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.
Stalin once said, in reference to the famine he caused in the Ukraine, "The death of a single person is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."
That snarky comment being said, I think that this particular study just gave voice to a hard reality that would be faced down in the event of a major epidemic (major, at least as I'd define it, as consisting of deaths in the millions): When there's not enough treatment to go around, the patients need to be triaged.
I *do* think that by discussing this topic, it lets the camel's nose in the tent. If it's acceptable in a major epidemic, what about a "minor" one? What about a "Health Crisis? Diabetes? And so on....
I'm all for planning, but some things just need to be tackled on an ad-hoc basis if they arise.
Personally, having been to school when Lifeboat Ethics was a required course, I can be ruthless on paper but would not want the decision in person.
And I would not judge someone’s fitness by age. A fifteen year old who is morbidly obese and in poor general health may be a much bigger risk than a 70 year old health nut in top condition.
And by the way, it is my esperience that the people doing the pushing aside and trampling are young men wearing iPod Binkies, who will gladly trample young and old, men and women, babies and small children because their Mommies told them they are Special....
It’s triage. At my advanced age, I don’t expect anyone to attempt to save my life at the expense of time and resources that could save a younger more viable person.
It’s just ridiculous to expect anything else in a disaster that creates massive fatalities.
Don’t you think people my age already know we are at the end of our lives?
Carnival!
You know what’s really appalling to me?
Most of those 85 and older SAVED THE WORLD from Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, and to a lesser extent Communism/Socialism (job unfinished, but next on our list, be advised).
And here comes a bunch of young, elite, “intellectual” assclowns writing reports that basically say let those people DIE because they’re not worth saving...assclowns who wouldn’t even BE here had it not been for this greatest generation...THAT generation would have been APPALLED at this idea; as a matter of fact, anyone suggesting that would have been shamed out of existence back when the folks who stormed Tarawa, parachuted into Normandy, stormed Iwo Jima, landed at Inchon, or survived the march from Chosin Reservoir were young.
Really...what a great society we’ve become. We let infants be killed because “hey, it’s my body, and my RIGHT...” and put people in jail when they protest the killing. Thereby murdering two or three entire generations of people. Stalin, Lenin, and Mao would be so proud...
Now, they’re floating the idea that “non-productive members” of society be deprived of medical care, and society does not recoil in horror, just merely nods and contemplates it as feasible... So proud, just...so proud...
And as for 85-yr olds pulling a trigger...EVERY 85 year old I know STILL has a gun and knows how to use it. THEY were/are American men who still understand what it took to make America the greatest country on Earth, and are EXTREMELY dismayed to watch it being dismantled by useless, socialist Eurotrash-wannabees. And I’d venture to say, if called upon again to defend the Republic, they would gladly do so.
Jefferson was right - every once in a while, a Republic needs to sweep out its trash...and I believe that time is once again approaching very quickly.
And as for judging people solely by their ability to breed, what about breeding age AIDS patients, or those with STDs that prevent them from breeding?
And how about high-risk babies in intensive care units, where they will be taking up an unconscionable number of nurses (the percentage of nurses to patients being higher there than in any other part of the hospital)? Should a severely damaged baby take precedence over a seventy year old whose business paid the taxes that built the hospital?
Most likely, care would go to those in the greatest need, but who have the greatest chance of survival. People older than 85 may have the greatest need, but they would be less likely to survive than younger, stronger individuals.
Sad, but there it is.
When 14 people are wheeled into the Emerg at the same time from a brutal traffic accident or mass shooting, and the triage nurse knows she has 5 OR’s to work with and all 14 need immediate surgery, the 14 year old is getting the OR before the 84 year old. When you dont even know who these people are, or their medical histories, the assumption is made that the 14 year old has the better shot at survival. The 84 year old gets shot up with palliatives and everyone hopes they hold on long enough to open up an OR for them.
Welcome to the real world, where children are prioritized over adults, and adults are prioritized over the elderly.
Do I really need to point out that if they are healthy, they don't need lifesaving care?
That's what I think is at the crux of this. Although triage is a part of the article, the discussion seems to me to be a peek into the future of what Socialized Medicine would bring...not saving more lives, but fewer.
Ping!
Bingo.
Really, triage nurses in ERs decide that certain patients will not get treated, period, end of story?
Triage is a legitimate practice, of course, but comparing “belly pain, you go in ahead of the guy with the cut toe even if he is dripping blood on the carpet” is a world away from “no treatment for you, Granny.”
Excellent point.
bump
Good point.
One would like to think that the nefarious "science" of eugenics died out over 60 years ago, with the defeat of Nazi Germany. But when serious (?) people advocate our allocating scarce medical resources on the basis of age, physical condition (i.e. the presence or absence of chronic diseases), and mental condition, it would seem that the Dr. Mengeles of the world are still among us.
I think that if a real pandemic like the 1918 flu hit us, we would have to make these chocies, and Flash’s point about the 1918 flu is quite valid. But Appleby’s mention of lifeboat ethics should give us all pause. The lifeboat and bomb shelter scenarios some of us were fed at school are designed to do what all relativists do to break down the idea of clear and immmutable moral precepts: present a “hard case” that makes them seem unworkable. That’s the camel’s nose under the tent.
Look what the pro-aborts bring out when they are trying to argue their point: What about rape, what about incest, what about a mother who is going to die or be disabled? This is the nature of relativist evil: Put the extreme case in place as an exception, and then move to normalizing it. Keep abortion legal using sympathy for rape victims, and kill a few thousand kids a day who were fathered in consensual sex.
So yes, if I’m a doctor, I can only save one patient and my two patients are a 15 year old and an 85 year old, I’m saving the 15 year old. But let’s be very wary of what the agenda is here.
Have you read about the principals of triage in a disaster?
Scarce medical resources in a disaster are allocated according to who can survive.
As for me, if a pandemic occurred and there were scarce resources, I think they ought to be used on the young. It makes sense.
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.