[Lee.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Really? That's surprising Lee, you would have thought kids would be a priority but I guess until you're in the situation yourself you wouldn't have much cause to properly investigate these things

Yeah, it really surprised me too Niamh. I suppose the research companies/pharmaceuticals won't make as much money from researching children's cancer as only a small percentage of cancer diagnosis' are children?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Lee.

2 children with leukaemia? Jesus H.. That's terrible! Also, on the subject of research and funding; CRUK only use 1% of their research funds to research childhood cancer. They have recently (after being pressurised by a nationwide campaign) launched a child and teens campaign but we'll see... It's shocking that they use poor little bald kids in their adverts, but don't actually fund finding them a cure. In the past 20 years, only 2 new children's cancer treatments have been made, compared to 80+ for adult cancers.

..wow...do you think that's because in general, it's believed that child cancer has a better prognosis than adult cancers...?.../obviously I'm generalising ....

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Lee.

If I had to choose between paying higher taxes/living a bleaker life or my son dying to cancer, I know which option I'd go for. It's a hideous disease that destroys families; cancer doesn't discriminate, it doesn't just victimise the old or infirm, it also picks on the young and innocent who deserve a chance at life.

I'm obviously aware that young people get cancer, although, it's not true to say that it doesn't discriminate. More than half of cancer deaths are in people aged over 75, and over 80% are in those over 65. Under 40 the rate drops dramatically. Anyway, that's not really the point: I'm not talking about what we would or wouldn't do for our children. I am (loosely) socialist in nature and totally agree that people SHOULD be willing to have their taxes ramped up in order to support an aging population. I'm also a realist, though, and I know that people gripe like crazy when taxes go up by a penny, let alone by the significant amount it would take to make this a reality.

Also when I say "bleaker lives" I'm not talking about higher taxes / less money - I'm talking about the fact that the vast majority of people would, in effect, have to "work themselves to death". I'm just looking at that from a personal perspective, I guess. I would rather retire at 60 and die at 75, than retire at 89 and drop at 90.

No one is disputing that young, vibrant people dying of cancer is an absolute tragedy. I just sometimes wonder, should there be an upper age limit (like 70?) when trying to help people to live forever becomes a bit more morally ambiguous.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm obviously aware that young people get cancer, although, it's not true to say that it doesn't discriminate. More than half of cancer deaths are in people aged over 75, and over 80% are in those over 65. Under 40 the rate drops dramatically. Anyway, that's not really the point: I'm not talking about what we would or wouldn't do for our children. I am (loosely) socialist in nature and totally agree that people SHOULD be willing to have their taxes ramped up in order to support an aging population. I'm also a realist, though, and I know that people gripe like crazy when taxes go up by a penny, let alone by the significant amount it would take to make this a reality.

Also when I say "bleaker lives" I'm not talking about higher taxes / less money - I'm talking about the fact that the vast majority of people would, in effect, have to "work themselves to death". I'm just looking at that from a personal perspective, I guess. I would rather retire at 60 and die at 75, than retire at 89 and drop at 90.

No one is disputing that young, vibrant people dying of cancer is an absolute tragedy. I just sometimes wonder, should there be an upper age limit (like 70?) when trying to help people to live forever becomes a bit more morally ambiguous.

..I think that humans in general 'gripe' anyway, I mean I think it's in human nature to do so but specifically with taxes..?...it's because they're one of those things that we have no control over, not paying them..I mean how those taxes are spent/those decisions and the 'gripes' are not that they're in any way begrudged but more the NHS issues atm and rising taxes if people saw them V a declining health system/declining school systems etc..?..but focus on spending with something an individual taxpayer wouldn't believe in or agree with...cancer research/cancer treatment funding, I can't see many people ever not agreeing with as a 'personal investment'...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I think that humans in general 'gripe' anyway, I mean I think it's in human nature to do so but specifically with taxes..?...it's because they're one of those things that we have no control over, not paying them..I mean how those taxes are spent/those decisions and the 'gripes' are not that they're in any way begrudged but more the NHS issues atm and rising taxes if people saw them V a declining health system/declining school systems etc..?..but focus on spending with something an individual taxpayer wouldn't believe in or agree with...cancer research/cancer treatment funding, I can't see many people ever not agreeing with as a 'personal investment'...

