Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Plan for long life, without pandemic (Should we let people older than 85 die in a pandemic?)
The Charlotte Observer ^ | Tue, May. 06, 2008 | NANCY STANCILL

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bioethics; elderly; eugenics; euthanasia; genx; health; longevity; moralabsolutes; pandemic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-109 next last
To: Sam's Army
Why not just euthanize people once they hit 85? It’s gotta be good for the environment to boot...

SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE! It's made from people....

21 posted on 05/06/2008 8:10:55 AM PDT by SwankyC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army

This is called ‘Triage’. Look it up sometime, because the triage nurse in every Emerg in America makes these decisions on a daily basis.


22 posted on 05/06/2008 8:11:03 AM PDT by skipper18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: perez24
>>You know a different set of 85 year olds than I do. Most of the ones I know would shove the babies out of the line to get their shots.<<

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.

23 posted on 05/06/2008 8:13:15 AM PDT by netmilsmom (I am very mad at Disney. Give me my James Marsden song!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

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.


24 posted on 05/06/2008 8:14:13 AM PDT by red irish (Gods Children in the womb are to be loved too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army

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.


25 posted on 05/06/2008 8:16:04 AM PDT by Flash Bazbeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
There is no sanctuary!

There is no sanctuary!

There is no sanctuary!

I think Jenny Agutter really did go on Carousel, or at least her career did.

26 posted on 05/06/2008 8:17:07 AM PDT by Clemenza (I Live in New Jersey for the Same Reason People Slow Down to Look at Car Crashes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army
Believe me, in a number of theses scenarios, there's no issue with "letting" people die.

The issue is, how many can we keep alive.

Everybody else dies on their own. It's not a question of "letting".

27 posted on 05/06/2008 8:17:33 AM PDT by Jim Noble (ride 'em like you stole 'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army

“Should we let people older than 85 die in a pandemic?”

Well, that, or a Pinto.


28 posted on 05/06/2008 8:19:35 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (I reserve the right to misinterpret the comments of any and all pesters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: qam1; ItsOurTimeNow; PresbyRev; Fraulein; StoneColdGOP; Clemenza; m18436572; InShanghai; xrp; ...
Xer Ping

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.

29 posted on 05/06/2008 8:19:41 AM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skipper18

Thank you. I learned a new word today.


30 posted on 05/06/2008 8:26:20 AM PDT by A_Former_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Soilent Green are People!!!
31 posted on 05/06/2008 8:28:00 AM PDT by discipler (McCain is irksome. Obama and Hillary are Commies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army
The death of Terri Schiavo opened the door for this.

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"

32 posted on 05/06/2008 8:30:52 AM PDT by Jimmy Valentine (DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pyx

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.


33 posted on 05/06/2008 8:31:35 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: skipper18

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.


34 posted on 05/06/2008 8:32:40 AM PDT by discipler (McCain is irksome. Obama and Hillary are Commies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: skipper18

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.”


35 posted on 05/06/2008 8:32:59 AM PDT by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army

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.


36 posted on 05/06/2008 8:41:18 AM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: perez24

Where in Florida do you live?


37 posted on 05/06/2008 8:42:44 AM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army

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.


38 posted on 05/06/2008 8:42:50 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment...cut in half during the Clinton years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ccmay; Sam's Army
Yes. Let them die. In a real pandemic, life becomes the Titanic write large. There is no sense in allowing a child or young mother to die so that grandma can have a few more pinochle games in the nursing home.

But on the Titanic post menopausal enen elderly women were put on boats ahead of breeding age males.

39 posted on 05/06/2008 8:44:44 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dawn53
I understand the logic. However, it looks like one more step on the road to euthanizing the non-producers in society.

Carolyn

40 posted on 05/06/2008 8:50:07 AM PDT by CDHart ("It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b@#$%^&s."--Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-109 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson