65 and feeling useless? That's depressingly ageist

ST Forum, The Straits Times, February 9, 2007


I am a primary health-care doctor involved in the care of 'older' people in the community. In geriatrics, a person aged between 65 and 75 is considered 'young', that is, physiologically not much different from younger people.

Hence, it was with amusement that I read Mr Heng Cho Choon's letter, 'Senior citizens have a moral and social obligation to take care of themselves' (Online forum, Feb 6). He referred to his former colleague, who is now only 66 and a neighbour aged 65 as 'elderly' who hurt themselves from accidents and incurring huge medical expenses.

He also said that such elderly people have only themselves to blame for such foolishness.
Mr Heng further stated that the 'elderly' have a 'moral and social obligation to ensure that they take care so as not to bring pain and suffering upon themselves'.

In Singapore, one starts to feel 'old' at the age of 50 when he or she receives a letter from the Human Resource Department informing him or her that the monthly CPF contribution will be cut. At 55, one qualifies for 'senior citizen' concession at any Singapore Sports Council Fitness Centre. No wonder some people feel 'ancient' at the age of 65.

This conditioning of being 'prematurely' elderly and therefore 'useless' and 'hopeless' is surely depressingly ageist.

Regardless of age, one does not want to hurt himself or herself from accidents but accidents do happen at any age. A young person taking his own sweet time crossing a major road and sms-ing on his mobile phone is as foolish as an older person who does not heed the advice of the doctor or nurse to avoid risky tasks because of illnesses and the side-effects of medication.

However, some older people who suffer from cognitive impairment are at higher risk of accidents. Do these older people deserve to be blamed?

If everyone who reaches the age of 60 suddenly declares himself or herself 'useless' and 'hopeless' and becomes increasing dependent on others so as to 'prevent accidents', surely this will result in a serious premature burdening of a rapidly greying population.

It is the responsibility of society with the Government to take care of its people with the provision of the best of health care, including education and prevention, as well as a safe physical environment accessible to all physically disabled people as well as the elderly.

Mr Heng's blaming of the two 'elderly' people for the accidents is perhaps too harsh a criticism.

Dr Tan Chek Wee