Carbonfiberboy 

There's a new phrase going around the medical community: compression of morbidity. Morbidity means basically diseased. The compression part means that as we age, the time spend in a morbid condition before dying is actually getting shorter. I think those of us here who ride a lot and eat a good diet can see how that might be. We see older and older folks every year on their bikes and on the trails and competing in athletic events. Most of us are wanting that fast drop-off at the end, and are getting there by staying healthier.

Longevity and compression of morbidity from a neuroscience perspective: Do we have a duty to die by a certain age?

Surgical Neurology International

OldTryGuy

Even when younger, I had always been in favor of a "Logan's Run" society. I see no point in living beyond a set age since IMO, nothing in life remains relavant after death. Wasting away, my criteria would be much different than many, has no value so why bother.

pursuance

OP,
I like you better in the Training and Nutrition Forum.

No one gets out alive but I refuse to dwell on that fact.
"Get busy living or get busy dieing."

Rick@OCRR

I'd never even heard of "morbidity" before but already I don't like the sound of it! I'd like to skip completely if I have any say in the matter. I'd prefer to go from perfectly healthy to dead as the proverbial door nail in a small fraction of a second.

Now I just have to wait and see how that works out. In the meantime, I'm going for a ride.

Rick / OCRR

welshTerrier2

Well, this is probably a bit heavy for BF so I'll be brief. It sounds like what is being promoted here is the idea that the elderly suck up a disproportionate amount of costly medical resources. No doubt that's true. This sort of has a "they shoot horses, don't they" ring to it.

But, of course, this is the medical profession's narrow view of the world. Maybe instead of looking only at medical resources, we should look at all resources (e.g. water, air, soil, fossil fuels, food, etc).

Looking at a world that is already suffering from severely depleted resources and a global population that is likely to expand from close to 7 billion people today to almost 9 billion people in just 35 more years, perhaps we should be more focused on population control than on euthanizing the elderly.

Also, if the fixation must be on the elderly, should all old folks be treated the same? Let's say one old geezer never had kids and another "burdened the planet's resources" with five or ten kids. Maybe one of them has used up his share of resources more than the other.

As we approach the planet's capacities to sustain life, perhaps we will be forced to re-examine our fundamental sense of right and wrong. The libertarian credo of live and let live will soon be confronted with more and more situations where what you do will directly impact the rest of us.

osco53

Drama,,,

I'll know when It's time for a trip up north and a hike way way out on a glacier....
And I bet Logan's run will change his tune in a country second when he notices that HE is the one who has become useless and a burden to the world..

Self Importance,, such a load to carry for no reason...

I am already given to the power that rules my fate.
I cling to nothing, so I have nothing to defend.
I have no thoughts, so I will See.
I fear nothing, so I will remember myself.
Detached and at ease, I will dart past the Eagle
To be free.

02Giant 

Death is overrated.

TCR Rider

And so, we must conclude that much can be accomplished in the twilight of our lives; but to preserve health and vitality, we must remain healthy in body and soul, as with Voltaire's counsel: Cultivating our physical and spiritual garden until the very moment of our death!

IMHO the quality of the years of a person's life bears much more importance then the number of years. I also believe it's a person's responsibility to take what ever actions are required to maintain that quality of life. I've always viewed my relationship with medicine as a partnership. Not a partnership with the government but with my doctor. I've had numerous surgical procedures, hip replacement, achillies reconstruction, shoulder surgery and two cardiac ablations, and my approach is once the surgeon has done his work it is my responsibility to maximize the likelihood of a successful result by rehabbing the bejesus out of them.
I see the direction society seems to be heading regarding the rationing of health care and make every effort to prepare for that eventuality by getting all my ducks in a row as I get ever closer to that age where Ezekiel thinks we should all meekly walk out on the ice flow and disappear. Quite honestly I would rather die than exist in a state of decrepitude but I intend to live fully until the end, whenever that may be be it five or thirty years from now. There is a difference between treating an orthopedic issue, i.e. knee replacement, then keeping a person in a vegetative state alive as long as possible with absolutely no chance of recovery or cognitive awareness. Again it comes down to a question of quality of life. What I find disturbing is when a person is given another chance at a healthy mobile life fritter it away by continuing the behavior that got them in their predicament in the first place. They are not holding up their end of the partnership.
What I find interesting is that Emanuel is 54 years old I wonder if he will feel that way when he is 74. Perhaps he doesn't really believe that position but is just espousing it in support of a governmental policy that is being pushed forward. You, citizen, owe it to society to get out of the way. Let's just forget that you have done your part by paying into Social Security and Medicare your entire working life. You can't truly expect to realize any return on your investment can you? This is, after all, the government you are dealing with here.

