More Active Posts
Front Page
Live longer!
 |
 31 Comments |
Good news! It’s easier these days to live to the ripe old age of 100–and you don’t even have to be a picture of health to do so:
“It has been generally assumed that living to 100 years of age was limited to those who had not developed chronic illness,” said Dr. William Hall of the University of Rochester.
Hall has a theory for how these people could live to that age. In an editorial in Monday’s Archives of Internal Medicine, where the study was published, he writes that it might be thanks to doctors who aggressively treat these older folks’ health problems, rather than taking an “ageist” approach that assumes they wouldn’t benefit.
While few would deny that medical advancements are a wonderful thing, especially for improving the quality of life in our older years, what do you think about this emphasis on aggressively prolonging life to delay our inevitable demises?
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |  |
Share this: |
Schizo
I have known several people who were in their 80’s and 90’s who were ready to go home. While none of them beleived in hastening the end, they weren’t keen on using extreme measures to stay alive.
kyle a post 1,
they have just discovered cancer in my 80+ year old mother and she needs a hip replacement. She has just completed bajor back surgery and kidney stone procedures.
She is agressively pursueing treatment for the cancer and the hip replacement AND every time she has treatment for a condition she bounces back quickly and as energeticaly as ever.
She does not like the pain, but she does appreciate that the procedures allow her to remain self-sufficient and independent and generally pain free.
Incidently, nearly 10 years ago (I am 58 now) I had a doctor who started changing his treatment recommendatons “because I was getting old”.
I changed doctors.
What would we call “extreme measures”?
This topic is in interesting contrast to the significance of beards in Jewish culture in the thread below.
How far do we take this fight against death? Death and sin are the enemy, and I think it’s right that we fight against both. But at the same time, the beard in Hebrew culture signified as a reminder of our mortality. It was in direct contrast to the false idea that the Egyptians had of “eternal youth”. We sin, and we die, and God wants us to be mindful of this in order that we realize our dependence upon him.
We need a proper biblical perspective.
options are a good thing
reg post 4,
but only if the stock price is higher than the exercise price of the options!
I agree that options are good. As in Musing’s mother’s case, it has worked well for her and that is great. If you have an 80 year old who is getting aggressive treatments for whatever the reason and the treatments are doing more damage than they are helping, then it might be time to reconsider.
When Bush is out of office, everyone’s life will automatically be extended by 10 years. And cancer will be cured. And it’ll rain beer.
VS post 6,
you are absolutely correct. At the end of the day it is fundamentally a quality of life issue as viewed by the individual undergoing care.
VS, I agree with you.
I hope nobody thought that I am opposed to life-saving medical treatment. Not at all! My point was simply that it might not be everyone’s choice to utilize medical treatments that will keep them alive but prolong whatever suffering they might be enduring. If some people choose it, in order to eke out a few more years on earth, I would never oppose that choice.
I think what I’m trying to say, more than anything, is that we are not going to find the fountain of youth or the magic elixir of eternal life. It’s normal and natural (at this time in God’s timetable) to die, and I think sometimes it is better to accept that inevitability than to undergo treatments that are worse than the ultimate cure of a peaceful death.
George Burns said that he planned to live to 100 because when you check out the statistics very few people die who are 100 or older.
“And it’ll rain beer.”
I’m writing in Bush for re-election. Everything stinking of beer would drive me nuts.
My sister thought my mom would live to be 100 (I thought she wouldn’t see 80–I was right). Her reason was that she’d seen somewhere that a woman who bears a child after 40 has much greater odds of reaching 100–and Mom had three of us in her forties. (Forget the fact that few on either side of my family reach 80 and only one, a cousin of my mom’s, had ever reached 90, that Mom was obese and sedentary, lived alone, was depressed or angry much of the time, and had had open-heart surgery…)
I wouldn’t want to live to 100, and sure can’t see extreme measures. I do know a man who had a pacemaker installed when he was about 95; he made it to 97. I was a little surprised by the pacemaker, but couldn’t see anything wrong with it. Nor can I see such intervention in natural aging as necessary for an individual. (Some people think that refusal of medical care is euthanasia. My thought is that anything that wasn’t even avaialable 100 years ago can’t be morally mandatory today! Yes, save a life if you can do so easily–but we have no moral mandate to be kept alive for every possible moment by every available means.)
