard that the DDT didn't hit (and not every kid had an uncle who did that).
And you and your peers are the future--you're going to have to begin to step up and take charge. The older generations won't be here forever, even if they do live a bit longer, and it'll be your turn to make the decisions about the future of the generations that come after you.
It will be up to your generation to decide what's important to you as time marches on; every generation gets a turn at being the Boss! I wish you guys the best and hope that you will prioritize wisely! Maybe you'll decide that higher taxes are worth it to provide more public services. Maybe those who have more will finally be persuaded by your generation to pay more, for a change. That's something I'd like to live long enough to see~!
Response to MADem (Reply #92)
Name removed Message auto-removed
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)I know it makes a difference to my very old mother that she believes. She's looking forward to being with her many other loved ones, including a daughter she lost as a baby. She keeps saying her "bags are packed" and I know she believes it.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #145)
Name removed Message auto-removed
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)With a 44% chance of having Alzheimer's between 75 and 84, along with plenty of risk for other physical problems, living to be among the oldest old doesn't seem very appealing to me. What medical science has succeeded in doing is stretching out the dying process by years. It hasn't been so good at making 80 feel like 60.
MADem
(135,425 posts)your 44 percent number is a figment. You, personally, might be shouldering that risk, but the national population's risk is no where near that. Not even close.
Elsewhere in this report I have linked to the Altzheimer association's report that provides the statistics.
An eighty five year old woman has a twenty percent "risk" of getting the condition.
One in five isn't impossible odds. I know two people in their nineties who are still teaching.
I'll repeat what I said elsewhere: I just think this is an opening salvo for an argument to ration health care. Screw that!
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)in the sand. And, of course, many Alzheimers patients never get an official diagnosis -- probably the majority. Their families just make the needed adjustments, and the doctors give the prescriptions.
But Alzheimers is only one of the conditions elderly people commonly face.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)At this point, as a single 34 year old, I'm 6 years away from officially being destined to die alone with 40 cats. (I'm a self proclaimed crazy cat lady and I would not mind being owned by 40 cats).
Over the course of my life, I have watched great grandparents, grandparents, and friends' parents suffer from long and prolonged deaths and I would much rather die suddenly than suffer the way numerous loved ones did. My great grandmother was bedridden for the last 6 years of her life (after my great grandfather's death) alone in a nursing home. My grandmother (her daughter) is currently the same way and is nothing without her husband of 62 years. She is constantly calling my mom crying about loneliness. Whenever I go and visit her, she's always asking who I am. I don't want to get to the point where I have to ask my grandchildren who they are (should I have them, which is not looking likely).
As for food, well HFCS was not around before my lifetime. My ancestors ate food that was developed by farmers, not chemists. My great grandmother (who was a great cook and lived on a farm in rural Maine) never did things like buying processed food at the grocery store. She grew most of her own food and would butcher a cow every year for meat. If she wanted cookies, she would bake them. There was not an abundance of foods consisting of ingredients that you can't pronounce. I'm careful about what I put in my body but I was not always that way (I eliminated HFCS in 2008 and lost 40 lbs). I was over 200 lbs at the age of 27.
As long as the medical industry remains the for-profit entity that it is, I don't know if these diseases will ever be cured. It's much more profitable to have someone take a $5 pill every day for the rest of their life than to cure cancer or diabetes. And the side effects of that $5 pill could lead to more $5 pills and the medications reacting with each other. I honestly don't know if we would have developed the polio vaccine and eradicated it under today's system.
MADem
(135,425 posts)As for HFCS, we can avoid that--and nowadays, most of us know better--"NO HFCS" is a selling point at the grocery store, nowadays. Buy organic, read the label. Easy. Get a dog to go with those cats, and walk it every day. Exercise and smart eating (not too much) is key, and that is a lesson that Michelle Obama has been trying to push. It'll take a few more years before it sinks in, but it's starting to sink in, already.
The medical industry is certainly a piece of the problem when it comes to care, but the other piece is cheap so-and-sos who think they'll never get sick and don't want to pay in to a communal health care experience. People think that "universal health care" is the answer, that "single payer" will solve everything -- but they should go live in UK and see what it really is about. Shit is EXPENSIVE. Go into the stores, look at the prices, and if you think "dollars" you say "Well, that's not a bad price." Then you realize that the price is in POUNDS, and that's 1.60 to 2.00, dollar to pound, depending on the exchange rate. When everything costs nearly double, it's no bargain. And that is all VAT, and that VAT is there to help pay for the health care people get. Imagine waking up tomorrow and paying one and a half to two times the price for, well, pretty much everything, and not having a salary that compensates for those rises in prices. That's the real reason why we don't have it here--people just don't want to pay for it.
And in truth, they ration care under National Health, too. That's why children with spastic cerebral palsy go from UK to St. Louis, MO, by the HUNDREDS, at a cost of 40-60K pounds (not dollars) a pop for surgery and follow up, for SDR treatment. The parents hold fundraisers and charity walks to raise the money, because the operation used to be completely unavailable in UK, and they've only started doing it in the past year or two, and even now it's a long, long process to get approved (the younger, the better, is how that op works) so the parents prefer to raise the cash themselves and get the state-of-the-art procedure in USA (it's an older method they use in UK).