Carbonfiberboy 

I thought this might be of interest to this forum, since this article argues that there is increasing evidence that what you are doing will get you closer to your desired result as well as simply extending your lifespan. And in so doing decrease healthcare costs for everyone, maybe not your goal, but a nice side benefit. Doing good by doing well. I'm going for a ride, too.

blt

I knew a doctor (OB/GYN) who didn't want to spend time in a morbid condition. He figured if he got there, it would be too late to do anything about it, he would either be physically or mentally incapable of ending his life by the time he needed to. So he made the decision that he would kill himself at age 80. He had told his wife, his pastor, and almost no one else. And shortly after he hit 80, even though he was quite physically and mentally healthy, he killed himself. Well, as mentally healthy as he ever was, he always was a stubborn coot with some odd ideas in his head.

I had a close friend who didn't want to spend time in a morbid condition, was always convinced he would be a terrible senior citizen. Got pancreatic cancer, died at age 53. Told everyone he didn't want to be old anyway, he really didn't like the negatives of being old. He would have liked to make it to at least 70 or so, but I don't think he relished the idea of making it much beyond that. In the end, he wasn't afraid of dying, he was only afraid of being sick, of lingering for awhile in a morbid condition. I guess the good news was that pancreatic cancer at the end moves pretty quickly, so he didn't spend much time in a morbid condition, and his hospice nurse was great at managing his pain.

I'd be happy if I can keep my mental faculties and ride my bike until I'm 95, then drop dead. It is a 3 day weekend, I'll try to get at least 2 50 mile rides in, and a 3rd ride that may be a bit shorter. Enjoy the weekend, everyone.

Spoke

I want to die in my sleep, just like my grandfather, not screaming like the folks in his car. ;-)

pursuance

I had to Google that quote. TY, now I wanna reread Carlos w/o the effects of reefer and Boone's Farm wine.

John E

Thank you for starting this thread. My own positions:

1. Overpopulation is indeed a huge problem that exacerbates most others, and the two proven ways to reduce an excessively high birth rate are to empower and educate women and, counterintuitively perhaps, to reduce infant mortality. Mexico is a great example, with the number of children per woman falling from almost 8 in 1960 to 2.3, only about 10% above zero population growth, today. The way to address overpopulation is indeed to reduce the birth rate rather than to kill off folks already here.

2. Morbidity is indeed a huge problem, particularly with preventable diseases such as Type II diabetes and most circulatory malfunctions. By exercising, eating sensibly, and otherwise taking care of ourselves, we are doing what we can to forestall personal morbidity and making ourselves less of a burden on society and on the planet. The hard part is getting this message across to John Q. Public, who continues to overeat, underexercise, and consume too much junk posing as food.

3. I strongly support death with dignity and Compassion and Choices, to give each individual with a terminal illness the authority to decide when enough is enough. Oregon, Vermont, and three other states have such laws on the books, and these have worked extremely well, but we need to extend this ultimate freedom of the individual to the other 45 states, as well. As my father was suffering through the final month of pancreatic cancer, my uncle received a diagnosis of terminal lung cancer and moved to Oregon, so that he could decide when and on what terms to die, without worrying about family members being charged with aiding and abetting a suicide. He wrote his own obituary, giving thanks for an incredibly fortunate and wonderful 87-7ear life and was able to hold a celebration of life before, rather than after, he passed. I have also spent two hours with Brittany Maynard's mother and stepfather, who want to make sure she did not die in vain.

4. For me, quality of life is far more important than quantity, although it would be nice to have both. Alzheimer's scares me far more than most physical infirmities would.

berner

In general, we have no choice regarding our birth or death. All the choices are between those two points. So I like billydonn's way - ride your bike while you can and that last point in your life will be along in it's own time.

leob1

As we all know; It's better to burn out, than it is to rust.

