Academics Seek to Pathologize the Elderly, Make "Old Age" a Disease

[Bithynian]

Once aging is considered less than innate dignity, euthanasia, neglect, financial denials, etc. are now a step away.

From my perspective, that mode of thinking was implicit in our society long before ageing was pathologised by the medical community.

As one example, the OECD publishes datasets for a variety of metrics concerning its member countries. It’s apparent that many high income, developed economies have appallingly high rates of poverty amongst older persons (those over 65 years of age). South Korea is at #1 with 50% of their older persons population living in relative poverty, Australia (!) is at #2 with 35%. The US isn’t far behind at #4 with 21%.

I do want to reiterate that the purpose of the ICD (and other like systems) isn’t to make a value judgement on the worth of individuals experiencing a given health phenomena.

Rather, the ICD is a massive statistical manual that classifies any and all substantial and legitimate health conditions, diseases and disorders to enable systematic understanding of these phenomena. That patch of dry skin I sometimes get on my right cheek? It’s a disease according to ICD-10 L20. That ridge on my right index finger’s nail? It’s a disease according to ICD-10 L60.4.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I have a very real concern that, as the percentage of elderly people increases in our society — just give it a few more election cycles (probably not this one), demographic changes that will increase the number of “progressive” voters, and the world growing even further away from God than it already is — limited medical resources will be somehow “rationed”, so that the elderly will not get the health care they need, and that various pretexts will be used, to cull and reduce the number of elderly. In a word, euthanasia, passive if possible, active if necessary. The elderly will simply cost too much to keep around. I am not the only person in the world who has this concern.

Be assured that when this comes, if it comes, the opinion leaders of society, the mainstream media, academics, and even liberal religionists (I would hope to heaven that none of these “religionists” would be Catholic), will all sing in unison about how this is good, and merciful, and noble, and “the right thing to do”. Those who oppose it will be painted as intolerant, cruel, “imposing their morality” on society, “behind the times” — is this sounding familiar? There will be a massive “mentality-changing” push, the end goal being to get the elderly themselves to accept their end docilely and to be at peace with it.

Some little radar within me, tells me that there would be a problem with attaching a link to the euthanasia scene with Edward G Robinson from Soylent Green, but if you wish to Google it (“Sol’s Euthanasia”), you will be able to watch it. The film’s plot may be laughable, but there is no denying that this is a powerful, poignant scene. It’s probably not that far removed from what “selective geriatric palliative care” would look like.

 

[Bithynian]

The elderly will simply cost too much to keep around.

I think that problematic thinking exists now (at least in Australia). When I worked as a gerontologist, the primary goal of the geriatric ward was “how do we get these old codgers out of here as soon as possible?”, and “x number of bed days” was reiterated at every clinical conference.

Likewise, we had what was termed “holiday dumpings”: at the start of a holiday season (such as Christmas), many families would unceremoniously dump their elderly relatives on the doorstep of the hospital on some pretext of them being “ill”. This was all nonsense: they simply had no care arrangements for their frail, immobile relative because it was too costly. So they opted to use the hospital as though it were a hotel.

There are many problems with how we treat older persons in our ocmmunities, but I think they have little to do with the WHO’s decision to amend the ICD-11 to incorporate an aetiology for “ageing-related diseases”.

 

[Servant31]

Very interesting. I’m a science “person” on some minor level so I recognize the dilemma tbh. I think the concern is the inferred connotation in the future. I also think your binging up some really good points though. And let’s be honest this is RT we’re talking about.

 

[Servant31]

I feel the same way just for clarification. I think academics and academia can be a great place with a positive influence. I apologize if I came off otherwise.

For me it’s a cultural issue as well, we often reference academics as the only legitimate authority on a given subject.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Very interesting. I’m a science “person” on some minor level so I recognize the dilemma tbh. I think the concern is the inferred connotation in the future. I also think your binging up some really good points though. And let’s be honest this is RT we’re talking about.

What is “RT”? When I think of “RT”, I normally think of a TV news network that often departs from the mainstream Western news media’s point of view, and operates under the aegis of a very large country’s government

I know you were replying to @Bithynian, but as for myself, I am far more of an ethics and morality person, than a science person. The United States is really in the “catbird seat” as far as controlling the demographic makeup of its population (including age demographics), because so many people want to come here, she can select the “cream of the crop” in her judgment, and she is not troubled by questions of race or ethnicity in determining the future makeup of her population. Some countries (such as Japan) choose not to be so welcoming towards a diverse population — ethnic homogeneity is more important than ensuring a modestly increasing population. Their call.

