Active Travel

[woolley]

On 11/27/2022 at 1:22 PM, HiVibes said:

We have a completely unbalanced population with most resources skewed towards the elderly it should be the other way round.

Our Schools are massivley under resourced, young families can't make ends meet but we spend millions keeping old people going with little more than a pulse. 

This is quite an unpleasant thread, in some ways reminiscent of the nightly (and presumably) alcohol fuelled abuse sessions of yesteryear between notwell and that malicious moron (the name escapes me) who used to wind him up to apoplexy.

Aside from the name calling though, and the more provocative stuff posted by HiVibes, there are issues of inter-generational fairness that have been festering for years, and they will have to be addressed soon. The fact that I’m not a million miles away from the point at which HiVibes considers I have no future does concentrate the mind now and then, I will confess. It also means I can see both sides of the coin. Currently I’m sound of wind and limb, but as for all of us, and not just the old, that happy state of affairs can change literally in a heartbeat.

I know that “every generation blames the one before”, but in the end, aren’t we all human? I see and hear plenty of younger people today sounding off about the boomers having it all and spoiling their lives. As though boomers are some alien race, when in reality boomers are often their parents who tried to do the best for them. In some cases they did far too much and created an unsavoury entitlement culture in their children. One day in the not too distant future, the boomer’s offspring will inherit the riches they seek, and then their own progeny will in turn slag them off for ruining their future, and so it goes on. Not all boomers live high on the hog, incidentally. Not by any means. In the end then, our problems have to be faced by society as a whole.

No idea how old HiVibes is, but we were all there once feeling omnipotent and thinking we could change the world if only the old bastards holding everything back would get out of the way. One thing is for sure; however young you are, the time passes far more quickly than you ever dream it will, and I’m afraid you will be in the position of the old duffer soon enough. If you are paying for the state pensions of old duffers at the moment, incidentally, why would you not be entitled to draw your own when the time comes? How dreadfully inequitable towards younger people, and a curious suggestion from someone supposedly championing their interests. Means testing would be a self-defeating policy because it would induce far too many people to abandon making any provision for their old age. Yet at the same time, I do accept that there is merit in some of what HiVibes says. I agree that we do need to acknowledge the everyday struggles young people face now and do something to address them, and I don’t mean just the usual lip service.

The Island desperately needs more social housing, and it also needs to make house purchase more affordable. There has to be increased supply of the former, and soon, as well as tough legislation to stop builders and landlords hoarding land and property to continually drive up prices of the latter for their own benefit. If we are to attract young families and address the loss of those already here, we also have to be more family friendly in providing and financing childcare and crèche facilities. The current offering is nothing short of woeful, and it compares very poorly with availability and affordability in the UK. Maybe we could do something imaginative with the income tax system to further advantage young families, and to encourage graduates to return. The Island is a wonderful place to grow up with lots of healthy activities, a nurturing community and a safe environment, but it’s a very bleak place to be if your family is skint. If we do nothing along these lines, and it’s only a start, we haven’t a hope in hell of increasing the population by very much at all, and certainly not to 100,000 any time soon. Our population will stagnate as it gets older and older and older. Services will start to break down if they haven't started to already.

Finally, at the other end of the spectrum, those old duffers. I am sure that  there really has to be a light goes on in the collective consciousness and we realise that quality of life is all. Not quantity, but quality. People may be living longer, but they are not necessarily living better. I don’t want to be drooling into my soup in some bloody care home the way I watched my mother rot away in her incoherence for two long years. I’m with HiVibes totally on this. Yes, I’m all for the cull.

The way we allow the old to linger on in a twilight zone between life and death is downright cruel. In fact, we don’t just allow them to do this, as a society we insist on it. How criminally wasteful of resources that could be far better employed. And how much more agreeable to be able to decide when you’ve had enough, or if you’re beyond making that choice for yourself have a judge and a doctor decide it for you in discussion with your family. You can take a last trip around your cherished memories and drift peacefully off to sleep. If we refuse to get a grip on end of life policy and the alarm bells ringing in the demographics of our population, then one day there’s simply going to be nobody left who is sufficiently compos mentis to wipe all the arses.

Edited November 30, 2022 by woolley

[0bserver]

Done a bit if Active Travel™️ this afternoon. It was fucking freezing. Had to crank the heating right up when I got home (May have killed a couple of polar bears soz). 

[The Phantom]

On 11/30/2022 at 12:09 AM, woolley said:

Finally, at the other end of the spectrum, those old duffers. I am sure that  there really has to be a light goes on in the collective consciousness and we realise that quality of life is all. Not quantity, but quality. People may be living longer, but they are not necessarily living better. I don’t want to be drooling into my soup in some bloody care home the way I watched my mother rot away in her incoherence for two long years. I’m with HiVibes totally on this. Yes, I’m all for the cull.