I do agree that Big Pharma likes to solve every problem with a pill, and the unholy marriage between doctors and Big Pharma needs to stop. Doctors are dealers who push pills for the pharmaceutical industry, and they are rewarded with trips and prizes for pushing that shit. That's just wrong, and IMO, unethical. For example, instead of giving someone a fancy new pill for their type 2 diabetes, they need to give them the shitty old cheap generic pill, and a prescription to Move Their Ass at the G-Y-M and a consult with a dietitian. That'll do more good than any fancy drugs.
Still and all, advances in medicine continue. They're curing diseases that were death sentences when I was your age. Taking a chunk of someone's liver and putting it in someone else's body wasn't possible when I lost a relative to liver disease. Even things as "ho-hum" as kidney transplants used to be highly risky/odds are you'll die type evolutions. When they start seriously growing body parts in the lab (like they're doing now, with ears, with skin, with trachea, etc) using the patient's own DNA, that will be a huge game-changer.
And as for "being alone at age forty with a buncha cats"--you might want to take some advice and good cheer from someone who knew how to live-give this a listen, you'll enjoy it:
WhiteAndNerdy
(365 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Exactly! That is exactly what Rahm's brother is trying to do.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I don't judge Jimmy Carter's career by what his brother Billy did, after all.
This argument sits on its own, and it is owned by the author of the piece--not his brother.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Carter did not work with his brother on matters of national importance.
He was an 'adviser' to Rahm on HC.
Yes, the issue does stand on its own. However it is related to the advise he gave his brother on HC.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Billy and Jimmy once brought in the peanuts together, too. That doesn't mean that Billy had anything to do with Jimmy's other management decisions.
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)I read an article recently about the difficulty a daughter had getting good care for her father in his last year of life. She had the power of attorney but because he was on Medicaid, she had no power. The nursing homes passed him between themselves and were able to keep her out of the loop. Home health agencies didn't want him because he required 24 hour care. He wanted to die at home, but the system kept putting him into nursing homes that cost even more money than being at home would have. And he had procedure after procedure, after unnecessary procedure -- though he was approaching 90. But he couldn't go on hospice because that would have taken away his Medicaid benefits. So he went through the wringer -- and the state paid more than a million dollars for his care -- to eek out maybe a few extra months of a suffering end-of-life. What is the point?
Everyone wants, theoretically, to live a long life and then die naturally. But how does one achieve the latter when the state feels it has to intervene, full force, until the absolute end? The only people who escape this are the ones on hospice, but doctors are very reluctant to put people on hospice, so only 1/3 ever use it, and many of them are on it for less than a week. And if you go on hospice, you lose Medicaid benefits.
Until you have dealt with the care of a very old person in his last months or years, it's hard to imagine the challenges you could face. We were almost "lucky" with my MIL because she had cancer and enough money to stay out of Medicaid -- so she got hospice in her own apartment. My father, who also had cancer, also wanted to die at home, and had everything set up for it, but at the last minute his partner couldn't stand it, and got him rushed to the hospital. I didn't get a call till it was over, but he had the typical violent hospital death -- not what he wanted. But hospitals do what they're going to do. Unfortunately, they're not so good at taking care of the dying. They're all about extending life, any kind of life, even at the cost of significant suffering. But that's not what every person wants.
djean111
(14,255 posts)by 75, you are most likely a useless eater and a burden, just because you are not "contributing to society".
Yes, the end of life care costs and measures have gotten fierce - so, would you have counseled your father to commit suicide when he turned 75? Plus, I think the horrendous cost is because there is so much profit to be made by hospitals and insurance companies (insurance companies can figure the enormous costs into their rates, and hospitals know they will make a bundle).
Ezekiel is not worried about quality of life at all - he is looking at the usefulness of a life to society, and has deemed 75 as the age when you can get in line behind Edward G. Robinson and say good-bye while looking at fields of flowers.
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)He's talking about saying no to tests and procedures for the purpose of extending his life. All he thinks he will want then is palliative care, whether he gets pneumonia, or a heart attack, or whatever. Of course he could change his mind.
We had a relative who did this at the age of 80. He made his wife mad because he said absolutely not to heart surgery, nor anything else the doctors offered -- except pain relief. And, over the course of a few weeks, he died a peaceful death. But the doctors could probably have extended his life, in some form or another, for another few years, if he'd had the surgery and other procedures. He also could have been left bedridden and with the complications of a stroke from the surgery.
Was it wrong for him to make the choices he did? I don't think so. He had had a good life, he was pretty healthy nearly to the end, and then he was ready to go. I think we should be supporting people who want to make the choice to die a (fairly) natural death at a natural age and not push everyone through the hospital-industrial complex.
djean111
(14,255 posts)lot on saving a baby vs spending a lot on a 20 year old is not preferable, because (and, evidently, as long as we are tied to private insurance there would eventually have to be a choice made) the 20 year old has had time and money invested in them, and can be more immediately useful. People are "units" to him. I think.