 

[Servant31]

Your speculation sounds about accurate . RT is a government funded television source. It represents one perspective.

RT (TV network) - Wikipedia

 

[Peeps]

The Jan/Feb 2020 issue of Christianity today has a very good (and long)article on decreasing family size in the U.S.

One observation was that when there are only a few children per family, there aren’t enough people available to help care for Mom and Dad, which necessitates hiring caregivers for the simple daily care.

I’m not talking about medical care here–just tasks like making/serving a nutritious meal, bathing, housecleaning, making sure that Mom and Dad move as much as they can, and above all, providing loving company.

Even this non-medical care is expensive (around $20/hour where we live, which would be $80/day for just four hours a day, or $560 week (7 days).

Even if Mom and Dad have saved/invested money enough to pay for caregivers, once they have gotten past a certain point (onset of dementia, hearing loss, vision loss, mobility loss), they don’t know how to get at their investment, and the kids don’t know the names of their lawyers, financial managers, etc. This isn’t the kind of thing that parents talk about with their children when everyone is young and hale and hardy. Too bad, because there could be lots of money (or maybe no money) set aside for elder care, but the kids can’t get it.

And how many middle-aged “kids” can afford to put out $560/week–and that’s only for 4 hours a day!

Many 60-somethings are making a last-ditch effort to get their retirement in order, pay off mortgage, pay off debts, and take care of various health issues that have piled up over their working years (e.g., joint replacements, losing weight.) Taking care of Mom and Dad adds almost another full-time job, between cooking meals, doing the housecleaning, taking Mom and Dad to doctor appointments (and waiting around,because when one or both parent has dementia, you can’t just leave them there alone), and trying to provide a little fun and family time by talking, taking them on drives, etc.

Again, one of the issues is small families. When there are only a few children, it’s unlikely that one of them will be able to quit their job in their early 60s and start caring for Mom and Dad at home. But if there were many children, it’s likely that at least one of them would be in a position to help Mom and Dad. OR…with many children, it’s possibly that the burden of care could be spread out among a few of the children who have a little more freedom of hours.

As you can probably tell, my husband and I are going through this, and it’s awful. My husband suffers the most because he remembers a Dad and Mom who were strong, self-reliant, healthy. Now they are like little toddlers, only they don’t bounce when they fall down.

 

[Peeps]

One other issue to think about is age discrimination in the workplace.

At this time in the U.S., it is against the law to discriminate against hiring someone older if they have the qualifications for the job. Also, a person cannot be let go simply because of their age.

But if old age is a “pathological condition,” then it might be possible to not hire an older person, or to let them go when they get older.

And when exactly is someone “elderly,” and therefore pathogenic? I’m 62, and I don’t feel that I am old, although I’m definitely up there compared to the 20-somethings at work. I’m certainly not as tech-savvy as they are and I still get my news from a newspaper, not from an online source. The main thing is that I am still very capable of doing the job! So when do I go from being older to being pathogenic, and then lose my job?

I don’t think there is legal protection against job discrimination due to a pathological condition. I don’t think a company is obligated to hire or retain someone who is suffering from a physical or mental disease.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Your speculation sounds about accurate . RT is a government funded television source. It represents one perspective.

Oh, okay. I’m an idiot. I didn’t see the source of the story. I thought “RT” was some kind of medical abbreviation unknown to the general public, such as “PT” for patient, “PRN” for nurses who work temp, and so on.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Specifically how is opposition to considering the pathologizing old age “anti-Western propaganda?”

Well, RT in general is a propaganda tool for Putin. No one really denies that. Even so, in this article there is still a dig at “Western society”. It’s really kind of a baseless dig, but it effectively pulls on the emotions. Typical stuff.

In contrast, contemporary Western society rarely associates old age with any positive attributes. At best, the elderly are dismissed as out of date and irrelevant people, whose archaic views ought to be ignored. At worst, the elderly are demonised and scapegoated for robbing the young of their future and condemned for being responsible for the environmental crisis facing the world.

Am I under some patriotic obligation to disagree with this op/ed?

