Vocal Voices

A report by Prof Sir Michael Marmot, his second since 2011, show that life expectancy growth has stalled over the past decade - for the first time in 100 years. It declined in the poorest areas while rising in the richest. The figures are in line with cuts in the poorest areas being greater than those in London and the S.E. the richer areas.

I am a bit torn with this.

Do we really need to be living longer and longer? Are there any real benefits for us as individuals or as a society or is it a case of some of us being able to live longer simply because the system allows us to?

When I look at some of the dumps up and down the land I am betting that many of those who are old and infirm would find it a blessing to go to sleep one night and never wake up.

Life expectancy has been declining across Europe also.
Do we really nee to be living longer and longer? Good question. It is one that you consider when you have to start looking after elderly relatives, as so many people are having to do now.
It does seem bizarre that on the one hand this, that and the other is being banned because it is linked to an "estimated" number of deaths, yet in the next breath the media is talking about the social care crisis. MrsC's uncle Jud is about 88 and mentally is getting worse. Half the time he doesn't seem to know if he's on this earth or Fuller's earth. He's fallen four times recently and the other night slept in his clothes. This deterioration has been quite quick. He doesn't have a lot of quality of life besides drinking Foster's lager and Bell's whisky, and that's before being bitten by the dog. Then there's her dad, who has also had more falls than the Grand National recently.
When I go I'd like it to be in my sleep or like my dad, just drop dead on the spot.
The prospect of being stuck in one of those grim homes doesn't appeal.

I would take quality of life over quantity any day. My dad was fit as a fiddle until 6 months before he died. Ok, so lung cancer at 71 is not brilliant, but how Mum died (sat in her chair and going out like a light) again, aged 71, is a darn sight better than how D's friend's mum went recently - 93, bedbound, incontinent, demented I know which I would prefer

I have my instructions from Mrs S. Dignitas the moment she looses it and is never coming back.

Personally I think she'll outlive me but she has said her piece.

Her father went very quietly in a hospital bed as he blew out an artery. Her mother collapsed in on herself with steroid driven osteoporosis. Until she finally died in hospital of overwhelming sepsis.

Her father died at 87 and her mother at 83.

My parents are both OK given my father has had two heart attacks but my mother seems to be hell bent on killing herself somehow... Durable though.

Tougher than the current generation anyway.

Kaz wrote:I would take quality of life over quantity any day.

Yes, I'd certainly agree with that sentiment. My D died suddenly (2nd heart attack) in his mid seventies, but my M lasted until well in her 80's. The final few weeks were in a grim ward at the run-down Selly Oak Hospital (now closed, I believe) and mentally she had lost it. It wasn't very pleasant.

As I get older, I do think increasingly there is a case for dignified, assisted suicide.

You're lucky to still have both parents Suff, tough genes clearly!

Ossie, I think I remember that time, were we both on DD then? (((x))) xxx

I know Kaz. If it were not for modern cardiology I would have lost my father when he hit 76. I am very grateful.

My mother? Tough as old boots, just like her mother.