His Wiki page is interesting, but there are things he has said that I do not like at all that are not there. A simple Google returns a wealth of information, even throwing out the Palin and McCaughey bullshit and the hype for his article. Doesn't help that his brother thinks progressives like me are fucking retards, either. There are a lot of his papers at The Lancet, but there is a pay wall.
This, I think, is illuminating (from the Wiki page) -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezekiel_Emanuel
Emanuel and Fuchs reject a single-payer system, because it goes against American values of individualism. "The biggest problem with single-payer is its failure to cohere with core American values. Single-payer puts everyone into the same system with the same coverage and makes it virtually impossible to add amenities and services through the private market."[19]
He really does not want to let go of private insurance, and I believe that private insurance, providing as little care as possible so as to make higher and higher profits, has us on the wrong path. The inevitable result of private insurance, in my opinion, is, eventually, rationing care. And what will be the basis used?
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)I was just reacting to the opinions he expressed about his personal wishes, which don't sound unreasonable.
But I can understand your reaction, given the context. Thanks for the info.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Thing is, if I am ever in the sad position of having people debating on whether to pull my own plug (and I have been there for one of those events, and it has been 15 years, and it is still horrifying) - I do not want Ezekiel or Mother Theresa in the room.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that regardless of the efforts to 'take them over' I kept them at home, viable, interesting and loved.
There is complicated about the Emmanuel Brothers, they are part of the problem we have regarding HC in this country.
How do we take care of our loved ones considering the 'system', you ask?
NEVER, EVER, allow people like the Emmanuel Bros anywhere near our HC system. Unfortunately there involved making sure their Health Insurance buddies continued to profit and t hat is why this brother is putting out this bait hoping people will set aside normal human emotions and come to believe that really, it's better if we just let people die at 75. Imagine all the money for his buddies if we all had HIS heartless view of life?
The man is a monster. He understands nothing about humanity and life. It's all about money to him, which has always been apparent, no matter how many times he has tried to deny it, in his writings.
He should just go do his thing, he is enormously wealthy and will no doubt FIGHT with all the money at his disposal to keep on living as long as HE possibly can. What a crock this is. Shame to see anyone even TRY to explain it here.
steve2470
(37,481 posts)So it would not shock me if he was, indeed, clinically depressed.
This is my response: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025585759#post166
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)asking my dad about when I was going to die when I was a little kid. Dad said something like "You'll live until you're 100 years old." So I'm determined.
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)I'm sure that I will pass away in perfect health. I commute daily on a motorcycle. Most likely sometime in the near future there is someone who will smear me all over the pavement while sending a text to their BFF that they are sooooo disappointed at the froth on their mocachinofrapelotebullshit Starbucks.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)are politically involved,travel and have very few health issues. Healthy is healthy no matter the age.
oooooob
(30 posts)Where Is Euthanasia Legal?
Where in America Is Euthanasia Legal?
Euthanasia is also legal in some states in the U.S and these include Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont.
from the article at:
http://www.newhealthguide.org/Where-Is-Euthanasia-Legal.html
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)involved in the process. And of course, euthanizing anyone against their will is just as much a human rights violation as forcing them to go on suffering.
MADem
(135,425 posts)From the article:
Emanuel makes it clear that he is not arguing for euthanasia or assisted suicide at a certain age.
He's basically crabbing that we're living too long. Too much "good" health care and nutrition?
I think he needs a happiness pill. His glass is definitely half empty.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to sell this idea to Cheney eg. Who probably has cost the rest of us millions to keep alive. And I'm not even wishing him dead as I want him to live long enough to face justice for all the worthwhile, promising YOUNG lives HE has been responsible for.
I bet he will still be around well into his nineties. This is just about encouraging people not to stick around too long in case they might cost his wealthy buddies MONEY.
He misses the whole point of life. But what else could we expect from Rahm's brother?
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)he could only prescribe the lethal medicine and the woman had to mix it up and take it herself. what if she had a stroke and couldn't do it?
that worries me -- being incapacitated, but not enough for them to let me die. i have all my advanced directives and my doctor and executor of my will have them.
when my husband's time was near -- the hospice doc asked me if i wanted him to stop a certain medication. i said "will he be in pain". he said "no". i said "will it speed things up". he said "it might". i said "then stop the medication". less than 48 hours later he passed peacefully in his sleep.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... at a conceptual level. the problem is that some peoples' bodies and or minds are broken down at the age of 65, and some more like 85. My own father was perfectly functional and enjoying life well into his late 80s.
So a "one size fit's all" prescription doesn't seem very apt.
BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)or 85...
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)I wouldn't tell others whether or not they should also agree, but I certainly don't have a problem dying before all of those things have taken their toll on me.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I did a post about Emmanuel's article yesterday: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025580576
But if you decide to give my post a pass, please check out Ninni Holmqvist's brilliant novel "The Unit" - this book takes you exactly where Emmanuel's line of utilitarian thinking (equating quality of life with what you are "contributing"
is going to go?