Of course not, that wouldn’t be in keeping with our American ideals. But you should know what RT is, and who it’s boss is.

 

[Servant31]

Yeah I think it’s important to consider sources. Also would recommend no one calls anyone, including themselves, an idiot . Who cant know everything, your subconscious might be listening.

Edit: can’t

 

[blackforest]

Where I don’t share your Russophobia, I’ll be looking at arguments on their individual merits.

In contrast, contemporary Western society rarely associates old age with any positive attributes.

You actually disagree with this? Do you think we have a healthy and accepting attitude toward aging?

I think our culture is terrified of aging. It’s reflected in prejudices, (“OK, boomer”), advertising, (“anti-aging” products), medicine, and the way we store our elderly, out of sight and out of mind, in what John Taylor Gatto called Old People Reservations.

 

[blackforest]

demographic changes that will increase the number of “progressive” voters, and the world growing even further away from God than it already is

Oh for heaven’s sake. Must we politicize everything? I was hoping for once to have a thread that united Catholics - as indeed we are on the pro-life issue of how to treat our elderly. But your assertion is divisive.

It is not a sin to be a political progressive. I am proudly one - but that’s irrelevant to this thread - and it is not a sin to identify as such. The world isn’t such a black-and-white place that all progressives believe in killing unborn babies and aging grandparents.

Forgive my crabby mood, but I’m growing weary of these political jabs.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I’ll be looking at arguments on their individual merits rather than personal prejudices.

Well, the op-ed didn’t have any merit. I tried pointing that out, but you seem to actually have bought into its emotional blather about bad westerners who mistreat old people.

If that’s your idea of “individual merit” then have at it. But I always look at the source, not just the content. The source is a good indicator of agenda, bias, and so on.

You actually disagree with this? Do you think we have a healthy and accepting attitude toward aging?

In the context of the WHO and it’s motives, yes I disagree with it. It’s written in a generic formula, a cliche, almost like the rant of a disgruntled teenager. There’s no substance to it at all. Don’t you want something besides polemics from an op-ed on the WHO’s interests in their classification of aging?

I think our culture is terrified of aging. It’s reflected in prejudices, (“OK, boomer”), advertising, (“anti-aging” products), medicine, and the way we store our elderly, out of sight and out of mind, in what John Taylor Gatto called Old People Reservations.

 

[blackforest]

Well, the op-ed didn’t have any merit. I tried pointing that out, but you seem to actually have bought into its emotional blather about bad westerners who mistreat old people.

Yea, I do have this crazy emotional thing about treating the elderly with basic human rights. So does our Church, so I’m in good company.

In the context of the WHO and it’s motives, yes I disagree with it. It’s written in a generic formula, a cliche, almost like the rant of a disgruntled teenager. There’s no substance to it at all. Don’t you want something besides polemics from an op-ed on the WHO’s interests in their classification of aging?

Sure. Can you provide a substantive rebuttal?

Besides an eyeroll emoticon, that is . . .

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Can you provide a substantive rebuttal?

Maybe you can get one from someone who takes RT seriously. But there was nothing in that piece to rebut.

If this is a issue close to your heart then I’m sure you’ll find out more about it.

 

[blackforest]

Sure. Can you provide a substantive rebuttal?

So . . . no, then. Noted.

But if old age is a “pathological condition,” then it might be possible to not hire an older person, or to let them go when they get older.

This is an excellent point. My husband’s beard is gray, and I’m encouraging him to shave it if he needs to interview for a new job. These days, discrimination is done in a way that makes it hard to prove.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Yeah I think it’s important to consider sources. Also would recommend no one calls anyone, including themselves, an idiot . Who cant know everything, your subconscious might be listening.

Edit: can’t

I have enough confidence in my relative intelligence, and I try to cultivate the ability to laugh at myself, that I do not think I am doing any harm, to poke fun and call myself an idiot from time to time. It’s all in good fun. I know that I am quite far from being an idiot. But nobody can know everything and never make mistakes.

Nothing is quite so pathetic, as seeing someone of limited intelligence feel threatened, and grow testy and defensive, when they are proven wrong about something. For some reason, I’ve seen a disproportionate amount of this in my life. Probably just the people I happened to be around.

 

[on_the_hill]

Forgive my crabby mood, but I’m growing weary of these political jabs.

Maybe it’s your age.