Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Why?
- Dougal J. Jeffries (23 July 2008)
-
Re: Why?
- Colin Farrelly (24 July 2008)
-
Aging 101
- Hugh Mann (25 July 2008)
-
Reply to Colin Farrelly
- Dougal J Jeffries (28 July 2008)
|
|
|||
|
Dougal J. Jeffries, GP The Health Centre, St Mary's, Isles of Scilly TR21 0HE
Send response to journal:
|
I don't understand the claim made that we cannot afford NOT to tackle ageing. The logical outcome of the 'advances' trumpeted by Colin Farrelly would surely be extension of active life and corresponding high consumption by wealthy populations with their high carbon footprint - at the expense of the poor - with a postponement of all the problems that beset old age at whatever time it occurs. There would be just the same burden of dementia, degenerative disease etc., just a few years later. What would be the net contribution of this change to overall welfare? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Colin Farrelly, Associate Professor Queen's University, Canada ON K7L 3N6
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Dougal J. Jeffries Thanks for your rapid response asking “Why slow aging?”. Below are a few comments pertaining to your concerns about extending the healthy lives of, as you put it, “wealthy consumers”. (1) As you are a GP, I hope you do not see expanding the health prospects of your patients as something that comes "at the expense of the poor" and thus something contributing nothing to overall welfare. By this logic doctors in the developed world ought to deny *all* medical treatment to their patients so that their patients die as soon as possible, thus minimizing their carbon imprint! And I find it hard to think of a more perverse opinion for a GP to hold. People in the developed world are human beings (not just "consumers"), and thus they do not deserve disease or death. (2) why assume slowing aging would only benefit those in the wealthiest countries? Many developing countries are aging the fastest. And the aged in poorer countries will be even more vulnerable to the disadvantages of senescence. And so slowing aging would also expand (not harm) the health opportunities for those in developing countries. (3) Jeffries claims that retarding aging would simply postpone "all the problems that beset old age". There are two things to say about this. Firstly, there is good reason to believe that slowing aging would also compress morbidity and mortality. Longevity scientist David Sinclear nicely summarised the aspirations of this research in a recent interview in the journal Rejuvenation Research. Sinclear claims: "My stated goal is to keep people out of nursing homes for as long as possible. It is known that the longer a person lives, the shorter the period of his or her chronic disability or illness. People who live a very long time die relatively quickly. Thus, the goal would be to reach 90 years of age, feel well, still be a productive member of society, be able to play tennis, and see your grandchildren graduate from college. Then, in a matter of weeks, go through the final stages of life and die. In that way we would suffer less and be less of a burden on our families and society." Secondly, even if slowing aging merely delayed the problems of old age, it would still be a significant and laudable accomplishment. This is so because it would increase the number of healthy years we can expect to live. All else being equal, it is better to suffer disease and death later in life than earlier. We wouldn’t abandon medical research for early onset diseases like CF just because, eventually, these patients would suffer age-related diseases like cancer or heart disease. No existing medical intervention can achieve more than a delay of death and disease. A cure for cancer would not stop the people who would have died of cancer from dying or suffering from heart disease, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, etc. And so the value of slowing aging should be measured by its likely impact on our health prospects. Contrary to Jeffries, I believe slowing aging has the potential to result in a significant improvement to overall welfare. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Hugh Mann, Physician Eagle Rock, MO 65641 USA
Send response to journal:
|
1. Life is aging. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dougal J Jeffries, GP Isles of Scilly TR21 0HE
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Colin, I hope you are right! Of course, the scenario you describe - of fit 90 year-olds playing tennis till their last few weeks of rapid decline - is attractive, but I wonder if the reality will ever come near to this dream. I suppose I feel a bit jaded - like most GPs - by the way in which my practice has changed over the past 15 years or so. I used to believe that preventive medicine was hugely more important than curative, or 'reactive' medicine. Now I'm not quite so sure. We seem to be overwhelmed by patients coming in for regular blood tests and huge volumes of medication (often with risks of dangerous interactions and side-effects but all mandated by current guidelines), worrying about their state of health and in fear of everything they eat, drink and do. I wonder whether a more accepting and fatalistic philosophy of treating life as a bit of a lottery, with the odds modifiable to a small extent perhaps, might not lead to less overall anxiety and greater happiness. But then, at 57 and so far at least, I'm reasonably healthy, play tennis and see my grandchildren. My views may change as I get older. As for my comments about consumerism and the rest, it just seems faintly distasteful that we should be striving to extend life at the upper limit when so many millions have it snuffed out long before any 'natural' lifespan, and not because of the ageing process but because of infectious disease, malnutrition, inadequate hygeine, absence of basic midwifery care etc. etc. Kind regards, Dougal Jeffries Competing interests: None declared |
|||