And it answers questions like:
*What are we going to do about Social Security shortfalls as people live longer?
*What are we going to do about people "selfishly" choosing creative careers and then running out of resources to support themselves in old age?
*What are we going to do about runaway health care costs?
*What are we going to do about shortages of organ donors?
*How are we going to give people an incentive to "contribute" more than they "take" from society?
It turns out there's a really elegant solution to all of those problems, and it seems like Emmanuel is just the type to persuade us all of his elegant solutions.
Please give The Unit a read, and then take another look at Emmanuel's argument.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)and you're the first person I've run across who's also read it. Most people have never even heard of it.
Listen up, DUers, and read that book!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)whole book, I am not interested. I'm not interested in people who miss the whole point of life, but worry only about what a human life might cost FINANCIALLY. Those people are damaged imo and no one should be listening to them at all, other than as spectacles on how NOT to represent humanity.
Can't stand Rahm's brother and believe he is without some of the important traits that actual human beings need to be called human beings.
If he wants to go, fine with me. But I would do everything in my power to keep some of the wonderful 80 and 90 year olds who contribute so much to the lives of those who love them, around until they 120 years old.
That man is a con artist. HE will be around, I'm willing to bet, like Cheney, no matter what it costs to keep him around. What he's doing is hoping to encourage some of the little people not to try to live longer than he probably calculated, the age where they might begin to cost some MONEY.
What a creep, just like his soulless brother.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Arm yourself with the arguments against the "fiction of care" covering up harsh utilitarianism.
It makes me nauseous this guy was involved in the ACA. He's going to be an Achilles heel later on.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)People might think it only applies to Swedish "socialism"?
This book is absolutely relevant - it's today's 1984, but it's written in a style that's more readable "novel" than "dystopia". It should have been more widely reviewed in the U.S. - especially in political channels.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)much less read it.
I think it's simply a relatively obscure book that someone has to stumble across. I came across it in a bookstore, probably a Border's or a Barnes and Noble. I suppose it is very Swedish in outlook, but it certainly felt to me like something that could happen here. I hate to say much more, because I hope at least some people who see this exchange will read the book.
I do see that my own public library has it, so it's probably readily available in libraries, and it's apparently still in print, so it can be gotten at bookstores.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I'm sure I read a review of it first, but some time went by before I got around to checking it out from the library. When I finally did, that book totally blew me away! I've never read anything that I felt was so immediately prophetic...that could happen at any minute...that would probably happen within my lifetime!
MADem
(135,425 posts)afford to buy those kidneys, livers, hearts and lungs to keep them going, and they can afford servants to do the things they're no longer able to do for themselves.
I have a lot of relatives in their eighties and nineties. The ones who aren't still working (most part time) for a paycheck are volunteering. I don't think they're done yet.
I take your points about "What are we gonna do about social security?" Bottom line is, if something's gotta give, they'll do what they're doing already--push it back and lower the "take" if you stick your hand in the jar "early" (aka what used to be "on time" .
A lot of older people "give back." This Emanuel guy should take a walk around and look at places where people need help--at the hospital volunteers who assist people visiting patients, at the soup kitchens and homeless shelters, at the people who are reading to little kids and teaching them their alphabet after school--it's not these robust, strapping youthful types--it's the elderly, often as not.
When I vote, most of the hair I see on the poll working volunteers is pink or blue, and I'm not talking about punk, I'm talking about those Old Lady Rinses. On the gents, the hair color, when not white or grey, is "bald."
I do think this ATLANTIC (so progressive, not) article is shopping a "The Rich Are Different" meme, in an indirect way. This is like reverse Marxism--not "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"....it's "Cough up or get the hell out. No work, no bread! No resting on your laurels, either!" It's the "Please, Sir, May I Have Another?" society!
I think this guy is working under the assumption that health care will NEVER get cheaper (I can remember when a PC cost three grand and couldn't process crap and a pocket calculator from Texas Instruments was a robust hundred and fifty bucks and was a bit bigger than the size of a pack of 100s cigarettes! Who would pay those prices today? Innovation brings improvements and costs can go down, but that's not seen as an option). And will we be "harvesting" organs from people forever? Already they're growing parts from DNA soup from the donors OWN bodies--why is it unreasonable to think that we won't be growing hearts and livers eventually, since we're already growing tracheas?
I think this guy is not a creative thinker already, so maybe his time is up NOW, not when he's seventy five. He's stuck in old paradigms and he can't think in a futuristic fashion--off with his head! (Metaphorically, mind you...)
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I was posing the rhetorical questions in the voice of someone like the Brothers Emmanuel. For each of those questions The Unit brings the answer that the Emmanuel brothers are trying to sneak in the backdoor under the mantle of "care" and "dignity" and "choice".
MADem
(135,425 posts)I'm a little battle-worn from the last few days - just want to make sure I'm not misunderstood. 
MADem
(135,425 posts)daredtowork
(3,732 posts)The book is a few years old now - it may be hard to find if people aren't near a really fantastic public library. I think it's worth buying. I may ask for it for Christmas - it's worth making margin notes.
