2010-10-18 05:22:08
After getting all sorts of personal freedoms, many baby boomers now want the
right to choose when to die, says Sarah Dunant in her A Point of View column.
Let me come clean with you. I was born in the early 1950s, slap bang in the
middle of the most influential demographic bulge the modern world has ever
seen.
Like much of my generation I had hoped to die before I got old. The fact that I
haven't now makes me and the rest of us a "big problem" in the post-crisis
economy. Having had jobs, houses, pensions and now expanded life expectancy, it
appears we have left those who come after us with nothing. Or certainly not
enough.
Getting a bad press is hardly news for the baby boomers. From early on we were
a bloody-minded, selfish lot. Instead of being grateful for being born into a
welfare state and not having to die in any major war, what did we do but use
our free education and our healthy teeth to try and gnaw off the hand that had
fed us.
No respect for our elders from us lot. Instead we looked around and found the
world wanting. Attitudes towards race, class, empire and sexuality - especially
sexuality - were all up for radical change.
We were born into the free world and we took that word free seriously. When it
came to play as well as work. The baby boomers, unlike any other children, set
out to make sure they were not only seen but heard and listened to.
For many years our elders saw us only as an apocalypse in the making: Pandora'
s open box darkening the air with moral malignancies. Free love would lead to
sexual anarchy, women's and gay rights to the destruction of the family,
marijuana was the precursor to heroin, and together with rock 'n' roll they
would all breed a race of young punks subversive to both Queen and country.
In fact, bar the odd Sex Pistols gesture with a photo of Her Majesty, it's
amazing how quickly much of the baby boomers' agenda was incorporated into the
fabric of British society. Forget radical ideology.
Morality
In large part, this was about economics. Even as teenagers we had more
disposable income than any generation before us. Add to that the serendipity of
the contraceptive pill and feminism, which challenged the notion of the family
as an only one-wage unit, and suddenly we created an army of consumers the like
of which society had never seen before.
And the market was more than ready for us. Ironically, those who would
otherwise have been our ideological enemies - conservatives - were by the late
70's developing their own radical agenda when it came to promoting freedom, but
in their case it was to do with money. A free world needed a free market. And
free markets, of course, are driven more by profit than morality.
A punk Punks were seen as subversive
As a strategy, while it was surely unconscious, it was also brilliant. How
better to neutralise revolution than to market it back to the revolutionaries.
With sex no longer a taboo, naked flesh and simulated orgasm could be used to
sell everything, from cars to flaky chocolate bars.
When it came to targeting women, the language of feminism easily morphed into
the language of persuasion. "Because you're worth it" sold us truck-loads of
beauty aids. But however much we slathered on, there was always something more
needed to make us perfect.
Little did the early women's movement imagine that their hard-won freedom would
lead to an epidemic of eating disorders or rat poison injections to paralyse
our faces against wrinkles.
In much same the way, the softening of attitudes to homosexuality went hand in
hand with the growing power of the pink pound. And when it came to fighting
racial intolerance, one could argue that the market's inherent colour blindness
endorsed a multi-culturalism that laws and social policy alone might have taken
longer to achieve.
Come the new millennium and that social liberation the boomers had championed
had indeed changed society, although not perhaps quite as they had predicted.
Now major politicians of any hue would argue that this was what modernity
looked like.
Corroding
But, just when it seemed we might be the answer rather than the problem, we're
back in the dog house again. Fittingly, our sins are economic. Once again I am
guilty. I own a house, I drive a car, I travel by plane and I've got a pension.
While the generations beneath me scrabble to find a job and a roof over their
heads I, having lived the life of Riley - sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, career,
children - am now looking at staying alive to enjoy it further.
Ah, the irony of it. We baby boomers are now being vilified for the very things
that first drove us into revolt against our parents. A comfortable lifestyle.
Financial security. A gentle old age. Forget "hope I die before I get old", our
real theme song was obviously "may you stay forever young".
Yet, you could argue that even being vilified is better than being ignored. Now
that's something us baby boomers really couldn't stomach. We are, after all,
the original "me" generation. How fitting then that our very specialness means
that historically we are now seen as responsible for the destruction of the
world as we know it. Apres nous le deluge. Or le desert. Or the ice age.
But before you start shouting at me, I have what I think is some good news.
Because having got everything that we wanted in life, baby boomers, more than
any other generation, are uniquely qualified to address the biggest taboo of
all - death. This, I hasten to add, does not mean that we are intending
immortality. Rather that an increasing number of us want to choose when and how
we go.
Precisely because we thought we would never grow old the idea of death is
hitting us harder than most. It is not entirely our selfishness. While we may
have rebelled against our parents, like most children we loved them deeply
underneath and we have lived - and in many cases are still living - through
their aging and dying.
It has been a painful, often shocking experience, seeing the effects of
Alzheimer's alongside all manner of agonising illnesses which corrode the mind
as well as torture the body. We have learnt at the most poignant level that
increased life expectancy does not always mean sustained quality of life. And
just as we have got our way in everything else, more of us are talking about
getting our way in this: the right to die when and how we choose.
Provocative
A few of us have already argued with our feet and when the prognosis is bleak
gone to Switzerland to end our lives. Others, brave souls such as Debbie Purdy
or Diane Pretty - who feared that the nature of their vicious degenerative
diseases would leave them incapable of taking action themselves - have gone to
court to argue for the right for assisted suicide.
While the private members bill to change the law failed in the house of Lords
in 2006, the pressure has got greater rather than gone away. As we know when it
comes to social change, it has been the sheer weight of numbers that has been
the baby boomers' greatest power.
