5 ms·

How is a minimum age not ageism? > There are great advantages to age, and people age differently. The problem is the health of elected officials can't be trus

by pfranz 3y ago

How is a minimum age not ageism? > There are great advantages to age, and people age differently. The problem is the health of elected officials can't be trusted--their medical staff explicitly mislead or omit issues. "A pharmacist says he has filled Alzheimer's prescriptions for members of Congress" A single news article from a handful of years ago (and a huge ethical breach) is often brought up because there's a problem. That's the only reason anyone is interested in finding another proxy.

webnrrd2k 3y ago
It's a tough problem, because doctors are supposed to be strictly concerned with their patient's health. So someone would have to set up and administer some sort of medical police force. I read today that John F. Kennedy was riddled with health problems. He was young, and was considered a good president. How would this new medical enforcement work in His case? https://www.google.com/m?q=john+f+kennedy+health&client=ms-opera-mobile&channel=new&espv=1 https://www.google.com/m?q=john+f+kennedy+health&client=ms-o...
malloryerik 3y ago
> How is a minimum age not ageism? Well you can't very well have four-year-olds voting, correct? It's unfortunate because they have a stake in election outcomes, but they can't understand that stake. I wish they could vote but indeed they don't even understand what an election is. Instead eighteen is the age that's been chosen for voting, so that one might have time to develop enough of an understanding of the world, the country, the issues, and oneself to make a responsible decision. Is that the right age? One might even have a smidge of wisdom by eighteen. How about sixteen? Then for office, the Constitution has minimum ages, yes. I'd rather see those removed than an upper limit installed. Especially in this time when people are living longer and longevity science is making great early strides. My grandmother lived to be 104. She was extremely sharp until about 100. She had a great length of experience upon which to draw, and she did. She'd had time to witness the arc of history, to confront her own mistakes and prejudices and to view questions from several perspectives. She'd developed wisdom. Now, if we're to talk about the health of elected officials, it's obviously true the the old are more prone to issues. Until the fountain of youth is invented we all die. But it's not because "medical staff mislead or omit issues" that it's kosher to start stripping people of their rights. Enforcing transparency around relevant health issues would be the way, rather than using hearsay ("A pharmacist says he has filled Alzheimer's prescriptions for members of Congress") to discriminate against entire groups of people.

by pfranz 3y ago

webnrrd2k 3y ago

It's a tough problem, because doctors are supposed to be strictly concerned with their patient's health. So someone would have to set up and administer some sort of medical police force. I read today that John F. Kennedy was riddled with health problems. He was young, and was considered a good president. How would this new medical enforcement work in His case? https://www.google.com/m?q=john+f+kennedy+health&client=ms-opera-mobile&channel=new&espv=1 https://www.google.com/m?q=john+f+kennedy+health&client=ms-o...

malloryerik 3y ago

> How is a minimum age not ageism? Well you can't very well have four-year-olds voting, correct? It's unfortunate because they have a stake in election outcomes, but they can't understand that stake. I wish they could vote but indeed they don't even understand what an election is. Instead eighteen is the age that's been chosen for voting, so that one might have time to develop enough of an understanding of the world, the country, the issues, and oneself to make a responsible decision. Is that the right age? One might even have a smidge of wisdom by eighteen. How about sixteen? Then for office, the Constitution has minimum ages, yes. I'd rather see those removed than an upper limit installed. Especially in this time when people are living longer and longevity science is making great early strides. My grandmother lived to be 104. She was extremely sharp until about 100. She had a great length of experience upon which to draw, and she did. She'd had time to witness the arc of history, to confront her own mistakes and prejudices and to view questions from several perspectives. She'd developed wisdom. Now, if we're to talk about the health of elected officials, it's obviously true the the old are more prone to issues. Until the fountain of youth is invented we all die. But it's not because "medical staff mislead or omit issues" that it's kosher to start stripping people of their rights. Enforcing transparency around relevant health issues would be the way, rather than using hearsay ("A pharmacist says he has filled Alzheimer's prescriptions for members of Congress") to discriminate against entire groups of people.