Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am just curious to get everyone's thoughts on a touchy subject I suppose. When do we learn to let go with out elderly?
I work at a heart monitoring company and I walk them through how to use it and get everything set up and activated, etc. There are so many people, that IMO, whom do not need to be on this. It's just, there's sooooo much Medicare being wasted on pickling these people to live another day.
There are times I call someone..and they are 95..and living in a nursing home. What's the point? Why does it matter to "have this person live a little bit longer?"..when there are people whom DO have more time and deserve it more.
I've had someone who was 99 and was on the monitor to determine if they needed a ****in pacemaker!! What's the POINT?!!
Here are my thoughts: It's not so much about age. It's about..their overall health. There are times I speak with someone who is like 94 and they are alive and kicking it! They are with it. They are ALL there. They are capable of helping themselves... so shouldn't money be spent more on THOSE people who may have another 10 years left rather than letting someone live for another year---even though they are practically in a coma 24/7?!
I know exactly what you mean. I suppose the reason is to treat each human being the same so there doesn't become a slippery slope of judging who is worthy and who is not.
Sometimes we need to learn to let go but again the above is likely the reason we cannot.
I am just curious to get everyone's thoughts on a touchy subject I suppose. When do we learn to let go with out elderly?
I work at a heart monitoring company and I walk them through how to use it and get everything set up and activated, etc. There are so many people, that IMO, whom do not need to be on this. It's just, there's sooooo much Medicare being wasted on pickling these people to live another day.
There are times I call someone..and they are 95..and living in a nursing home. What's the point? Why does it matter to "have this person live a little bit longer?"..when there are people whom DO have more time and deserve it more.
I've had someone who was 99 and was on the monitor to determine if they needed a ****in pacemaker!! What's the POINT?!!
Here are my thoughts: It's not so much about age. It's about..their overall health. There are times I speak with someone who is like 94 and they are alive and kicking it! They are with it. They are ALL there. They are capable of helping themselves... so shouldn't money be spent more on THOSE people who may have another 10 years left rather than letting someone live for another year---even though they are practically in a coma 24/7?!
Well, I am soooooo glad you asked. The difference lies in if someone is practically in a coma or IN a coma.
Ooooh, and something else came to mind. If all of these people didn't need pacemakers........would you like still have a job?
Ok, now for real.
Honestly, I think that people need to die with dignity. The individual that goes into a nursing home has to have less then 2,000 dollars in property to get government aid. Many times, the decisions are not made by the individuals themselves. They are made by others that reap the profits. Could that be your company? If so, then I hope that we is you and a mouse in your pocket. This is vastly different then letting go. Letting go implies giving a damn, when we don't.
"Pickling" seniors? It seems more like they are being "harvested."
Many seniors have worked their entire lives to build up savings. They are flush with cash and fat insurance policies. Then they get sick. More money is spent on health care in their final few years than in all the rest of their life leading up to that time. The health care industry is harvesting them.
I am just curious to get everyone's thoughts on a touchy subject I suppose. When do we learn to let go with out elderly?
I work at a heart monitoring company and I walk them through how to use it and get everything set up and activated, etc. There are so many people, that IMO, whom do not need to be on this. It's just, there's sooooo much Medicare being wasted on pickling these people to live another day.
There are times I call someone..and they are 95..and living in a nursing home. What's the point? Why does it matter to "have this person live a little bit longer?"..when there are people whom DO have more time and deserve it more.
I've had someone who was 99 and was on the monitor to determine if they needed a ****in pacemaker!! What's the POINT?!!
Here are my thoughts: It's not so much about age. It's about..their overall health. There are times I speak with someone who is like 94 and they are alive and kicking it! They are with it. They are ALL there. They are capable of helping themselves... so shouldn't money be spent more on THOSE people who may have another 10 years left rather than letting someone live for another year---even though they are practically in a coma 24/7?!
Here's another question.
Why do we waste all that time & money searching for a cure for AIDS? Why do we even treat homosexuals who have AIDS - they're going to die anyway, ya know! Why do we allow them these ultra-expensive reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and for what? Another day? They're going to die anyway, for crying out loud!
I've always felt that it's time to let go when the person can't be kept alive except by machines. Laying in a bed, unresponsive to everything that goes on, but with a little device that beeps every few seconds...that's hardly being "alive."
That 99 year old who is still "with it" and "alive and kicking" might have had some surgery or something done in his/her early 90s or 80s that kept them alive for another 19 years. What if the "cut-off" was at 80 instead?
I had a neighbor when I was a kid... woman died when she was 100. And that was only because she fell down a flight of stairs and no one was around to help her. At 95, she was still outside working her garden, going for walks, etc. For her, having a pacemaker was what gave her another X years, years that for her were "worth it."
Anecdotal yes, but there are another 100,000 people in the US that are 100+ and some fraction of those are able to live very fruitful lives. I'd have a hard time denying them that.
I am just curious to get everyone's thoughts on a touchy subject I suppose. When do we learn to let go with out elderly?
I work at a heart monitoring company and I walk them through how to use it and get everything set up and activated, etc. There are so many people, that IMO, whom do not need to be on this. It's just, there's sooooo much Medicare being wasted on pickling these people to live another day.
There are times I call someone..and they are 95..and living in a nursing home. What's the point? Why does it matter to "have this person live a little bit longer?"..when there are people whom DO have more time and deserve it more.
I've had someone who was 99 and was on the monitor to determine if they needed a ****in pacemaker!! What's the POINT?!!
Here are my thoughts: It's not so much about age. It's about..their overall health. There are times I speak with someone who is like 94 and they are alive and kicking it! They are with it. They are ALL there. They are capable of helping themselves... so shouldn't money be spent more on THOSE people who may have another 10 years left rather than letting someone live for another year---even though they are practically in a coma 24/7?!
You don't care about anything but the bottom line. Aren't you in the wrong business? If you come down with a bad illness, should we not extend your life either? After all, we could say medical technicians/salespeople are a dime a dozen and if you were to kick the bucket tomorrow, no big deal. Maybe we'll ask the janitors in the hospital if your life is worth the money. Isn't that the same as letting some technician/salesperson decide whose life is worth it and whose isn't?
I see it as a personal matter, in conjunction with nature, of course.
For me, when nature tells me it's time to die, then it's time. Of course, that's not the case with others. They want to fight it and fool themselves into thinking they've cheated death. Of course, all they've done is postponed it. It's also a function of personal and/or family finances. How much is a family willing to spend for Uncle Chester to lie in a hospital bed brain dead? I don't see the point, but we still live in a free country at the moment, so whatever.
Bottom line is, I should have the choice for my death only. I should not have any input whatsoever about when someone else should die. That's their business.
I am 70 years old. My mother lived to be 97, and I do not wish to endure that indignity. Please do not inflict any heroic procedures that will keep me alive for 27 more years. If I do not die spontaneously before that time, please do not place me under a 24-hour suicide watch. You can use your money for better purposes than keeping my monitors blinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