The way we allow the old to linger on in a twilight zone between life and death is downright cruel. In fact, we don’t just allow them to do this, as a society we insist on it. How criminally wasteful of resources that could be far better employed. And how much more agreeable to be able to decide when you’ve had enough, or if you’re beyond making that choice for yourself have a judge and a doctor decide it for you in discussion with your family. You can take a last trip around your cherished memories and drift peacefully off to sleep. If we refuse to get a grip on end of life policy and the alarm bells ringing in the demographics of our population, then one day there’s simply going to be nobody left who is sufficiently compos mentis to wipe all the arses.

Maybe 65 is a bit early for the cull though?  Give us a few years after state retirement at least.

We are living much longer.  But we aren't really aging slower.  You just spend more time as a dribbling mess.  Although unfortunately it has developed into quite a profitable industry. 

[Harry Lamb]

6 hours ago, The Phantom said:

Maybe 65 is a bit early for the cull though?  Give us a few years after state retirement at least.

We are living much longer.  But we aren't really aging slower.  You just spend more time as a dribbling mess.  Although unfortunately it has developed into quite a profitable industry. 

Loads of them will be fucked when the House of Lords goes, then

[woolley]

5 hours ago, The Phantom said:

Maybe 65 is a bit early for the cull though?  Give us a few years after state retirement at least.

We are living much longer.  But we aren't really aging slower.  You just spend more time as a dribbling mess.  Although unfortunately it has developed into quite a profitable industry. 

😀  Love it. I wasn't suggesting death squads turn up at your house at dawn on your 65th birthday. On the contrary, there are people much older than that who are active participants in society. Volunteers, carers, employers who contribute a great deal to the well being of society, economically and otherwise and live full lives into their 80s and even 90s, and very good luck to them.

My beef is with what happens when people cease to function properly. When they have nothing more to offer themselves or anyone else and are waiting to die while either blocking a bed in hospital that's required by a person who potentially has a future, or literally rotting away in a care home. When life is no longer worth living by any qualitative analysis. That's when there should be the opportunity to review whether it should be ended, and this moment can occur at age 25 or 85, or any time of life at all for that matter. We've all heard about the harrowing cases argued through the courts where a brain dead child lies in limbo. It's the self same issue.

You are absolutely right that it has developed into an industry, but it's not as profitable as it used to be, and it is certainly one that we can't collectively afford. I was going to say 'a luxury we can't afford', but it's anything but a luxury.

 

[WTF]

36 minutes ago, woolley said:

 

You are absolutely right that it has developed into an industry, but it's not as profitable as it used to be, and it is certainly one that we can't collectively afford. I was going to say 'a luxury we can't afford', but it's anything but a luxury.

 

it is a necessity  though.

[HiVibes]

1 hour ago, WTF said:

it is a necessity  though.

why?

[code99]

2 hours ago, woolley said:

When life is no longer worth living by any qualitative analysis. That's when there should be the opportunity to review whether it should be ended, and this moment can occur at age 25 or 85, or any time of life at all for that matter. We've all heard about the harrowing cases argued through the courts where a brain dead child lies in limbo. It's the self same issue.

But, where does this argument lead to in relation to disabled people especially those who are born with severe mental and/or physical impediments? Should the State be able to insist that they are ‘terminated’ at birth? And if yes (for instance in extreme cases), who should make those decisions and where should those lines be drawn? I sometime see disabled people of various ages having their weekly nosh together with their careers at NSC. They will be ‘costing’ taxpayers through disability benefits, various on-going support payments, home modifications, grants, etc. But I would be appalled if any of these ‘needy’ people were ever considered for termination for reasons associated with the cost of their welfare - is there a case where for financial/ budgetary reasons our society should become a bit more ‘Third Reich’ and a bit less of a compassionate liberal democracy? Putin and his war criminal henchmen are attempting to reduce the world’s population of ‘undesirables’ (from Putin’s perspective) by attempting to freeze millions of innocent Ukrainians to death - with the youngest, oldest and most infirmed dying first.

Personally, I am hoping, when my time comes, for a one-way jaunt to Switzerland.  But this subject is inherently a monumental political and moral issue. IMHO, ideally individuals should make these kinds of decisions at their own volition (as opposed to adapting Logan’s Run approach), as nobody should feel pressured into doing something that they are not comfortable with. I also suspect that should relatives and ‘authorised officials’ get involved in these personal decisions, individual ‘free-choice’ may not be possible. So how should a civilised society handle the issue of an increasingly infirmed and dependent population?

[TheTeapot]

[finlo]

1 minute ago, TheTeapot said:

You'd welcome one of those if you'd witnessed what some people go through as I have!

[Dirty Buggane]

Reminds me of DBC big belly bins, you know the £ 18,000 a pop with radio telepathy to say I'm full. The ones that were all gathered together like a bunch of geriatric dalek,s and thence to some where unknown.

[Two-lane]

29 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said:

and thence to some where unknown.

Maybe Manx Radio could run a "Where are they now?" competition - Douglas Big Belly Bins, chewing gum machines, big green diesels, Douglas 2000 glossy brochures, bendy-buses, several point-by-point rebuttals etc.

