idea9.jpg

Callout

Search


follow drbillthomas at http://twitter.com

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Category Archives

Monthly Archives

Subscribe to this blog's feed Subscribe to this blog's feed

ElderbloggersRule.gif

Announcements Retirement Living TV


Blog Data

Top Blogs

Add to Technorati Favorites

Politics blogs

Directories Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory

Directory of Politics Blogs

Ageless Project

Bigger Blogger

Blog Directory

Blog Universe

« You've Got Questions? | Main | Boundless Playgrounds »

October 11, 2007 |Permalink |Comments (2)

McArdle Care

Megan McArdle--currently blogging at the Atlantic-- continues to defend a post, which she initially posted at her previous bloggy home.

...as a class, the old and sick have some culpability in their ill health. They didn't eat right or excercise; they smoked; they didn't go to the doctor as often as they ought; they drank to much, or took drugs, or sped, or engaged in dangerous sports. Again, in individual cases this will not be true; but as a class, the old and sick bear some of the responsibility for their own ill health, while younger, healthier people have almost no causal role in the ill-health of others.

Perhaps they deserve it by virtue of suffering? But again, most of them are suffering because they have gotten old, often in high style. The young of today have two possible outcomes:

1) They will be old and sick too, in which case they are no less deserving of our concern than today's old and sick

2) They won't ever get to be old and sick, which is even worse than being old and sick.

As a class, the old and sick are already luckier than the young and healthy. Again, for individuals within that class--those with desperate congenital conditions, for example--this is not the case. But I'm not sure it's terribly compelling to argue that we should massively disadvantage a large group of people in order to massively advantage another, equally large group of people, all to help out the few who are needy, or deserving, or unlucky.

Emphasis added.

Translation: The old and sick are mostly to blame for their oldness and sickness so why should the young and healthy have to carry their burden when they are not to blame?

Left unasked (and unanswered) is the question, "Who helped the youth and healthy grow up young and healthy? Or did they simply spring from the Earth with no help from any other living beings?

Can anyone guess Ms. McArdle's age? Maybe this photo will help. meganmcardle.jpg

Will we still need her? Will we still feed her, when she's 64?


Comments ( 2)

I think sickness and frailty in the elderly is more of a culture than anything else. Lack of education regarding healthy practices is another. Most elderly people started smoking at a time when warnings weren't on the cig packs and nobody knew how bad smoking really was. As an American society, we don't value the elderly. We don't see their worth. We are conditioned to thinking anyone over 65 is probably getting senile. I've gotten some of my best advice from people over 65 who had been there and done that. Also, we start conditioning people on how prone they are to falling when they reach the age of 60! People in this country are afraid to let their parents and grandparents move! In Sweden, it's not unusual to see 80 yr olds riding their bicycles and walking to the grocery store! My Swedish mother-in-law parked her bike when she was 80 because she didn't feel as steady. At 81, she passed away suddenly. But she lived a life without medications IN HER OWN HOME! In the US, we are constantly asking for a medication for everything. The pharmaceutical companies have way too much pull over here! In Sweden, pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to peddle their wares on television. OTC drugs can be advertised, but not RX. That's really the way it should be! It boils down to fixing a systemically sick society. Can it be fixed? On a bad day, I'm not so hopeful. But wouldn't it be good of we could?

Regarding this topic, two articles in the current (December 2007) edition of Discover magazine are worth a look. The first is entitled "Can we cure aging? How to beat the disease of growing old". Despite its title, it is about how the body's imflammation response to infection and disease likely plays a large role in the physical outcomes of and responses to aging. Sure particular/indivudual environmental and genetic differences play a role, but we still have a lot in common with each other. The second article is a round table discussion entitled "The Body Engineers - Hormone researchers seek new life for old brains and bones." This piece discusses some interesting theories about the role of hormones in the aging process. It also contains a number of mature comments about the false hope of current anti-aging therapies and the negative impact such views have on individuals and society -- that being "old" is something to be avoided at all costs rather than respected, valued and embraced for all it has to offer as part of the human experience.

Post a comment




Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)

©2007 Erickson School