MADem
(135,425 posts)at Amazon!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Unit-Ninni-Holmqvist/dp/1590513134
Course, you need a hard copy to make margin notes easily (well, easily for ME--I am still a "pen default" type when it comes to that kind of stuff).
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Interestingly I found a rightwing echo in the reviews:
there isn't enough explanation as to why the people in the story don't make some changes in their lives before they end up in "The Unit." If I was going to end up there, I'd definitely do anything I could do avoid it.
A nurse in the book also talks about "making more effort" to avoid ending up in The Unit. For women that means two things: pursuing a stable career and never ending up in long term unemployment and finding a man who will marry you, impregnate you, and responsibly maintain the marriage and raise the child. This is a pretty tall order even without the threat of The Unit hanging over you!
The people who ended up in The Unit pursued more risky careers (often in the arts), were victims of economic instability in their fields, were disabled, never found loved, were never able to get pregnant, didn't want to have a child just because it was in the interests of The State...they were often introverts who didn't "fit in" outside where the scale of values went against them, but they blossomed in The Unit where suddenly they around people of like interests, the economic pressure was office, and they could just "be" (until the surgical team came for their "final donation"
.
Anyway I find that "why don't you avoid your fate" similar to GOP attitudes about welfare today. My response would be: "Why did you put me in this position in the first place?"
MADem
(135,425 posts)a kindle to read it. If you want to read it on a tablet or laptop or PC, you just download a little app and you're good to go. We have a kindle in the house (an older relative gloms on to that thing because I'm always downloading oddball books that appeal) but I am a fan of the used book, myself (that way I can beat it up and not feel too badly about it).
In fact, I ordered a copy of that book for forty cents plus shipping (we know they make their money off the shipping, but fine with me). It should be here in a couple of days! So thanks for the reading suggestion--I liked what I read in the reviews, for the most part! So, really, I appreciate the 'steer'-- I don't do enough "thoughtful fiction" these days--I'm kinda busy with life's cares, so I forget to take time for those simple joys.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)seemed politically motivated or related to Amazon product problems to me.
Another problem might be that the protagonist is female and 50. Thus not as inherently "dynamic" and symbolic as a male protagonist would be perceived. Even though it's written as a novel, you have to read it in the same mode that you would 1984 or Brave New World. Just accept the protagonist needs to be female and 50 to make the point.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)and any German might have some, uh, uncomfortable memories
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)still low 70's and he is happy with his game saying more consistent than ever. wouldnt have gotten there in golf if he died a couple years ago.
how old is this man?
n2doc
(47,953 posts)
On Monday, March 24, Dr. Ephraim P. Engleman turns 103. He doesn't come into the office on Mondays, but the next day he'll be driving the Cadillac Eldorado up from his home in San Mateo to UCSF Medical Center in Parnassus Heights.
Q: When was the last time someone asked to see some ID?
A: A couple of months ago, a policeman pulled me over. I had just barely gone through a red light. He asked for my driver's license. He saw my date of birth and said, "Oh, my God." Then he said, "Go ahead, forget it."
Q: It's not too often I get to ask a 102-year-old what his latest project is, but here goes.
A: A book that I wrote called "My Century." It's a mix of medicine and music.
more at link
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)It's hard to imagine all the stuff he's lived through - I'll have to check out that book!
Duppers
(28,469 posts)
I totally disagree with the OP. My hubs is VERY productive at 71, still filing patents and making contributions to science. In addition, he has very few medical problems, so it'd be a damn shame if he were to check out in 3.5yrs.
Huge 
for those who can't tell that I didn't really mean that...
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)My dad just turned 88 last month. He's a delight to have around, and I wish for him as many years as he can last.
Doctor Emmanuel can go suck lemons - oh wait, he obviously already did.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the rest of us. If HE wants to check out, fine with me. But my bet is he'll be around, like Cheney, doing everything he can, which he can afford, to stay alive until he's over 90.
What's he's hoping to do is get the rest of us to check out so we don't cost his Private HC buddies any money.
What a total, soulless jerk. I don't take guidance from people with no souls.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)And I agree - he just wants to encourage "the rest of us to check out so we don't cost his Private HC buddies any money."
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Holder is going to resign, as soon as they find some other lizard person to replace him.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)nt
Cleita
(75,480 posts)
mucifer
(25,667 posts)I don't take a huge pleasure in life.
If I could have my choice I would split up my remaining years and give them to my patients. It's sad that some of them want so badly to live and I don't.
Too bad things don't work that way.
I'll probably live to be a hundred.
Response to mucifer (Reply #40)
WhiteAndNerdy This message was self-deleted by its author.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)For me, it depends on how my body is feeling. I know a gentleman who lived till he was 100 yrs old. Walked with a walker by himself, took just thyroid and vitamins, virtually no dementia and just in overall good shape until a bout with pneumonia knocked him out. If I am anything like him, I would want to live to 120yrs old
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)may think that 75 is long enough, especially if he is already having health problems.
Me? I'm making plans for my 97th birthday. There's a total eclipse of the sun that will occur about ten days before that birthday (the eclipse will be August 12, 2045, so go ahead and do the math), and I've already told my sons that if I'm still around and I'm not so ga-ga I don't know my own name, they are obligated to make sure I see it.
