> TFA: I often get, from the people who want to dismiss me, “You know, my Aunt Nellie, she was clear as a bell at 94, and blah-blah-blah …” But as I said in the

> TFA: I often get, from the people who want to dismiss me, “You know, my Aunt Nellie, she was clear as a bell at 94, and blah-blah-blah …” But as I said in the article, there are outliers. There are not that many people who continue to be active and engaged and actually creative past 75. It’s a very small number. This imaginary argument between the subject of the article and a slightly careless person highlights an aspect of his argument that could be a problem for an ethicist to argue. > TFA: These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life. There is a notion in these statements, which is not "quality of life" unless you define "quality of life" as the degree that the senescent person is contributing to my not-so-senescent life and making it better, and how many such lives are being improved. Enjoying your vast motorcycle collection without costing any tax-payer or mutually-insured any money doesn't seem to be quite good enough for Emanuel. I am not that far from a position of doubting that keeping myself alive from 85 to 86 is worth as much as keeping a little kid with leukemia alive for almost any amount of time. But I think there are aspects of this ethicist's view that make me feel I am smart to not promote my not-fully-formed view as one everyone should have.