health expectancy

[cellio]

I saw a news story today about how US life expectancy is at an all-time high. The article doesn't give enough data to be really useful (it's just the popular press, after all), but I found on reading it that I'm not really interested in life-expectancy figures any more. I'm much more interested in the much-harder-to-compute health expectancy.

In other words, at what age do the statistics say the average person will be last able to live independently with a functioning mind and body? (Yes, of course I recognize that this is hard to characterize precisely.) I don't care if life expectancy goes up to 120 if the last 20 years of it are spent lying in a bed no longer able to recognize anyone. That's where we face our challenges today. Keeping people alive is easy; keeping lives worth living all the way to the end is harder.

Comments

[sue-n-julia.livejournal.com]

Of course, that depends on the type of work people are doing. If you have people who are doing manual labor all their lives, then they still need to be able to retire at 65. Manual labor takes quite a toll on joints, bones, and muscle.

If you are working in an office or in academia, then, sure, you can work until you drop over. You don't have to be able to meet severe physical demands.

As far as quality of life is concerned, I guess we each have to decide where to draw the line. As far as I'm concerned, that hasn't really changed.

S

[cellio]

As far as quality of life is concerned, I guess we each have to decide where to draw the line. As far as I'm concerned, that hasn't really changed.

That hasn't changed, but the length of time that one can spend in states where the question comes up has risen over time as we've gotten better at sustaining people we can't cure. Those people used to die earlier, bringing the definitions of life-expectancy and health-expectancy closer together.