Attitudes Toward "Treating" Aging

@Roey To clarify, the Age-Friendly communities initiative is directed at ‘regular’ or ‘normal’ communities; it doe snot refer to gated or specialized communities. Think of universal design of furniture as for everyday types of homes. This is targetted to all communities so they are more age-friendly.

everyone is getting older but past some point of time, society label them “old”. I love DJ Sumirock.

need more of her. :slight_smile:

Video from the FT on gene editing and the possible impact on inequality:

Life expectancy is also increasing in the developing countries, more so in the urban areas. At the same time, the traditional joint families are breaking into nuclear units, and the young members are moving to other cities on jobs or are going abroad. As a result, the aged people are facing problems of loneliness, various inconveniences and insecurity. They are also frequently becoming the ’ soft targets’ of criminals. The problem is more acute when either the husband or the wife dies, leaving the other all alone. Rising incidences of dementia are further worsening the situation. Societal attitudes and government policies need to undergo a paradigm shift to tackle this problem.

[I apologize for the long post]

In 11th century Islamic medicine (Ibn Sina, Maimonides and others), the individual assumed responsibility for his/her well-being. Somewhere along the way (around 100 years ago), western “culture” (read - interests) made it the state/nation responsibility, “freeing” people from caring, delegating their health to an institution that will “fix” them.

Change will come only when this mindset is changed via education and self-empowerment. One such example is CliniCrowd, crowd-initiated clinical studies for common diseases associaed with aging such as Parkinson.

In this discussion thread I have found only one instance of the term “preventative care”. The Healthcare establishment prefers to call it “Preventive Medicine”. I suspect that this is done in purpose to keep the control and sustain the paradigm of using synthetically derived compounds for interventions. I therefore would like like to propose the term Wellcare for highlighting a caring paradigm along the lines of prevention.

In contrast to Healthcare, Wellcare may involve not just adopting life style habits that promote well-being but perhaps use not just “molecule compounds” but also “energy” interventions. We must recognize that our body would not function without electricity (e.g. heart, muscles, brain) and therefore interventions based on energy may prove much more effective. My best example is MR-guided-Focused Ultrasound.

Controlling tissue regeneration and empowring the immune system are the two technology areas that hold the promise. Their success hinge on understanding the root cause of disease states, coupled with controlling external stress factors (social, environmental) that lead to disease onset.

Enough said

@ymedan -

I generally agree that we need to focus on preventative treatments - though the exact name (“care” or “medicine”) is less important in my opinion. I fail to see, however, how an individual’s choice of lifestyle can compete with the powerful treatments of the future. In a way, we’ve already tried explaining to people that physical exercise and dieting is good for them… and not much changed. So why not go with the medical treatment route instead?

As for the “energy based interventions” - you lost me completely there. Can you explain what you mean by that?

By “Energy” I mean Electrical Fields (e.g. or Mechanical (e,g,

The reason I don’t want to use the term Medicine but Care is because it is associated with prescribed drugs that have both short- and long-term toxicity.

As for returning the responsibility to individuals, there are effective policies that are capable of making such shift. ACOs (Accountable Care Organizations), Self Insured enterprises and Value-based care are all encouraging staying healthy. See the latest “Food Pharmacy” service by Geisinger.

I would like to see a society with a prospering economy because of a growing healthy population, as opposed to the current situation where the prosperity is linked to the growing “market” of chronically-ill citizens. Longevity with chronic illness from cradle to grave is the ideal scenario for Pharma. Let’s be honest.

You say that -
*“Longevity with chronic illness from cradle to grave is the ideal scenario for Pharma. Let’s be honest.”

But that’s only the case until society basically crumbles under the accumulated weight of healthcare debts. And I’m assuming (quite possibly naively) that the regulator won’t let that happen.