Cancer treatment for over 80’s

I agree that it depends. My 92 year old neighbour has just been diagnosed with breast cancer (it returned after 30 years). She looks amazing and is otherwise fit. The doctor said that they operate up until the age of 99. She said 'no thanks. I don't want to live to be 99.' She is just on medication.

Nothing wrong with prolonging somebody's life, but prolonging their death is a different matter. It just depends on the quality of life the treatment would give them.

It really depends on a lot of factors, including the type of cancer and type of treatment, the patient's general health, the prognosis and the likely benefit. It's not really something you can generalise over at any age.

Any invasive or radium treatment depends on the individuals general condition, obviously, and alternate treatment is invariably sought.
I'd like to think that everyone can have that extra chance at life all things considered.

I assume those who can pay will be treated?

The NHS is for everyone to access the treatment they need but I agree with some posters about over treatment. Is it ok to treat pneumonia in someone who is in late stage Alzheimer’s for example? My father died quite young of stomach cancer and started chemo but decided not to continue as it made him feel very ill.

I think everyone should continue to have choice if they wish to have treatment or not. I am concerned that giving a cocktail of drugs can cause very unpleasant side effects and can do more harm than good. It seems that with side effects, more drugs are given to combat these effects where I believe drug regimes need to be as simple as possible. It reminds me of a study some time ago. Elderly patients in a care home had a new doctor. He reassessed all the drugs given, cancelled many of them and the health of those patients was improved.

It’s a minefield but I believe in access to medicine and support for all

I think it comes down to quality of life no matter how old someone is. My gran at 80 still had a very good life. She was secretary of a ladies club, she took part in quizzes and every family get together. She was active in the church and still had so much to live for. Whereas my poor mum at 70 spent most of her life in or at hospital. She decided enough was enough and died aged 73 having refused any more treatment.

It will depend so much on the individual, I do agree.

What I can't understand is the 'striving to keep alive' of the very elderly who already have at least moderate dementia. Most extreme case I heard of was someone of over 90, with fairly advanced dementia, having a pacemaker fitted. The family had apparently asked what would happen if s/he didn't have it, and were told that their heart would most probably quietly give up while they were asleep.
Family chose to go ahead anyway.

For me, having seen so much of advanced dementia in 2 close relatives, in such pitiful states, incontinent, every shred of dignity ripped away (no matter how good and kind the care), letting Nature take its course would unquestionably have been the kinder option.

Age is such an arbitrary reason for deciding who should have cancer treatment, and opens up all sorts of ethical and moral issues about medical treatment. As has been pointed out, each person's situation is unique to them. Next step compulsory euthanasia at 80, 85, 90??

Surely each person’s situation is unique? Surely each person should have the choice of treatment or not?

When my 82 year old H was diagnosed with bladder cancer in January I was asked what I wanted to happen.
He had dementia, had had a severe stroke last year and was very frail.
I said I didn't want him to go through treatment and the consultant said it was the best and kindest decision.
If I had said I did want him treated I wonder what she would have said.
He died three months later never knowing he had cancer and without going through invasive treatment which he would not have understood.
Every case is different and should be treated as such if this is possible, no blanket bans simply because of age.

There is usually a choice of treatments including doing nothing.
It’s the doctors’ job to explain the implications of each approach and help the patient to make the choice that’s right for them.
An older person might be too frail to cope with aggressive chemo, but age in itself shouldn’t be a barrier to treatment.

My late gran had extensive cancer treatment in her early 80’s . She went on to live a wonderful life until she died aged 99 (just over 3 years ago) .

I m a bit undecided about this I think nowadays 80 is not so old but I do think there comes a time when more and more treatment just to keep someone alive through thick and thin is not the right way to go I knew an elderly lady of 90 who was offered a heart pacemaker and she refused she said rightly, I ve had my life, let it end as it should.
I think if the cancer or any other illness is easily treated with a likely good outcome of 10 years or so that’s fine but not if it’s going to be expensive complex treatment that may or may not work or just add on twelve months
Like with extra premature babies who often have severe problems for the rest of their lives then I think just because we can doesn’t mean we should

You could say the same about a child who has been born with a condition which will limit their life to 10 years or so. Would you refuse to give them any treatment, because they won't live very long anyway ? I prefer to think of treating each person as an individual , rather than putting an age limit on treatment.

Well firstly it is not compulsary to agree to treatment so presumably the people in their 80s taking up treatment think they have something to live by

And besides not all chemo aims to cure anyway, some is palliative or symptom relieving

I find ageism a dreadful attitude, no other prejudice goes unchallenged. Someone turning 80 could have another 20 years left, people are living longer and longer. Try telling a loving daughter and grandchildren that you are not going to treat their loved one because they have reached 80?

Children born with life limiting diseases cost a great deal to treat, should we not treat them because they haven't got long left?

Everyone has the right to decide on whether they would like treatment, the important thing is that discussion must be had.

If you were querying resuscitation outside hospital, then that is a totally different matter. We have expensive defibrillators being installed all over the country, yet the survival rate after cardiac arrest in the community is less that 6%, and some of those will be permanently brain damaged. I certainly wouldn't want to be resuscitated, and I hope to have at least 20 years ahead of me. However if I were to develop cancer, then unless it has spread to the point of being terminal, then I would want treatment, no matter what my age. That is my decision, and should be my right.

It is true that NHS resources are severely stretched now, but that it not the fault of the elderly who have paid their taxes and NI and have a right to expect treatment as Bevan put it 'from Cradle to Grave'.

We have an organisation, NICE, whose job is to decide what is affordable. Some drugs will not be deemed to offer enough Quality of Life Years to be good value, and we have to accept that. CCGs make their own decisions on what they will pay for, they ignore the NICE guidance on what drugs to provide ,and deny surgery to obese patients, those with arthritic hips or cataracts. They cut down on mental health care and send patients miles away from their home. The reason for this is the lack of funding provided by the Department of Health.

If you are concerned about the lack of care provision of any group, then lobby the government, don't take it out on those who have reached a certain age.

It is easy to say this when you're not nearly 80 perhaps. When you get to that age, you might feel differently.

I think someone of that age is entitled to treatment.

Some people in their eighties may say they don't want treatment and I think their wishes ought to be respected.

There are many different types of cancer. Some more treatable than others where quality of life can be extended regardless of the patient's age.

It would be wrong to deny an 80 yr. old treatment if the prognosis is favourable.

80 isn’t seen as so old these days, surely, when so many people are reaching 100.
A friend of ours has just had treatment, he is a fit 81 year old( apart from the cancer obviously.)
Should older people be denied treatment? No of course not.

Depends on the person, how fit they are otherwise, their quality of life, and of course the type and stage of cancer.

But I totally agree with the premise of your post. Been watching Panorama and how young(ish) adult children's lives are completely eaten up by caring by very elderly parents, with no quality of life - and I think it is so cruel. The NHS is under so much pressure, and young parents, children- are not getting the care they need and deserve ...

Treating, OVER treating- can be really cruel too- we wouldn't do that to animals.

No that's mean, everyone deserves to be treated, where there's life there's hope. What next no treatment for alcoholics, obese people, drug addicts. some eighty year olds are in better nick than others half their age.

I have a friend of 81 and he has just started treatment , ten years is not to be sneezed at

Dear God , back to selective .................