What's most interesting is that ever since I decided I want to see that eclipse, my sense of my future has opened up a whole lot.
It certainly is different for someone with dementia, or someone with serious health issues, but for many of us living much longer and in good health is quite realistic.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)How nice for him that he will have accomplished all of these wonderful things which many unfortunate people don't have a chance to accomplish during their lifetimes. But being a multi millionaire helps a lot to live HIS kind of life. I wonder if his children and grandchildren want to lose their grandfather or if he, selfish moron that he is, even considered that.
Why do these privileged people think that their views on how we all should live, are of any importance whatsoever?
He's arguing for MONEY, AGAIN. Let's let people die before they cost his precious Private HC Corporations any money at all.
Well I have a solution for that, get rid of Private Health Insurance predators and let's have a National HC system so he won't have to continue to worry about the cost of LIFE to his obscenely wealthy buddies.
TBF
(36,668 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)to see relatives in Ireland, England, and Wales.
She's having a blast.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)The more I learn the more I realize I have to learn...and see. Just heard today robots will do most of the work humans are now within 15 to 20 years from now. That alone would be worth experiencing.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)I am 74.
And shot 77 just 2 months ago at Cedarcrest golf course.
Considering only 5% of golfers ever break 80, I have lot to live for. Anyway, I want to be around until I can at least break my age!
kentuck
(115,406 posts)I am afraid of living without the joys of life.
Because I have seen the white clouds rolling across the blue sky.
I have seen the snow-capped mountains.
I have seen the sun reflect off the water and felt the warm wind in my face.
I have seen the most beautiful morning glories and smelled the most intoxicating honeysuckles.
Because I have seen the brightest of sunrises and the most breath-taking of sunsets.
I have known love from my family and friends for my entire life.
If I no longer had those, life would no longer have meaning.
That is my fear.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I am looking for a post about him where he as much as said those words. He may not be calling for euthanasia, but he would limit some medical treatment by age.
Wait till he gets older, I would like to hear him then.
He had too much influence on Obama.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Never trust people with irritating and annoying voices.
JonLP24
(29,929 posts)My voice irritates and annoys me. I hate hearing recordings (such as voicemail or video) of myself.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)I have no health problems except for high blood pressure which is controlled with medication. This doctor is a nut case. I have lived a full life and accomplished much. I have seen my grand kids marry and have children. I would really like to be around to see some great-great grand kids.
unblock
(56,198 posts)pnwmom
(110,260 posts)I don't know how I'll feel when I'm 75, but the prospect of being physically or mentally disabled gives me pause.
http://www.alzheimers.net/resources/alzheimers-statistics/
Proportion of People With Alzheimer’s Disease in the United States by Age: (Alzheimer’s Association)
85+ years – 38%,
75-84 years, 44%,
65-74 years, 15%,
<65 years, 4%
Yupster
(14,308 posts)Let's say there are 1,000 professional baseball players.
60 % are below age 30
39 % are between 30-40
1 % are older than age 40
That does not mean that 60 % of the people below age 30 play professional baseball.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)I'm glad the ACA contained no so-called "death panels", but I always bristle when I occaisionally hear people say that we need to have health care rationing.
We don't ever want to go there, because inevitably what will happen is that government or whatever designated institution will get to decide who is more and less worthy of life than others. And you know what that means: if you are not rich, white, attractive, well connected, or talented, you'll just be out of luck.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I'm having too much fun and plan to live into my 90s.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It could be still some good years left.
Throd
(7,208 posts)As long as I am healthy, I wanna see what happens next.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)bull roar.
Check out the 1880 census when there were 448,897 people who were about 80 years old.
Check out the 1850 census when there were 28,959 people who were about 90 years old.
My patriarchal ancestor was born in September 1705 and died in 1787 at the age of 81.5. His son, my ancestor, lived to be over 60. The reason the lifespan was so low in the past was because of things like that son, whose wife had 11 children, five of them lived less than one year. When you average 5 people who lived to be 70 with five people who lived to be 1 their average lifespan is 35.5.
But lots of people were living a lot longer than that just like a lot of people these days are NOT even making it to 75.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)sometimes I think that if I should be lucky enough to live to be, say, in my 80s, and I get a diagnosis of Alzheimers or some sort of dementia, I wonder if I would have the courage to take my own life while I was still cognizant of the fact that I will inevitably decline and literally lose my mind... I hope I do.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
young_at_heart
(4,042 posts)I have some aches and pains but (knock on wood), I feel pretty good and want to keep going a bit longer!
MADem
(135,425 posts)
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)More power to you! 
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 26, 2014, 07:52 AM - Edit history (1)
I'm doing pretty well at 60+ and enjoying a lot, but don't want to push it where I become a burden on others, including society. I think I have awhile, but it can change in an instant.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)We can refuse treatment and ask for hospice care if we feel we don't want to live any longer. I would like stronger laws guaranteeing this before the Terri Shiavo, right to life crowd, moves in and takes away people's right to decide this.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)on it. I think it has to be a personal decision based on a case to case basis.