[woolley]

25 minutes ago, code99 said:

But, where does this argument lead to in relation to disabled people especially those who are born with severe mental and/or physical impediments? Should the State be able to insist that they are ‘terminated’ at birth? And if yes (for instance in extreme cases), who should make those decisions and where should those lines be drawn? I sometime see disabled people of various ages having their weekly nosh together with their careers at NSC. They will be ‘costing’ taxpayers through disability benefits, various on-going support payments, home modifications, grants, etc. But I would be appalled if any of these ‘needy’ people were ever considered for termination for reasons associated with the cost of their welfare - is there a case where for financial/ budgetary reasons our society should become a bit more ‘Third Reich’ and a bit less of a compassionate liberal democracy? Putin and his war criminal henchmen are attempting to reduce the world’s population of ‘undesirables’ (from Putin’s perspective) by attempting to freeze millions of innocent Ukrainians to death - with the youngest, oldest and most infirmed dying first.

Personally, I am hoping, when my time comes, for a one-way jaunt to Switzerland.  But this subject is inherently a monumental political and moral issue. IMHO, ideally individuals should make these kinds of decisions at their own volition (as opposed to adapting Logan’s Run approach), as nobody should feel pressured into doing something that they are not comfortable with. I also suspect that should relatives and ‘authorised officials’ get involved in these personal decisions, individual ‘free-choice’ may not be possible. So how should a civilised society handle the issue of an increasingly infirmed and dependent population?

Why should you have to take a one-way jaunt to Switzerland because we as a society are evidently incapable of allowing individuals to take mature decisions for themselves on issues of life and death?

Cost is certainly an element in the equation, and it will become even more so, but any reduction should be an effect rather than the driver. I would suggest that there is a world of difference between disabled people on the one hand, whose lives are often joyous and fulfilling, socialising together with their friends, and geriatrics on the other, who are no longer even aware of their own existence, with bodies literally just waiting to die. At the very least, give terminally ill people the right to go when they choose. Nobody should feel obliged to do something with which they are not comfortable, but where free choice is not possible, in the case of advanced dementia, for instance, then why on Earth not end the suffering?

I wonder if you've had much experience of watching people at this stage of decay. If I'd had the choice to make the ultimate call for my poor mother I'd have done it in a heartbeat. She would have hated the indignities that overwhelmed her in her final 2 years, and in her right mind she would have thanked me for the kindness I was doing her. Her predicament was absolutely shocking and heartbreaking. And if I'd been able to do the same for many other poor souls in that stinking care home who were completely gaga and never saw a visitor from one month's end to the next I'd have done that too. I hope somebody would have the compassion to do it for me if I reach that awful situation. What goes on behind closed doors in those places is harrowing. Give me the injection when the time comes, and keep the subject well away from any god-botherers. I don't see anything even contentious in this.

Far more controversial is the subject you raise about severe impairment at birth (and I mean really extreme impairment of the kind which is difficult even to contemplate). I appreciate this is a lot more nuanced, highly emotive and trickier to legislate on. IMHO I do think there should be options available to euthanase where things are really hopeless and the person is going to lead a much truncated life of suffering and torment.

I have seen at first hand the demoralising and destructive effects on parents and their other offspring of families trying to come to terms with the unremitting burden of a child horribly damaged mentally and physically at birth. The financial cost, the long term worry, the self-loathing of blaming themselves every day, the loss of much happiness that would otherwise have been shared by the parents and their other children. Then finally the grief when the stricken one finally succumbs to the insurmountable afflictions maybe half a lifetime later. I know this is tough, and may possibly cause offence, but I do not think that anyone not wanting to sign up for such a life for decades to come should be stigmatised for it. After all, we see no problem in aborting for defects in the womb.

 

 

 

[woolley]

Duplicate.

How quaint. That still happens. 🤠

 

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by woolley

[Apple]

4 hours ago, woolley said:

My beef is with what happens when people cease to function properly......

...and who is to judge that ? 

I have had lots of experience with the clinical and social conditions you have referred to both professionally and personally and in my view the avenue being ventured down here is wrong. There are far too many pitfalls in any position that takes away anyones human rights to exist without their full agreement and understanding. To undermine that erodes and takes away our humanity, it does not support or define it

End of Life Care and those who practice have the most difficult and enviable jobs in the health care sector.  The island I am told by a GP who knows does not yet follow the guidance from the medial professional body in the UK, which would be a good stating point to base IOM policy on. I am sure Dr A will be referencing this during his forthcoming attempts to  introduce legislation.

Yes we have situations with the elderly, chronic conditions and with groups of people who cannot defend themselves let alone speak up for themselves.

If the approach you envisage comes to pass how anxious would I  or anyone else feel about growing older, being diagnosed a terminal condition or having grandchild born with some form of abnormality. And once the door is opened , there will be no closing it again. 

We need to take step back.

When did Steven Hawking stop functions correctly ?

Edited December 5, 2022 by Apple
last sentence