4 ms·

A reminder that, although medical advances can extend life and some are predicting that the average lifespan will soon be into the 100's, it's fair to ask "why?

A reminder that, although medical advances can extend life and some are predicting that the average lifespan will soon be into the 100's, it's fair to ask "why?" If we are in a vegetative state, have dementia, Alzheimer's, and other diseases of old age... it might be better off to let someone peacefully die.

thetylerhayes 14y ago
Because we're going to cure those things at the same time. We're already seeing many advancements in earlier detection as well as reduction in symptoms for the issues you mention, if not improved prevention.
- unreal37 14y ago
  I can see both sides. But watching someone spend 10 years with almost no quality of life while science slowly makes advances in those areas does not really help that particular family.
- jtheory 14y ago
  Early detection and prevention are both useless for someone who is already suffering from significantly degraded brain function -- they'd have to hang around long enough that the damage could be repaired. With the brain in particular... some kinds of damage cannot be fixed, no matter what advances we have in medicine, until there's a backup of the data available.
rwallace 14y ago
At the moment, a large and increasing percentage of total medical expenditure goes on prolonging the time over which people are tortured to death. We need to switch resources away from such negative value expenditure towards research programs like SENS that are aimed at slowing or partly reversing the effects of aging, which would prolong healthspan, not just nominal lifespan. Or put another way, we need to consider the classic story about the man who wished for eternal life but should also have remembered to wish for eternal youth.
- saalweachter 14y ago
  I think to some extent the problem is that it's very easy -- to a first approximation -- to keep the body running. Keep the blood flowing, keep it oxygenated, keep it clean. It may be expensive, but it's easy to work out. Quality of life is all in the nerves. Avoiding dementia, Alzheimer's, paralysis, blindness, deafness, ... It's much harder.
- unreal37 14y ago
  Its a tough moral problem. Does the government and private insurance stop paying for heart transplants and life-prolonging procedures after the age of 75? I wonder what percentage of medicare/insurance payments goes towards prolonging life into the 80s and 90s? I can't imagine being a doctor and having to make that decision, or break the news to a family that they're not allowed to save a life due to old age of the patient...
  - gehar 14y ago
    Age cutoffs were not mentioned in parent post. It doesn't matter who pays, the question still exists. Where to spend finite resources?
- gehar 14y ago
  "QALY": Quality-Adjusted Life Year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year "Under certain methods, such as the EQ-5D, QALY can be negative number."

thetylerhayes 14y ago

Because we're going to cure those things at the same time. We're already seeing many advancements in earlier detection as well as reduction in symptoms for the issues you mention, if not improved prevention.

unreal37 14y ago
I can see both sides. But watching someone spend 10 years with almost no quality of life while science slowly makes advances in those areas does not really help that particular family.
jtheory 14y ago
Early detection and prevention are both useless for someone who is already suffering from significantly degraded brain function -- they'd have to hang around long enough that the damage could be repaired. With the brain in particular... some kinds of damage cannot be fixed, no matter what advances we have in medicine, until there's a backup of the data available.

rwallace 14y ago

At the moment, a large and increasing percentage of total medical expenditure goes on prolonging the time over which people are tortured to death. We need to switch resources away from such negative value expenditure towards research programs like SENS that are aimed at slowing or partly reversing the effects of aging, which would prolong healthspan, not just nominal lifespan. Or put another way, we need to consider the classic story about the man who wished for eternal life but should also have remembered to wish for eternal youth.

saalweachter 14y ago
I think to some extent the problem is that it's very easy -- to a first approximation -- to keep the body running. Keep the blood flowing, keep it oxygenated, keep it clean. It may be expensive, but it's easy to work out. Quality of life is all in the nerves. Avoiding dementia, Alzheimer's, paralysis, blindness, deafness, ... It's much harder.
unreal37 14y ago
Its a tough moral problem. Does the government and private insurance stop paying for heart transplants and life-prolonging procedures after the age of 75? I wonder what percentage of medicare/insurance payments goes towards prolonging life into the 80s and 90s? I can't imagine being a doctor and having to make that decision, or break the news to a family that they're not allowed to save a life due to old age of the patient...
- gehar 14y ago
  Age cutoffs were not mentioned in parent post. It doesn't matter who pays, the question still exists. Where to spend finite resources?
gehar 14y ago
"QALY": Quality-Adjusted Life Year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year "Under certain methods, such as the EQ-5D, QALY can be negative number."