Posted on 05/06/2008 7:51:17 AM PDT by Sam's Army
Plan for long life, without pandemic NANCY STANCILL Should doctors let people older than 85 die in a flu pandemic?
A Monday news story saying a U.S. task force recommends denying lifesaving care in a pandemic or other disaster to some folks -- including healthy people above 85 -- was unsettling.
They're talking about my mother, soon to be 86. My friend Karen's father, who is 92. Another friend's grandmother, 102.
These people live life joyfully, with their minds and hearts intact. My mother relishes foreign travel. Karen's father loves bird watching. The 102-year-old grandmother plays a mean hand of bridge.
Financial planners, who routinely urge clients to base their planning on living to 95 or more, were aghast when I told them the news.
"I hope that none of my clients ever have people who want to make that decision for them," said Paul Boggs, a certified financial planner with R.P. Boggs and Co. in Lake Wylie, S.C. "That doesn't sit easy with me."
He said he has clients who are active in their 90s, including a few who still work daily at their companies.
Diane Davis, a certified financial planner in Charlotte, said she is amazed at such a recommendation, given that medical advances are increasing longevity all the time.
"A lot of us baby boomers would have an issue with that," she said.
It seems counterintuitive that the task force, influential physicians from universities, medical groups and government, would recommend letting people over 85 die in a flu pandemic.
The proposed guidelines are designed to be a blueprint "so that everybody will be thinking in the same way" in a disaster, Asha Devereaux, a critical care physician from San Diego and lead writer of the report, told the Associated Press.
Task force members said the idea is to allocate scarce resources, such as ventilators, medicine and doctors and nurses, in a uniform way. In addition to those over 85, the guidelines would cut out people with severe chronic disease and mental impairment.
Eighty-five doesn't seem so old anymore, especially when today's young folks have a heightened chance of living to 100.
The United States has about 54,000 centenarians, a number that has risen steadily over the last decade. One longevity expert predicts as many as 840,000 centenarians in 2050.
Cindy Anderson, a certified financial planner with Anderson Financial Planning in Charlotte, said she uses the age of 99 when mapping out strategies for folks in their 50s and 60s.
"My software won't go any higher," she said. "I have clients whose parents are dying in their 90s. I'd rather the clients die with money than without."
That got me thinking about money. If you have enough of it, it's an antidote to the loss of power people often experience in old age. And that got me thinking about saving.
So what's the trick to making money last into your 90s or beyond?
Don't withdraw more than 4 percent yearly from your savings after you retire, all three planners said.
"If you start hitting your principal early, that's a tough situation," said Boggs.
Other advice:
• Buy good supplemental health insurance. Don't rely solely on Medicare as you age.
• Get a financial checkup each year after you retire, so you can apply the brakes if you're spending too much of your nest egg.
• If you can afford it, buy long-term care insurance in your 40s or 50s. You may never need it, but if you do, you'll have the resources to avoid poor-quality care.
• Plan for inflation in some areas, such as utilities, taxes and food. But planners also note that some expenses, such as travel and entertainment, may decline in your 90s.
"As clients get older, they spend money in different ways," said Anderson. "They often stop spending a lot of money on shopping and the symphony."
Nancy Stancill's On the Money appears in the Observer Sundays and Tuesdays. Reach her at 704-358-5066 or at nstancill@charlotteObserver.com
ON THE MONEY
Disaster care report A task force charged with looking at health care in a flu pandemic or other disaster says lifesaving care may need to be rationed.
The task force's recommendations for who would not get treatment include:
• People older than 85.
• Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.
• Severely burned patients older than 60.
• Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease.
• Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.
SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE! It's made from people....
This is called ‘Triage’. Look it up sometime, because the triage nurse in every Emerg in America makes these decisions on a daily basis.
Exactly. And demand to be first for food and transportation. They are SENIORS afterall.
Anyone here who is complaining about letting the seniors go, I personally think that in a pandemic, it should be non-breeders. Period. If you can't produce a child, and resources get scarce, you don't get treated.
