I like the sound of that. I am 70 and do coffee each morning with persons 75-90. No one in the group is as happy as the older folks were back on the farm at the end of WWII. This modern medicine that "saves lives" is extending misery.

And we haven't even talked of cost yet.

Society really needs to have the guts to discuss this issue.

Look at the last study on Alzheimer that just came out; That as people live longer more will be getting Alzheimer. DUH.

Is it really a worthwhile goal to continue to raise the life expectancy? Is there no reasonable 'end point' in that quest?

Having a heart attack, where one typically goes quickly and with little pain is better than 'extending misery'. Does it make sense to clean up someones artires at, say, 75 just so the they can get a very painful disease, like cancer, at 76?

Of course preventing heart attacks for people under, say 70 or so makes total sense but when should some of this treatment stop so a person can have a natural death?

This is a complex and difficult subject but it is one society must face.

To be honest, though, Jazzguitarman, you would just have to apply it by life expectancy, not age.

My Great-great-aunt Vilate is 84 years old. She is sharp as a scalpel, wears comfortable walking shoes and drinks a lot of scotch while golfing all day. We come from a long-lived family; she may have another 15 years in her.

Contrast that with a 50-year old man with type 2 diabetes. Whose heart is more likely to withstand an attack? Honestly, Auntie Vilate can probably take the guy. She is a scrappy old Irish lady.

There is no reason, if society were to become to face the subject, that the elderly should be more discriminated against than the ill.

In the spirit of a Modest Proposal, think about it.

Freki

"Contrast that with a 50-year old man with type 2 diabetes. Whose heart is more likely to withstand an attack?"

Freki, I think your point here gets to the heart of the issue. The gov't is not good at recognizing us as individuals. They'll see a cut-off age on a piece of paper...She's 84? nah, too old for any heart work. They won't take into account her health and genes that could allow her to live life well until 95.

It's true that society will have to answer these questions, especially if we move to universal healthcare. But a person's health is so important that it should be considered on a case by case basis with one's doctor. Statistics should not rule all, as insurance companies and the gov't would want.

I see a whole new venue for appeals and lawsuits.