3 ms·

>How much of our attitude towards end-of-life is "learned" and result of "we have always done it like that"? Probably most of it, but there might be a underlyi

>How much of our attitude towards end-of-life is "learned" and result of "we have always done it like that"? Probably most of it, but there might be a underlying reason for that information to have passed on for thousands of years, across cultures. Either for practical reasons (like they're a source of the accumulation of information and life experience), or because it's out of fear (let us give the example to younger generations so when it's our turn they won't leave us to die, or just kill us to save resources), or maybe because you have a bond and a moral sense towards elders, or all of these and some more... Even if they serve the sole purpose of introducing us to death, and to remind us of our brief passage and reframe our perceptions and align our selves and our actions towards something with that end in sight, the fact is that elders are seen as a integral part of the family structure. This pandemic actually got me a bit worried for the example set to younger generations, that framed the elders as statistics that just die a lot and stripped a lot of the humanity in this situation - and we're the ones that are going to deal with this when it's our turn, that despite your efforts, contributions and value is completely disregarded just because you're old and old people are just numbers that die a lot. I don't mean to say this as a criticism, but you sound like someone who hasn't been around elders and you might not have much life experience.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
End of life care in the last 5 decades is nothing like the previous thousands of years. I have so far had 2 great grandparents live to 100+, 1 great grandparent to 95+, and 2 grandparents to 95+. All of them did not want medical intervention when their time came. I lived with 2 of the above myself growing up, and one needed dialysis at 93. There was no reason to give them dialysis at that age. It’s brutal for them, the staff, the government spending all this money. Even my grandparent was bewildered at this misplaced priority in society. I also see many families, especially in traditional ones where the children take care of the parents, spend a ton of their resources on the elderly frequently sacrificing resources that could go to their young. My parents did this, and while I understand they didn’t have a better option for various reasons, but I will not spend a ton of time and energy extending my parents’ lives if it causes me to take away from my kids’. And I wouldn’t want it for myself, obviously. For now, I hope when the time comes that I have to rely on someone else for basic bodily functions, I will still have the energy (and willpower) to get on a boat and tie a cinderblock to my ankle and go overboard or something.
- libertine 6y ago
  Well the quality of life improved greatly in the last 50 years, when I was younger people in their 60's and 70's were way older - both mentally and physically. >Every one of them did not want medical intervention when their time came. That's their choice, because they have something to chose from. I'm not saying that we should do everything to keep the age ticker ticking - I'm saying they should have the same rights as everyone else, and they should be free to make their choices. Else, what would be the age threshold that would strip us from rights? Who would decided that?
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    To clarify, I’m specifically talking about very old people who I think should have the option to take or be given a cocktail and go peacefully, rather than continue to live in a painful state that ties up everyone around them. For example, my grandparent that lost their kidneys at 93, they continued to live through dialysis for a couple years, but if they were offered assisted suicide, they would have taken it. They would not have had to suffer through dialysis, the country could have invested those funds elsewhere, and my parents would have been free to do other things. But right now, a 93 year old with kidney failure would not qualify for assisted suicide in most states, maybe not even the ones with assisted suicide. What I also meant was that in decades prior to recent ones, there were no possibilities to extend someone’s life for weeks/months/years with things like dialysis, artificial lungs, etc. So there’s a lot more resources that can be spent on extending someone’s life compared to before. Whether or not society should refuse to treat a 93 year old with dialysis is a question I am not able to address right now.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

End of life care in the last 5 decades is nothing like the previous thousands of years. I have so far had 2 great grandparents live to 100+, 1 great grandparent to 95+, and 2 grandparents to 95+. All of them did not want medical intervention when their time came. I lived with 2 of the above myself growing up, and one needed dialysis at 93. There was no reason to give them dialysis at that age. It’s brutal for them, the staff, the government spending all this money. Even my grandparent was bewildered at this misplaced priority in society. I also see many families, especially in traditional ones where the children take care of the parents, spend a ton of their resources on the elderly frequently sacrificing resources that could go to their young. My parents did this, and while I understand they didn’t have a better option for various reasons, but I will not spend a ton of time and energy extending my parents’ lives if it causes me to take away from my kids’. And I wouldn’t want it for myself, obviously. For now, I hope when the time comes that I have to rely on someone else for basic bodily functions, I will still have the energy (and willpower) to get on a boat and tie a cinderblock to my ankle and go overboard or something.

libertine 6y ago
Well the quality of life improved greatly in the last 50 years, when I was younger people in their 60's and 70's were way older - both mentally and physically. >Every one of them did not want medical intervention when their time came. That's their choice, because they have something to chose from. I'm not saying that we should do everything to keep the age ticker ticking - I'm saying they should have the same rights as everyone else, and they should be free to make their choices. Else, what would be the age threshold that would strip us from rights? Who would decided that?
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  To clarify, I’m specifically talking about very old people who I think should have the option to take or be given a cocktail and go peacefully, rather than continue to live in a painful state that ties up everyone around them. For example, my grandparent that lost their kidneys at 93, they continued to live through dialysis for a couple years, but if they were offered assisted suicide, they would have taken it. They would not have had to suffer through dialysis, the country could have invested those funds elsewhere, and my parents would have been free to do other things. But right now, a 93 year old with kidney failure would not qualify for assisted suicide in most states, maybe not even the ones with assisted suicide. What I also meant was that in decades prior to recent ones, there were no possibilities to extend someone’s life for weeks/months/years with things like dialysis, artificial lungs, etc. So there’s a lot more resources that can be spent on extending someone’s life compared to before. Whether or not society should refuse to treat a 93 year old with dialysis is a question I am not able to address right now.