RISKDR1

I think that pivot point where life is no longer worth living varies significantly with each person. I watched my father land a yellowtail when he was 89. When he was 95 he told me that he felt he still had a lot of life left in him to look forward to and that he still felt there were things he wanted to do. At 96 when he was dieing he said he had hoped he was going to make it to 100 but he was realistic. He died that year. I am 70 and feel I still have bike riding to do, rivers to fish and mountains to climb but at less intensity but still satisfying. I will see my first grandchild in about 6 months. I have no set expiration date. Having said that, I hope I can leave on my own terms when it is time.

osco53

IF I live long enough to reach old and all screwed up and ALL I CAN DO is sit and watch TV, hunt for my teeth, barely make it to the bathroom, I will hope and pray no self righteous know it all turkey has the power over me to decide what I am worth...
Or if I should live or die...

And If I choose my exit they can talk about it all they want, bla bla bla... At least I won't have to listen to the BuLL situation.

OldsCOOL

Dont even get me going about medical science and the doctrine of pushing pharmaceuticals as the essence of life and calling it "quality of life".

Road Fan

Carbon, how is that topic neuroscience? It seems like a type of morality, possibly a competition between moralities: Are we bound morally to avail others of resources when we can no longer use them productively (this one probably needs some wordsmithing), or is it the greater societal good (i.e. morality) to respect the rights of all persons to live a full life if they choose?

Road Fan

That's Carlos Castaneda? or Wendy/Walter Carlos?

pursuance

The former, Castaneda. Read three of his books back in the smokey '70s.

RR3

Just call Hospice when the time comes, they will take you out in a week.

In the meantime, ride.

Road Fan

That must have been in a newer one - I mainly recall (well, sort of!) the mushroom-filled ones related to Don Juan. I think I read the first one in 1968.

OldTryGuy

No choice with birth, but most definitely with death.

Tuesday is my prostate cancer surgery. In 3 weeks is my appointment for total left wrist replacement surgery. Once that heals there will be the total right shoulder joint surgery. I refuse to have the knees worked on because even with the pain, I was able to walk my 5K, 10K, half marathon, full marathon, half marathon, 10K and 5K in consecutive days for 71 miles in 7 days then another full marathon 10 days later. 4 weeks ago I walked 32.5 miles in our local overnight Relay For Life event having been diagnosed with the prostate cancer-Gleason 9 just 2 weeks before. Had a 3D-PMB this past Thursday with a 16mm Foley overnight and taken out Friday AM then drove 3+ hours home a biked 31 miles yesterday with doctors approval. He said if the Foley was not able to be removed, hang the bag from the bars and go ride. I am hoping for his approval again on Tuesday so I can ride this Saturday with the bag. Rode another 45 miles today on same 40lb hybrid I rode yesterday with spring seat reversed so as to minimize pressure.

When I can not accomplish things I want to do in the future and if I am becoming a burden, I WILL check out.

My FIL was 2+ weeks with hospice and it was not what I would want for myself.

P.S.-I am 6 weeks post bi-lateral Orchiectomy with medication for 100% elimination of testosterone and sprinted yesterday to 27mph on my 40lb. hybrid. The significance of the 32.5 miles during the Relay For Life was for half my age this July and for my birthday ride I will be riding 132 miles or 2x age + 2.

Carbonfiberboy 

Not being a neuroscientist, I don't really know. However how the brain works is what they study, and our view of ourselves is part of that. Have you read Oliver Sacks? If not, you might enjoy him.

Our moralities descend from how we see the world and our place in it. They are all artificial constructs which hopefully aid the human community, though obviously many times they are in conflict with that goal. Social evolution is a scientifically valid concept. It's much faster than the biological form, though not a heck of a lot. It's possible that the two forms interact.

The older we get, the more our bodies change. Some of these changes allow older people to use fewer calories to sustain themselves than younger people use. This may be an adaptation to allow older members of the community to survive longer and thus pass on their valuable experience. The location of water holes is just a small part of it. So no, in my view we do not have a duty to die when we can't "work" any longer. In fact, the whole concept of "work" is a slightly bizarre moral construct, probably foisted upon us by those who wish to profit from it. We have a duty to survive. Our genes cry out the truth of this to us. No one wants to die. We all want to live. This is a good thing for the survival of human communities.

If we can extend the period during which we are useful to society simply by our very survival (grandchildren, anyone? Great grandchildren?), we do good. If we can do this a very low cost to society in terms of medical and other care, so much the better. I hope that is a goal of most of us on this forum, not just our own pleasure in cycling. It's interesting that this pleasure does good for society. Our drives and the morality behind of them are of great interest, apparently even to neuroscientists.