<p>The author also SAYS that he won’t get flu shots or use antibiotics after he hits 75. He can do what he wants but this is just stupid. Why die of flu when a cheap shot could prevent it? Two years ago, my mom had several urinary tract infections. They really made her lose her mind, literally. She was talking nonsense in German, yet. But a few courses of IV antibiotics and she is back to her old self. She is currently 97 and sharp as a tack mentally. </p>
<p>I’m finally read the article. It’s true I’ve read colonoscopy is not effective after age 70.
But who really cares. I know I’m declining. Absence of any health issue I’m not too worry too much.
My dad enjoyed his life even after had a stroke. He still loved beer, coffee, and beer food. Refused to eat a lot healthy food. This explains my fondness for junk food.</p>
<p>The refusal to get PSA tests or colonoscopies - I get this. I will not have any more mammos after a certain age. But a refusal to get antibiotics? Those are mainly prescribed for an acute condition! Not a sane decision, IMO.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with Dr. Emanuel, but we should do him the courtesy of accepting that he is sincere in his beliefs. </p>
<p>He is a nut. Sorry.</p>
<p>Refusing medical care based on being age 75 does not make too much sense compared to refusing medical care based on one’s current health status. A healthy 75 year old living independently may have a significantly greater disability-free life expectancy than a 65 year old taking a dozen drugs and needing nursing home services.</p>
<p>Exactly. The number 75 is meaningless - why not 70 or 80? Why not 60, for that matter?</p>
<p>I was watching a TV show from the 1970s, and was looking up the actors. They all looked around the same age, but their ages really varied between 35 and 55. The guy who was balding the most was 35. The guy who acted most like a kid was 55.</p>
<p>As for prolonging life, I cannot in all conscious deal with people who are deathly (LOL) afraid of surgery or really any kind of medical intervention. The way I look at it, before medical science, you died if you broke your femur. You died if you broke your back. Cuts often got infected - it was a great advance to figure out to cut off a gangrenous limb to save someone’s life.</p>
<p>Me, I want to become a cyborg and live as long as possible. But let’s just try this week first.</p>
<p>My grandmother received cancer treatment age 91, because the doctors determined that she had the health of a 75 year old. She lived another 5 years, in her own home, driving her own car, enjoying her great-grandchildren, etc. </p>
<p>My mom, at 77, is still a part-time missionary in Mozambique, living for 3 months a year in a small village reachable only by boat. While she is home this year, she’s supervising the building of her “dream home” up in the mountains of Arkansas. She’s planning on living in this new house for the next 20 years. </p>
<p>In short, the women in my family routinely live healthy, active lives up into their 90s. Why would I place an arbitrary age limit on my life? Surely, I don’t want to live in chronic pain, but I’m going to do everything in my power to avoid that as long as possible. </p>
<p>As a physician, I think it took a lot of courage for him to write this. He’s trying to logic through an argument that is complex and has so many unknowns. He’s taking a stab at it, and I agree with some of what he says. No flu shots or antibiotics seems extreme, but foregoing major procedures is completely understandable. I won’t agree to surgeries and treatment for cancer past a certain age (not sure what that age will be, but probably not past my mid seventies).</p>
<p>And frankly, no one gets a ticket to an easy way out - he could (and probably will based on his healthy lifestyle and parents’ advanced ages) live far beyond 75 in slowly declining health. An interesting discussion, whether you agree with him or not.</p>
<p>I don’t want to put a number on it either. I also don’t want to spend the end of my life bouncing from one doctors appointment to the other. There seems to be some kind of stigma on refusing healthcare that I don’t think should be there. I have seen many people go that one step too far in treatment -the step that may prolong their life but leaves them in pain or bedridden and unhappy. However -when you are in the situation I imagine that it might be hard to determine which step is “that step too far” . I know that I would never want a feeding tube. </p>
<p>I didn’t realize this guy is a public health policy guy. That’s rather disturbing.</p>
<p>^^ Yes, he discussed this exact method of cost containment beginning at age 75 on two panels in 2010 and 2011. This article is just a summary of what he said on those panels, with the exception he makes it a personal story in the article. However, on the panels, it was an economic discussion of the increasing costs after age 75.</p>
