There is a psychological fact that prevents a sensible economic solution to the problem of paying for social care. It is that people in the UK do not think it right that the value of their house should be frittered away in paying for a pretty pointless existence in a care home. Maybe that care should be paid for out of their assets, maybe not. The fact is that they think it wrong that the value of their house – in most cases their only substantial asset – should disappear needlessly without much being gained in return. They think that the wealth they had hoped to pass on to their children should not be taken away needlessly.
They have a point. A few years in a care home prolongs the end of their lives, but it doesn’t do much else, except drain away their wealth. Kingsley Amis famously said, “No pleasure is worth giving up for the sake of two more years in a geriatric home in Weston-super-Mare.” I don’t know why Weston-super-Mare came in for such stick, but there was a point to his observation. What is the value in a life they see as empty of pleasure, empty of meaning? Mrs. May’s advisor, Nick Timothy, inserted into her manifesto a threat to take away people’s homes to pay for such care, and many showed they preferred Jeremy Corbyn to that happening. Nick Timothy was fired, though some think he should have been burned at the stake for that piece of stupidity.
We should give people the choice. If they prefer to end their life quickly and painlessly and pass substantial wealth to their heirs, we should let them do it. If they prefer to spend what they have on what they see as a valueless existence to delay the inevitable end, we should allow them that alternative. If they were given that choice, polls suggest that the great majority would choose a dignified euthanasia, rather than transfer their money to care home personnel instead of to their children.
The solution to meeting care home costs might be difficult and complicated, as well as expensive. But it should incorporate that choice, and allow people to choose a dignified exit that passes on an inheritance to their heirs. Society should facilitate that choice instead of preventing it.
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
A false dichotomy.
If folk were prepared to care for their parents, there would be no need to divest property or to euthanise our elders. More people could demonstrate how much they love theri folks by caring for them in their dotage. Whilst still maintaining the family's wealth.
Nick Timothy was another example of people sucking on the state's teat.
I have no idea why politicians need SPaDs - aren't they supposed to be there to represent their constituents not do what some clown with a PPE degree and no experience of the world tells them?
A better reason to burn him at the stake would be the decision to go for a general election. Although, you could argue that the outcome was what was wanted to water down Brexit.
Dr. Walter E. Williams writes another column today (https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2018/05/30/capitalism-vs-socialism-n2484341) starting with the "first principle" that we all own ourselves. He has noted that ownership includes the right to dispose. There is no fake principle like duty to the Homeland or My Values that justifies interfering with a person's decision to end his life — It is all virtue-signaling by people with no knowledge of the situation.
I don't agree that "society should facilitate that choice." Not legislate physician-assisted suicide (which, like abortion, promises to trample the values of physicians who don't wish to participate, while maintaining their professional racket by dictating that you can't do it yourself). Just get out of the way.
Incidentally, I don't agree it's ever true that "There is a psychological fact". How people feel about selling their homes for end-of-life care is not the issue. That care is overpriced might be. (Home versus Weston-super-Mare might be a gigantic False Choice.) Still separately, Theresa May's continuing tendency to make keynote policy proposals that enrage her base is remarkable.
I don't see why physicians should not be allowed to assist with suicide. As when you euthanase your pet, the physician would first administer a general anaesthetic before injecting the lethal drug. It is the unpleasantness of most forms of suicide that deters most of us from taking that option.
Southerner, I am arguing against "physician-assisted suicide" (the institution, implicitly foreclosing other options and perhaps barring physicians from refusing to participate) — not against physicians to assist with suicides.
I wouldn't let doctors within a mile of this. It's such an obvious and huge conflict of interest, it amazes me that so many people are convinced that doctors should be the ones to kill us. And that's before one takes into account what a lot of doctors are actually like.
Licenced executioners with independent witnesses. Or we'll end up like the Netherlands.
Dr. Walter E. Williams writes another column today (https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2018/05/30/capitalism-vs-socialism-n2484341) starting with the "first principle" that we all own ourselves. He has noted that ownership includes the right to dispose. There is no fake principle like duty to the Homeland or My Values that justifies interfering with a person's decision to end his life — It is all virtue-signaling by people with no knowledge of the situation.
I don't agree that "society should facilitate that choice." Not legislate physician-assisted suicide (which, like abortion, promises to trample the values of physicians who don't wish to participate, while maintaining their professional racket by dictating that you can't do it yourself). Just get out of the way.
Incidentally, I don't agree it's ever true that "There is a psychological fact". How people feel about selling their homes for end-of-life care is not the issue. That care is overpriced might be. (Home versus Weston-super-Mare might be a gigantic False Choice.) Still separately, Theresa May's continuing tendency to make keynote policy proposals that enrage her base is remarkable.
Southerner, I am arguing against "physician-assisted suicide" (the institution, implicitly foreclosing other options and perhaps barring physicians from refusing to participate) — not against physicians to assist with suicides.
There's at least two other issues. Firstly, those who've wasted their money or never worked get it for nothing. Secondly, those who pay subsidise the lower fees of those who don't.
I don't really understand the objections. Every time I've moved from one home to another home I've had to dispose of the previous home in order to pay for the next one. Why should it be any different for the very final home I move into?
Because you're not "buying" anything when you move into a nursing home, it's more akin to a hotel with very expensive room service.
I don't really understand the objections. Every time I've moved from one home to another home I've had to dispose of the previous home in order to pay for the next one. Why should it be any different for the very final home I move into?
Because you're not "buying" anything when you move into a nursing home, it's more akin to a hotel with very expensive room service.
It is estimated that 16% of people aged 85 or more end up in care homes (Laing and Buisson survey 2016). I assume you are more likely to stay in your own home and receive assisted care? They say care home residents stay an average of 3 years, although one in ten can linger for 8 or more years. A bummer to draw the short straw and end up in a home, but it seems unfair to ask other taxpayers to meet the cost when you have the money yourself … Of course you can say the same thing about elderly patients with assets who are treated in NHS hospitals at great cost to the same taxpayers.
It is estimated that 16% of people aged 85 or more end up in care homes (Laing and Buisson survey 2016). I assume you are more likely to stay in your own home and receive assisted care? They say care home residents stay an average of 3 years, although one in ten can linger for 8 or more years. A bummer to draw the short straw and end up in a home, but it seems unfair to ask other taxpayers to meet the cost when you have the money yourself … Of course you can say the same thing about elderly patients with assets who are treated in NHS hospitals at great cost to the same taxpayers.
What paulscottrobson said.
This has nothing to do with paying for your own end-of-life care. Most people who own homes have spent their lives working and paying taxes, and quite justifiedly believe they have already paid for their care. People with assets are in fact being made to pay for the care of those with none, who get their care for free.
How should we raise our children? Should we raise them to believe they should have a work ethic, become productive members of society, earn money and pay tax on it? Or should we tell them to sponge off the state? If their assets are forfeit for end-of-life care, then the state is actively penalizing the former and incentivizing the latter.