My grandfather passed at 92 and lived a full and healthy life til the day he passed with a Heart Attack. He was still riding his tractor on the land he loved to farm.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)We are talking about old people here, not yardage. Could you clarify your statement?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)
former9thward
(33,424 posts)That is a distorted number because it takes into account all the babies that died at childbirth or before they made it to an adult. If you made it to an adult you could expect to live a normal lifetime as we do today. A 65 year old could expect to live to be about 80 which is about what it is today.
Life Expectancy at age 65
by Sex and Calendar Year
(Based on Cohort Tables)
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as120/LifeTables_Body.html
Divernan
(15,480 posts)
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)In the late 1800's and early 1900's. Most of them in infancy or at least under age 5.
That particular statistic (age 49) does not mean what people think it means.
Thanks for posting this.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)Sounds like a Koch Brothers concoction.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Physical and/or mental incapacity holds no appeal for me. Watching my father and in-laws deteriorate was enough.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)"Let's just do palliative care after age 75 - think of the huge boost to our already obscene profits!" I've been witness to end of life situations for family members and friends - at a variety of ages from 50's to 90's. This doctor takes a simple fact of life and death, i.e., that at the end of most of our respective life spans there is a period of decline, dementia, etc. and ignores the reality that this period is NOT one-size-fits-all
His proposal of somehow going out "with dignity" and skipping the decline/dementia phase, smacks far too much of psyching society into endorsing some kind of noble euthanasia/suicide. And while I support a right to assisted suicide for people in extreme pain, I am horrified and outraged at an arbitrary announcement of the age of 76, regardless of individual health. Ice floes/Alaska anyone? Monty Python/Holy Grail, "Bring out your dead. . . I'm not dead yet!. . . Shut up! You will be soon."
We'd all obviously prefer to magically die peacefully in our sleep, but this of course is extremely rare. I know of one woman in her 80's who died like this. For the vast majority of us, dying is not so kind. There is a HUGE difference between arbitrarily announcing that after age 76, life is not really worth living, either from the standpoint of the individual, or from society; and recognizing the different and individualized rate of aging. I've left instructions not to take extreme measures in health care when death is imminent. However, given that women in my family, going back at least to my great-grandmother, have lived to their mid-90's, I sure as hell don't want those instructions to kick in when I'm in my mid 70's!
So what if I "contribute less to society" now that I'm in my 70's? That's the whole fucking point of retirement, folks! You work frigging hard for decades, and then get to kick back and coast. I worked extremely hard as a single Mom to raise my 3 kids after Daddy Dearest opted for a life dedicated to golf outings and a series of hotties. I'm no longer able to work 60 hours a week, or even 40, but NOW I have time to serve as Judge of Elections, sit on 2 appointed administrative law boards in my community and serve as treasurer for a civic organization raising money for college scholarships. And I'm here to tell you all, that in my community, it's retired seniors like me that fill the majority of volunteer, civic action spots.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)many more of us would live a decent life much older than 75!
Takket
(23,715 posts)Star Trek: The Next Generation did an episode about this very issue years ago called "Half a Life". A great episode. I recommend watching it for anyone who wants some insight into this issue. The episode is available on Netflix if you have it. (Season 4, episode 22)
Or: Read the synopsis here: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Half_a_Life_(episode)
Delphinus
(12,522 posts)that was a great episode.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Guy wouldn't even let the Single-Payer proponent nurses into the room, let alone pipe up.
Now he's OK if nobody over 75 is around to pipe up.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Don't be letting "I may run, I may not" Mitt run away from that.
It was a triangulation attempt by Mitt that he thought would secure his way to the White House (See, Democrats? I brought health care for all to LIBERAL Massachusetts!!! I'm not a Bad Guy!!!). Obama took his triangle and stuffed it up the GOP's ... attitudes.
It's not perfect, but it was the ONLY way to open the door. Single payer was dead in the water. Not happening.
In the future, maybe it will--if VT can cough up a good "demonstration project" (like MA did with Commonwealth Care) the future might be a better one for the next generations.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Zeke really is all about the money, and predicates everything on the continuing of private health insurance and profits.
He is against single payer because he has libertarian views on things like that. He makes no mention of lowering costs at all, just lowering access to health care because of costs.
His "quality of life" does not include enjoyment - he means "contribution to society".
His article resonates differently when his other writings are considered.
MADem
(135,425 posts)if you will, came straight outta Romneycare--with tweaks by the MA legislature.
As I've said elsewhere, this guy sounds clinically depressed to me. Maybe he hasn't accomplished everything he wanted to do, and now he knows he's too old to win an Olympic medal. So, he's bummed out, and he wants the rest of us to be bummed out, too, so he won't feel so alone. I think his "Abandon hope" attitudes are a pant load!
The Salon article linked elsewhere in this thread by kcr is a brilliant response to this guy's pity party, IMO!