I'm not talking about funding for cancer research and treatment, I'm talking about a (theoretical) future world where we've cured all the big "killers of the elderly" and everyone is living until they're 100. Given that, in Britain at least, we seem to be MAJORLY struggling to maintain any sort of quality of life for our elderly already? The only options to support it are either a huge surge to the left - and I'm not talking a few more tax ŁŁ, I'm talking a major social / lifestyle overhaul for everyone - which people have quite clearly demonstrated that they do not want and will not accept... OR, people will have to continue to work until they are so old and frail that their bodies simply fail, further compounding the "birth-school-work-die" existential nightmare? Work to live, live to work, die? What is the point?

I genuinely don't mean to be a negative nancy. *I* think we should help people to live long lives and to enjoy their retirement. *I* think more family units and communities should be close enough to all work together and provide good, full lives for everyone. But the reality is, a lot of families aren't that. MOST communities aren't that. Most of capitalist society is selfish and does not want to support those who are not able to support themselves... how can that really be disputed? Where is this fantasy world where actually everyone wants to help and is happy to give more of "what's theirs" to make that happen?

A lot of elderly people are already lonely, and poor, and struggling to exist. I'm saying, look at the social and economic problems that have already been identified in relation to an aging population, and then multiply those by ten.

It's not a problem with curing disease, it's a problem with society, but it's a very real one and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change it.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm not talking about funding for cancer research and treatment, I'm talking about a (theoretical) future world where we've cured all the big "killers of the elderly" and everyone is living until they're 100. Given that, in Britain at least, we seem to be MAJORLY struggling to maintain any sort of quality of life for our elderly already? The only options to support it are either a huge surge to the left - and I'm not talking a few more tax ŁŁ, I'm talking a major social / lifestyle overhaul for everyone - which people have quite clearly demonstrated that they do not want and will not accept... OR, people will have to continue to work until they are so old and frail that their bodies simply fail, further compounding the "birth-school-work-die" existential nightmare? Work to live, live to work, die? What is the point?

I genuinely don't mean to be a negative nancy. *I* think we should help people to live long lives and to enjoy their retirement. *I* think more family units and communities should be close enough to all work together and provide good, full lives for everyone. But the reality is, a lot of families aren't that. MOST communities aren't that. Most of capitalist society is selfish and does not want to support those who are not able to support themselves... how can that really be disputed? Where is this fantasy world where actually everyone wants to help and is happy to give more of "what's theirs" to make that happen?

A lot of elderly people are already lonely, and poor, and struggling to exist. I'm saying, look at the social and economic problems that have already been identified in relation to an aging population, and then multiply those by ten.

It's not a problem with curing disease, it's a problem with society, but it's a very real one and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change it.

..I'm not pretending that anything doesn't exist but 'Work to live, live to work, die? What is the point?', "birth-school-work-die" has always been there and always will..a 'what is the meaning of life..'/type thing...it's for us to find our own meanings...

[Samm]

Originally Posted by Lee.

If I had to choose between paying higher taxes/living a bleaker life or my son dying to cancer, I know which option I'd go for. It's a hideous disease that destroys families; cancer doesn't discriminate, it doesn't just victimise the old or infirm, it also picks on the young and innocent who deserve a chance at life.

This 100%

[Lee.]

My mum is 70! She is in no way the stereotypical granny.. She's a strong, healthy, fit woman.. If she was ever to be diagnosed with anything life threatening, I'd like to think that she would have the same right to treatment as somebody half her age!

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Lee.

My mum is 70! She is in no way the stereotypical granny.. She's a strong, healthy, fit woman.. If she was ever to be diagnosed with anything life threatening, I'd like to think that she would have the same right to treatment as somebody half her age!

Totally agree

[Lee.]

Actually I've just realised she's not 79 until October.. She would NOT be happy if she thought I was spreading it around that sh was 70

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Lee.

Actually I've just realised she's not 79 until October.. She would NOT be happy if she thought I was spreading it around that sh was 70

...yeah because that would also be people who had paid taxes/contributed to a system their whole working lives, then being 'scrapped off', when they needed that system themselves...