That and the fact that we are the first largely secular generation, certainly
in terms of our membership of the established church, means that ideas that
would once have been seen as unacceptably provocative are now being discussed
in the mainstream.
Hospital Old age puts a burden of care on people
Indeed this very week, a group of health professionals, including - most
importantly - some doctors, launched a campaign aimed at challenging again the
1961 assisted suicide law. Fittingly, the chairwoman, Dr Ann McPherson, is
herself a baby boomer suffering from pancreatic cancer.
All of which will come as good news to Terry Prachett, two years into a death
sentence of Alzheimer's and a man with a status close to a national treasure.
He has publicly argued in favour of a medical profession which would be allowed
to give him the wherewithal to take his own life.
Once he had the requisite dose, he said, he could put it in a cupboard and get
on with living until he was ready. For every person who might have been deeply
disturbed by that idea, there were others for whom it sounded eminently
sensible.
In its own way, it would make for the perfect happy ending. If we were allowed
to shuffle off this mortal coil when we chose, rather than when medical science
ran out of ways of keeping us alive, then our generational legacy would become
socially benign: from the bits of the planet we wouldn't consume, to the houses
we would vacate, the money we would save the health service.
The emotional burden of care we would lift from our children, not to mention
the disposable income we would hand onto them. And for us, the sense that we
had gone out as we had lived: changing the world from the cradle to the grave.
All that remains is for us to find an generational anthem to take us into the
final rite of passage. There is of course one obvious choice, though slightly
outside our boomers remit. Sid Vicious after Frank Sinatra: "Regrets, we've had
a few but then again "
Join in on the chorus now: "We did it our way."
A selection of your comments appears below
I am getting heartily fed up with all the bitching against my generation, the
baby boomers. I am 57 and in the second part of that group, the
Neo-Elizabethans. Unlike those born in the post war years of King George VI's
reign we stand to be the losers. The final salary pension schemes are frozen
and we do not in many cases have sufficient time to make up any deficiencies by
alternative means. . Many of us have also seen our State Pension moved away by
a further year to 66 instead of the 65 that we had been led to expect for
decades. The generations below us, X and Y, will have sufficient time to make
adequate provision whether by investing in property which they can then sell to
release funds when they retire or from having a decent stateholder pension.
They will also gain when the economy comes right again as it eventually will.
We baby boomers for the most part have not been sitting on our backsides but
have worked for most of our adult lives, run businesses etc and are as entitled
to the fruits of our labour and to our retirement as any other generation
before us or which will come after.
Stev Foley, Reading
Being a baby boomer myself, I totally agree with everything said here, and had
to laugh at how we have dared to have it all. Having just watched my mother die
a terrible, terrible death I am an advocate for assisted suicide. My mother
starved to death. It took 18 months to do so. She had a benign cancer that ate
away at her internal organs and surgery was the only option, delaying the
inevitable. She suffered for 17 years, the last two years were the absolute
worst. She asked several times for assistance to help her on her way. It was
denied to her. These politicians who deny dying people dignity have never had
to watch a loved one suffer so.
Lorraine Dunlop, Laurieton NSW Australia
It's a sensible option to solve a major problem, that few politicians are
willing to talk about. Currently the average age of a first time buyer has
jumped up to 39 in the UK, as the "entitlement generation" have their mortgages
long paid off and often have money invested into second homes either sat there,
or being rented out which in itself further reduces the houses and money
available to would be buyers. This is clearly unsustainable - if people are
only beginning to pay their mortgages at 39 now, what age will it be in another
10 years? The only way the problem is going to get solved is when the
entitlement generation passes away and the money moves down to their siblings,
their houses are freed up for the market and things begin to balance back out
again. But with few people even being willing to acknowledge the problem, and
many in that generation it's not going to be solved before age makes its play.
Some are even in denial about their wealth - often suggesting they're hard done
by because although they have a nice detached house, no mortgage, and a large
final salary pension, they believe they're entitled to more. It's refreshing
therefore seeing those in that generation who are willing to at least
acknowledge the problem.
Ian, Leeds
Our current laws demand that if you need an exit, then you'd better do it
whilst you are still fit. Wait until you actually want to die and you'll be
trapped because you can't help yourself, and nobody else can help you. Suicide
is currently the prerogative of the fit and the wealthy. If you're sick enough
to need it, then you can't have it.
Vicki, Tyneside
I hate this article, it is so typical of many TV programmes I have seen,
talking about the so-called baby boomers, and their so-called free love,
hedonistic lifestyle in the 1960s. Well I was born in 1944 and I can tell you
we didn't see any of that in Yorkshire. It was a small minority of jetset
Londoners who are held up as the face of the 60s. In reality we had very little
in the 40s and 50s, very few toys, hand me down clothes, and ice on the windows
inside, in the winter, as there was no heating upstairs at all. What was free
love, we'd never heard of it. My first job was poorly paid, I had to save up
for months to buy a new coat. In our first home after I married, in the 60s, we
couldn't afford a carpet, or a fridge or a TV. We lived in one room and
furnished the others one at a time. I can't imagine the young ones nowadays
doing that, they need a TV, a computer, a DVD player, a fitted kitchen, mobile
phone, a car, and they want them straight away, as their right. I have never
owned a car, never been in an aeroplane. I looked after my parents when they
were dying, looked after my own children without baby minders or nursery
schools, and am now looking after my grandchildren so that my children can
further their careers and buy more luxuries than I ever had. The younger
generation have two cars per family, ferry their children about, making them
incapable of walking anywhere, buy them mounds of every conceivable toy and
gadget, mobile phones at eight years old. And they call us the greedy
generation? Ooh that makes me see red.
Grandma, Sheffield