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/27/the_atlantic_is_wrong_about_aging_why_our_anti_elderly_bias_needs_to_change/
djean111
(14,255 posts)as important as perceived usefulness to society. He has a triage system based on usefulness, not on severity of condition. Babies not as important as 20 year olds because we have invested time and money into 20 year olds and we can make more babies. Slippery slope, and rich babies, of course, count more than poor babies.
I don't think he is bummed out at all, I think he is deliberately starting a conversation.
He really just thinks that too many people have access to health care, and is thinking of ways to cut down access. One of those ways is to convince people that if they are no longer useful, they should check out. He is not concerned with cutting costs, just with cutting access. I think costs would go down with single payer and profit of insurance companies gone, but he loves private insurance and the profits.
He has quite a lot of papers on this sort of thing, which is why I cast a jaundiced eye on this latest one.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I also think he's depressed. He sounds to me like he feels he's missed his chance at something. And anyone who approaches people as 'units' IS probably depressed and detached from the joys of life.
He oughta read that Salon article, and learn all about the "U" shaped curve. In time, he'll come out of the bottom of that curve, start enjoying his old age, and he's gonna want some of that health care.
djean111
(14,255 posts)ACA - to try and see how cutting the adding-no-value-at-all private insurers out of the middle of health care could save us money so more people could get health care?
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think he's a bit shy of those traits.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)to end one's life when one feels it's time.
djean111
(14,255 posts)life. It is about not being a contributing member of society any more. A useless eater.
For some reason, I keep hearing Johnny Cash singing "The Man Comes Around".
dilby
(2,273 posts)Since I will always find women beautiful I got a feeling I am going to live forever.
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)Even now at 50, I wouldn't go to any extreme measures. It's my body, my choice.
TBF
(36,668 posts)let's hope it stays that way and doesn't become codified as "after 75 you're on your own & pay for it yourself".
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)that has a financial interest through Medicaid in keeping you alive as long as possible, no matter how much you suffer and no matter what the quality of life."
TBF
(36,668 posts)For Euthanasia but I give you points for sticking up for the centrists no matter what they come up with.
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)instead of becoming a victim of the hospital-industrial complex. There is a huge difference between suicide/assisted suicide and simply deciding that enough is enough -- as with the relative of ours who refused the recommended heart surgery at the age of 80 and chose to die peacefully at home instead.
TBF
(36,668 posts)and doesn't become part of the ACA I'm for it.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
rogerashton
(3,960 posts)I'll be 72 in a few weeks, and I find the terms "feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic" personally insulting. I'm taking time from working on a revision of my book on mathematical economics to respond.
Here's the thing, Zeke. It's true that after 55, and especially after 75, the probability increases of a health crisis that might leave a person "feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic" or indeed dead. But that probability exists at any age. So, Zeke, if you don't want to take the chance, maybe you should check out right now, today. There is no time like the present. Do it. If you won't do it now, believe me, you will change your mind by the time you are 75, so better do it now.
TeamPooka
(25,577 posts)steve2470
(37,481 posts)So, at age 56, I have 39 years to go. My dad lived to be 92, albeit with stroke-induced loss of the ability to talk coherently and with Parkinson's, and my mom suffered on to age 84 with Alzheimer's.
I need to read the original article, but does this guy have kids or grandkids ? That alone is inspiration enough to live longer, unless you have the kids and grandkids from hell. Even then, you can try to help them if you're in good health. I love my son dearly and want to see him as long as I can, but I also don't want to be a burden on him, which my mother almost became for me in her later years. Alzheimer's is a very terrible illness.
ETA: He says he has daughters. I'm sorry, but I really do not understand his attitude at all. Who gives a flying ***** if you're amazingly productive and talented at age 75 ? If you bring joy to your kids and grandkids and they bring joy to you, who cares ????
Phooey on his opinion. He can check out when he wishes.
MADem
(135,425 posts)steve2470
(37,481 posts)"Oh well kids, I have to check out now, thanks for all the fish kiddos !". What an attitude !
I'd be ashamed to say that to my son. If I die at 75, ok, so be it. But to say you WANT to check out at 75 ? You deprive your kids and grandkids of a few more good years or a lot more good years ? Seems kind of selfish to me.
I don't get it, and I don't think I'm supposed to.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)and they both laughed at how foolish this man was.
djean111
(14,255 posts)enjoying themselves.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Fuck Zeke and this bullshit is what I say.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)kentuck
(115,406 posts)"You can’t do anything about the length of your life," he said, "but you can do something about its width and depth."
ladjf
(17,320 posts)However, I wonder why he seems to feel a need to tell everyone about. Dying is as personal as it gets. As long as I feel OK and enjoy getting up most mornings, I feel pleased to be so fortunate.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Arthur Rubinstein was one of the great classical pianists of the 20th century.
When I was in high school, I saw him play a FULL piano recital at the tender age of EIGHTY-THREE. Eighty THREE!! His wife left him when he was in his nineties for taking up with another woman!
He lived from 1887 to 1982.
His son John graduated from Juilliard and is a well known actor.
Arthur Rubinstein, age 19, in 1906.
Classical musicians and conductors tend to live long lives because they love what they are doing with all their heart!