<p>My position is that it is no one else’s business, but the families, as to the healthcare their senior-aged loved ones should get. Three of my grandparents lived quite happily into their mid-90s and were sharp as whips up to the day they died. And they all went for yearly checkups and had flu shots etc. right to the end.</p>
<p>EDIT: Most people do not know he is the second most influential architect of the ACA. He is not some random guy talking or some doctor just putting out an idea for discussion.</p>
<p>@Gourmetmom: I agree with this: “No flu shots or antibiotics seems extreme, but foregoing major procedures is completely understandable. I won’t agree to surgeries and treatment for cancer past a certain age (not sure what that age will be, but probably not past my mid seventies).”</p>
<p>I’ve spent more than enough time in hospitals and had too many surgeries already, a few of which created more problems than they solved. Dh and I agree that we’ll seek treatment for conditions such as UTIs, but will draw the line on more invasive healthcare at some point. Both of my parents suffered from dementia; in dad’s case he endured a decade of Alzheimer’s that I prayed daily would end. Had he died from the heart attack he suffered on the golf course, he would have gone out a happy man who’d lived a full life. </p>
<p>We’re doing what we can to make sure that our money can last until we’re 100, but I hope I’m gone long before then.</p>
<p>My husband was diagnosed with one of the more deadly cancers at almost 70. He went through chemo & radiationn and has beaten the odds and is still here. I remember thinking at the time that if I could just get 5 more years with him I’d be happy. Well I’ve had 3 of those 5 & I hope I get more than the remaining 2. The fact that he is doing well and not suffering makes a difference. I’d rather something takes him suddenly than see him go through what people who are not successful in beating esophageal cancer endure. I can’t bear the thought of him suffering that way. </p>
<p>Mum had colon cancer in her mid 80s. She had surgery and they completely got rid of the cancer but it was the start of the downward slope for her. Up till then she had been very healthy and active - she & I went on a cruise together every year. After the surgery she stopped doing anything - didn’t even go grocery shopping anymore (grocery stores in the UK do online ordering and delivery). We can definitely trace the beginning of her decline to the colon cancer even though it was cured. But at that time she had been so healthy, I can’t imagine saying no to some sort of treatment just based on her being 84. Now when she broke her hip at 89, she was much weaker but how do you not treat a broken hip? Having a broken hip is very painful and completely debilitating. However much we might think awe won’t have surgery after some arbitrary age, stuff like broken hips happen and you don’t have a lot of choices. But if there was a downward slope after the colon cancer, it was like falling off a precipice after the hip surgery. She never recovered physically and mentally, it’s like the Mum we knew disappeared. </p>
<p>Emmanuel also ‘justifies’ his position by saying that productive years are over by age 75, using a chart to show when Nobel Prize winners did their research. As if ‘productive’ is the measure of the worth of a life rather than enjoyment of life, love of family, words of wisdom, stories retold. This guy is really rolling down a slippery slope.</p>
<p>While I think that it makes sense to bring some rationality to decisions about health care for elderly people who have poor quality of life and no chance of being restored to a better state, some of the points that EE makes in support of his argument are not persuasive. I don’t think that the fact that most major contributions in science are made before age 50 has anything to do with how long people should live. First, very few people ever make a major contribution in science, or in any other field. Second, I don’t think that losing the ability to make groundbreaking contributions makes a person less valuable. </p>
<p>He’s all about averages and statistics and perceived value to society. And, public policy. It’s scary stuff, really.
He’s 57.</p>
<p>I hate the idea that life is over at some arbitrary age.
People are different. Grandma Moses started painting in her late 70s.</p>
<p>I really doubt we are going to go around suffocating people in their beds, but we shouldn’t be spending so much money to extend someone’s life for three months.
Let’s spend it at the beginning, more prenatal care & well baby checkups.</p>
<p>Colonel Sanders started Kentucky Fried Chicken at age 65. </p>
<p>It’s scary that some in positions of power and the making of public policy think that Emmanuel is some sort of profound thinker.</p>