I'm saying this as a woman without a uterus. I would rather die than let the human race be without the means to thrive. All I ask is something to make my passing easy.
Think about it.
I remember that movie. But with abortion being at any stage now and one of the Presidential candidates voting against the baby born alive act,it is not surprising that the old and sick people are next. But I think enough heroic people would choose to die so others could live. Parents especially would be the first to choose death for their children.
The article is bogus because the premise is flawed.
Asking whether “Should doctors let people over 85 die in a pandemic” misstates reality. It attributes powers to doctors that doctors do not have. It is a little like saying “Should President Bush let another hurricane hit New Orleans?”
Doctors can cure SOME people of SOME diseases. Doctors DO NOT hold the power of life or death over everyone.
In a pandemic, many people over 85 are going to die, and not because doctors “let them die”, but because the disease is going to kill them. Generally speaking, doctors have no “magic pill”, or “miracle power” to avoid that result. What Doctors do have are limited powers to save SOME people. Those powers should be used where they are likely to do some good. It benefits no one if the doctors apply those limited resources in a futile effort to save people who are going to die no matter what the doctor does, while people who could be aided by the doctors’ attentions die for want of that attention.
Distributing resources evenly among victims, with no consideration given to the likelihood of success makes no more sense than the rationale that when we screen passsengers at airports, we must distrubute the resources equally to inspect young Muslim men and little Jewish grandmothers.
In the flu epidemic of 1918, army doctors, who were for the most part dealing with young, fit, otherwise healthy men — so the question of elderly, mentally ill, etc., did not come up — divided those who had the flu into three categories — those who were surely going to pull through, those who were surely going to die, and those who might go either way. The doctors concentrated on the third group, and ignored the other two. I find no moral argument why those limited resources should be allocated differently.
There is no sanctuary!
There is no sanctuary!
I think Jenny Agutter really did go on Carousel, or at least her career did.
The issue is, how many can we keep alive.
Everybody else dies on their own. It's not a question of "letting".
“Should we let people older than 85 die in a pandemic?”
Well, that, or a Pinto.
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
Thank you. I learned a new word today.
It is now legal to do away with the merely inconvenient.
Baby Boomers are on the edge of reaping a terrible harvest as their children turn on them like wolves.
"Dad would not have wanted to live this way.......besides I need that new BMW"
In a pandemic, there will be more in need of health care (increased demand) and a fixed or decreased supply of health care to be provided. Clearly, some sort of rationing must be decided by someone.
In a socialized healthcare system, where care is perceived as “free”, demand is also not limited by anything like prices. Supply of healthcare will also be reduced because the governing body will seek to “reduce costs” by limiting price (what the providers are compensated).
In a socialist healthcare system, like a pandemic, the same conditions of supply and demand exist, requiring rationing, withholding of care, and people dying as a result.
Hey, Triage this: You’re dumb.
When the heck did nurses decide that once someone reached a certain age limit that they should be withheld care? You stupid, addle brained, jackass.
Triage nurses decide who can wait an hour or six and not go downhill but they’re not deciding to withhold treatment from 86 y.o. patients with memory impairment, shortness of breath and chest pain - they move to the front of the line in today’s non-disaster conditions. Which is not to say the nurse doesn’t make inquiries about DNRs - but DNR does not mean “do not treat.”
I think medical decisions need to be made on a case by case basis. It should not be a one size fits all deal.
There are legitimate reasons to not provide extraordinary care in some cases. But to say all persons over 85 fall into that category is wrong.
Where in Florida do you live?
It’s an apt and simple decision to make in a worst case scenario.
Do you REALLY treat someone that you know full well is going to die today if that means someone else doesn’t get the treatment? Very simple triage that sucks to hear about but is necessary..........in a worse case scenario.
But on the Titanic post menopausal enen elderly women were put on boats ahead of breeding age males.
Carolyn
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.