Saying we shouldn't spend a ton of money treating a 90 year old isn't even close to eugenics. It's just an acceptance of reality: they are going to die very soo

Saying we shouldn't spend a ton of money treating a 90 year old isn't even close to eugenics. It's just an acceptance of reality: they are going to die very soon and all the money in the world won't prevent that, so why spend it? Maybe you'll restart the heart, maybe you'll get their cancer into remission, but then they'll just die of pneumonia in a few months anyway. At least in my country, healthcare is paid for with taxes, so I don't think there's anything wrong with withdrawing the government funding for the more expensive treatments past a certain age. If someone chooses against that and wants to save up over their life to pay for extraordinary interventions in their later life, I have no issue with that, but I don't think it's a sensible thing for society in general to pay for when we are in a funding constrained situation. Socialised medicine already makes funding decisions regarding who gets healthcare, for example in the mental health example, that is really poorly funded relative to the amount of benefit it provides compared to cancer care for the elderly. We actually already do incorporate the concept of "quality adjusted life years" into calculating whether to fund a medication, it's just that decision is only made once, at approval time, using the average impacted patient's age/health. However, that has the even worse side effect of causing very effective treatments for diseases that mostly only affect the extremely elderly to not be approved, meaning the odd 35 year old who gets that disease can't get treated without the paperwork of an individual funding request. That is to say, this choice is already in the hands of other forces - and actually in the UK, it's up to the medical team, not the individual or their family to decide whether to withdraw care, but typically (though not always) they do what the family requests.