The 80+ year-old-women in my Bible study laughed about the study this morning: “Who would want to live that long?” and “I wouldn’t mind it if I didn’t hurt all the time.”
Quality of life really is the issue. My grandfather happily poked along blind, deaf and with a colonoscopy bag until he was 101. My grandmother died that year (at 92) and he lost his will to live. He made it to one month short of 103–handicapped in a lot of ways, but with his sense of humor and his mind intact.
At my father’s memorial service, I was surprised when my uncle recounted an incident from a few years earlier. My father had already been in the nursing home for quite some time, due to a bone spur next to his spinal cord that caused nerve damage and left him bedridden and unable to do much for himself (it took him an hour to feed himself, because his movements were so clumbsy). He had always been the one helping others, and it was difficult for him to be unable to do anything for anyone else and very little for himself. He stayed in good spirits, but kept getting weaker simply from lack of exercise.
He was in and out of the hospital a number of times, and one time he discovered a DNR bracelet on his arm. He asked what it meant and was told Do Not Resuscitate. He insisted very emphatically that they take it off, that he definitely did not want to die simply because his heart happened to stop. I don’t know if they ever did have to resuscitate him; when he finally died in his sleep no one was even in the room with him. But my uncle saw it as my father wanting to “fight the good fight” even bedridden, mostly helpless, and probably often in pain.
As a mother of minor children, I want to be around for them as they grow up. Last yesterday evening I had been feeling lousy for hours, for no reason I could put my finger on, including feelings of nausea and lightheadedness, resting heart rate of 105, and something that might have been mild heartburn, so I finally decided to go to the ER just in case there was something serious, even though I felt silly when it was probably nothing. But I would feel a lot worse if it were serious and I had ignored it too long. (All they could find was that my blood sugar was somewhat high and my thyroid medicine dosage needed to be raised a little.)
But by the time I’m the age my father was (he was 80 when he died), while I wouldn’t seek to hasten death I would be quite content to wear a DNR bracelet.
I think VS is correct. It depends what state you’re in. While my mother who had Alzheimers still had time she could enjoy with her family, the decision was made to scrape the arteries in her neck to prevent a stroke. I doubt we would have done that once she was within what turned out to be the last months of her life. She might not have survived the surgery. It wouldn’t have changed the downward turn of her life. Years earlier she chose the no heroic measures route. It served her well, especially in the end.
Kyle - I didn’t think you meant that - I understand and agree completely with where you are coming from!
During our years as caregivers for my mother-in-law we learned to be very wary of the “quality of life” debate. Even within the church, people assumed that because she was in pain, she had no quality of life and should just “go home”. But Ps. 117 says that we praise the Lord in the land of the living - AND that the death of the saints is precious to Him. In other words - like Paul said, To Live is Christ, to die is gain. Unfortunately, doctors and even the church are pushing the elderly toward the “to die is gain” part - rather than encouraging the “to live is Christ”.
And that doesn’t even take into account family members who just “can’t” provide care. My MIL was ministering to her very last hours, and we were blessed to see it. But if the medical community and some church leaders would have had their way, she would have lost the last 10 years of life (at least) and all the ministry that entailed.
Thankfully the Health Care Proxy she had established for us helped us see that her wishes were followed - but it was very hard and we literally stayed at the hospital every day with her (taking turns working) to make sure that she wasn’t ignored. So if you have an elderly person who wants to minister to the very end, then be sure to be an advocate for them. Because every other voice they hear will be pushing them hard the other way.
RJEDWAR, great story. I have known people like your mother-in-law, and I admire them greatly. Ultimately it should be up to the individual. A person who has reached age 70 or higher has earned the right to choose aggressive medical intervention or to choose only moderate or even no medical care. Isn’t that the point, in the long run?
