Most Americans don't want to live past 100: survey

Most Americans do not want to live beyond age 100, and a poll out Tuesday suggests many worry that anti-aging technologies may end up being a luxury for the rich.

07 aug 2013--The survey of more than 2,000 people by the Pew Research Center's Religion and Public Life Project sought to probe the nation's views on the prospect of living longer lives.

Already, aging adults account for a growing share of the US population. About 41 million Americans are 65 or older, making up 13 percent of the population, up from four percent in 1900.

By 2050, that number will rise to 20 percent, according to Census Bureau projections.

A majority of US adults (56 percent) said they would not "choose to undergo medical treatments to slow the aging process and live to be 120 or more," said the Pew report. A total of 38 percent said they would.

With the average US life expectancy at 78.7 years, more than two thirds said they would like to live longer than that, somewhere between 79 and 100.

The median, or midpoint, for ideal lifespan was 90, or about 11 years longer than the current US average.

Asked whether current medical treatments are worth the costs because they help people live longer and better quality lives, 54 percent agreed and 41 percent disagreed on grounds that modern medical advances "often create as many problems as they solve."

There was also significant concern about how life-extending technologies would be used, and by whom.

Seventy-nine percent said everyone should be able to get medical treatments that would slow, stop or reverse the aging process.

However, two-thirds said that in practice, only the wealthy would have access.

Two-thirds of respondents also said that longer life expectancies would strain natural resources, and believed that "medical scientists would offer the treatment before they fully understood how it affects people's health."

Views were split on the question of whether the economy would be more productive if people could work longer—with 44 percent agreeing and 53 percent rejecting this idea.

For certain health issues, Americans were optimistic that medical science would perform well in the future. Seven in 10 said that they expect a cure for most cancers by 2050, and 71 percent said artificial arms and legs will perform better than natural ones.

"And, on balance, the public tends to view medical advances that are available today to prolong life as good (63%) rather than as interfering with the natural cycle of life (32%)," the survey said.

By 2050, the government forecasts there will be at least 400,000 Americans aged 100 or older.

Just 10 percent said the trend toward an aging population is a bad thing.

One quarter said a major anti-aging breakthrough that would allow average folk to live to 120 and beyond was likely by 2050.

The telephone poll was conducted from March 21 to April 8 among a nationally representative sample of 2,012 adults and carried a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.

Old but not wise? Our growing anti-ageing industry

04 may 2013--Growing old is generally viewed in negative terms in our society. And our individualistic and consumerist approach to health care leads us to believe that it's within our power to alter the "biological clock"—if we are willing and able to pay.

But while lifespans may be increasing (largely due to improvements in living standards), there's no evidence that medicine can alter the process of human biological ageing.

Still, numerous so-called anti-ageing treatments are currently advertised and available for purchase via the internet. These cover a broad spectrum, including cosmetic treatments, hormone replacement therapies, implants, prosthetic devices and stem cell treatments. Some providers even offer the treatments as part of a packaged holiday, offering surgery alongside sand and sunshine.

In Australia, some common treatments include non-surgical facelifts, anti-wrinkle injections and "dermal fillers", permanent hair removal and laser treatments.

Consumer organisation, Choice, has questioned some of the claims of those advertising anti-ageing treatments. In a review of such treatments, Choice notes, for instance, that there's "no such thing as a 'non-surgical' face-lift", and that such procedures "won't last as long as a surgical face-lift."

Despite the advertising of questionable claims, the anti-ageing industry is difficult to regulate.

One of the greatest challenges for regulating a market like this is that many treatments are advertised directly to consumers over the internet. If not available in Australia, treatments can almost certainly be purchased overseas. Clever advertising techniques give the impression that there's an effective treatment for almost any age-related "condition".

Another challenge for regulators is that the term "anti-ageing" is difficult to pin down. Treatments that were long part of complementary and alternative medicine have been relabelled as "anti-ageing". These include using antioxidants, vitamins and homeopathic products.

Some treatments that have actually undergone clinical trials and are used for treating conditions such as sexual dysfunction and heart disease have been relabelled to join the anti-ageing marketplace. And there are newer, clinically unproven treatments such as stem cell therapies, that are mostly only available for purchase overseas.

Clearly, many groups have a stake in the "anti-ageing industry". Chief among these are the biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies that stand to profit from the sale of new pills, potions, prosthetic devices, and implants. And then there are numerous clinics and private hospitals that profit from providing the treatments.

The "anti-ageing industry" has grown from a low base to reach a net worth of $88 billion in just ten years. An industry newsletter predicts that it will be worth nearly $300 billion by 2015.

If these predictions are to be believed, many consumers will, in coming years, be submitting themselves to many treatments that are clinically unproven and potentially harmful. At minimum, these treatments may be ineffective. There's also the risk that people may be financially exploited.

The irony is, by making ageing a disease, the anti-ageing industry may in fact create illnesses.

There have been some reported increased rates of adverse events, including death, among healthy elderly people resulting from the use of human growth hormones. Adverse effects have also been associated with the use of stem cell-based cosmetics.

Older people are at greater risk because they may be taking multiple prescription drugs and may suffer harm from the interaction of supplements and drugs. Despite these potential multiple risks, there has been relatively little public debate about the pros and cons of the anti-ageing treatment market.

Growing old may not be desirable, but it is inevitable. In the end, it is better to live healthy, active lives for as long as possible with minimal medical intervention.

Provided by Monash University

Anti-aging hormones: Little or no benefit and the risks are high

17 april 2010--In the wake of the American Medical Association's (AMA) Council on Science and Public Health's recently released report "The use of hormones for "anti-aging": a review of efficacy and safety," a leading medical authority has criticized the use of anti-aging hormones. Dr. Thomas T. Perls, an associate professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine has long spoken out against the promotion and distribution of growth hormones for non-medical uses such as anti-aging and sports. In an editorial appearing in the Future Medicine journal Aging Health, Dr. Perls applauds the courage and example displayed by the AMA in its recently published assessment of the risks and benefits of growth hormone, testosterone, estrogen and DHEA for anti-aging. The editorial entitled "Anti-aging medicine: what should we tell our patients?" is freely available at http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/ahe.10.11

There have always been nostrums and potions peddled for eternal youth. Most recently these have been what some entrepreneurs call "bio-identical" or "all-natural" hormones. What they mean by these terms varies from substances made from vegetables – such as soy or yams, which some claim have estrogen-like effects to, more commonly, drugs that are exactly the same as hormones prescribed by endocrinologists for specific diseases. Dr. Perls remarked: "The terms bio-identical or all-natural, particularly in the case of the drugs prescribed by endocrinologists, misleadingly convey a sense of safety to the gullible customer. Arsenic is all-natural to, and it even has some medical uses, but it is anything but safe."

"The AMA's review of the risks and benefits of these hormones in the setting of anti-aging and athletic enhancement is very important given its inclusion of the consensus and position statements of the key professional medical societies as well as the federal agencies that guard public health." states Dr. Perls in the editorial.

The editorial summarizes the AMA's assessment for each of the purported anti-aging hormones and essentially the bottom line of his argument is that in terms of anti-aging, the risks of these hormones out-weigh the little or no benefit. Dr. Perls denounces the marketing of these hormones, particularly growth hormone and anabolic steroids (anabolic steroids are variations of testosterone), for anti-aging. He also provides guidelines for spotting "red flags of quackery" and basic advice that physicians can lend to their patients in their pursuit of healthy aging.