Kyle - I think that’s part of the point, the medical side. I think the bigger issue, within the church, is exhortation and encouragement for ministry at all stages of life, actively helping people find ways to minister rather than push them toward the door. Or the cemetery. Churches with active older woman/younger woman and older man/younger man ministries, for example, or churches that do more than pat people on the back when they have to quit teaching Sunday School after 50 years - that actually help them find a place to serve.
A former pastor of mine once said “What if God prepared you for 80 years to be a prayer warrior your last 3?” We need more of that kind of talk - and effort - within the church. For all stages of life, but especially this one, as they just aren’t hearing it.
#5 Musing,’
That only works for calls. You m ight want the price of the stoock to lower than the stike for a put
I decided that I am going to continue to write the Tales of Llamadom until I am 80. Then I am going to find someone to edit them all, not for the feint hearted because I plan on being pretty cranky by 80, and then get it published after I get the illustrations and artwork done of course.
That should take me till I’m 90. Then I’m going to write a play and screenplay for Broadway and the Big Screen based on the Tales. That should get me to 100 when I will retire somewhere wet and warm so I can start on the sequel to the Tales covering the last 20 years. That should take me another 20 years or so.
By 120, I should be able to clone myself as cross between Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Brad Pitt to retire in style an my ancient age to run a multi billion dollar foundation for rich, really good looking, young women of suspect character who have drug problems and need the kind of help I will specialize in
The I might have some more kids.
llama post 20,
you are absolutely right!!!
You’re right, too, about being wary of quality of life decisions made by people not in the family or who don’t know the person. I had a nurse tell me she knew what my father wanted to do, “because he told me.”
Since the man hadn’t spoken to me in 18 months, I doubted he would suddenly start talking to a stranger, so I made sure my name was the first call on the medical health care directives he had signed 12 years before and that the nursing staff knew it.
My non-Christian brothers and I discussed his care endlessly–and I kept asking them, “do you think he’s afraid to die?”
When they said yes, I asked, “then how can we not give him a chance to live?”
It was awful. But looking back, all three of us are glad we made the choices we did.
Once the new ‘universal health care coverage’ is fully implemented, we won’t have to worry about this sort of issue. The inevitable health care rationing will almost certainly target, among others, the aged. There won’t be any aggrssive measures, there won’t be any measures at all.
krm — universal health coverage has resulted in most western nations having a higher life expectancy than America. If you believe universal health coverage will result in rationing and, thus, lower life expectancy, then are you claiming Americans are lousy managers?
I’m thinking of that Pete Townsend line from the song, “My generation”
I hope I die before I get old . . . . .
hrw - Socialized medicine countires are rationing health care (all of them) in one fashion or another.
Actually all countries ‘ration’ - the US simply rations economically rather than through government fiat.
Look at the polcies for elder care in the socialized medince countries. Of course, with Medicare, the US has sort of socialized elder care already.
krm post 27,
but the U.S. is also rationing helath care, we just do it based on financial ability.
And since U.S. health statistics are poorer than virtually every other developed country AND since U.S. health care costs are higher than virtually every other developed country, it would seem that we are both rationing AND being very cost inefficient AND doing a poor job of managing the health of our citizens.
krm post 27,
interestingly enough, it appears that medicare is among the most efficient government run medical funding systems in the world.
Musing - As you should be able to see, I noted that the US’s effective ‘rationing’ is on an economic basis.
I think we will see a lot of unhappy people in teh US when they start to have to wait months for an MRI or x-ray or surgical procedure. Canadians will also be unhappy when the US no longer serves as a safety valve for Canada’s medical system shortcomings.
krm post 30,
so consider this.
Based on your observation about fiscal rationing, we will move from:
1) an situation where people are limited in access to medical procedures BUT those who can afford it get rapid access (not always true for MRIs by the way as I can attest: se below)
to
2) everyone will have reasonably equal access to medical procedures BUT it may take longer to get access
Which is, from an agregate, preferred?
Incidently in my area, if you want an MRI AND it is not an emergency AND you do not personally pay for one of the expedited MRI services (which is not covered by insurance) then you have to wait weeks to months for your MRI.