“At a time when the government legislates until the end of life, forgetting old age will be abnormal, pointless and discriminatory”

VSHow not to react to an event that forgets the oldest?

On Sunday, September 18, Health Minister Francois Brown announced free medical consultations every twenty years, at the three ages of life, 25, 45 and 65, with the aim of “Strengthening the prevention component of the French health system”.

For 25-year-olds, this will include accounting for vaccines, physical activity, and cardiovascular risk; For age 45, breast, colon and prostate cancer screening in addition to physical activity and mental health; Prevention of autonomy at the age of 65, screening for cancer and other diseases.

This event, which emphasizes preventive medicine, which is too often neglected, is a good event and we welcome it. But what about adults? Are we not getting old in France after 65 years? If we follow the logic of twenty years between each consultation, shouldn’t there be a free consultation in 85?

Acknowledging that nothing is a priority

As geriatricians, we know that prevention is possible after age 65 and that it is beneficial (especially for risk of falls, memory problems, malnutrition, depression, or even flu, pneumococcal, shark vaccinations, which can prevent sometimes fatal complications).

What about physical activity, which, according to the minister, will disappear at the 65-year-old consultation, when we know very well that, like social connections, it is an essential component of healthy ageing! And finally, to emphasize that the loss of autonomy, which will be a “strong axis” At 65 years of age counseling is far from a priority for the active senior who today juggles between caring for grandchildren, recreation, social activities and supporting parents who have reached real age. Loss of autonomy…

So, do we need to point out again that getting old in France isn’t always good? Failure to consult after age 65 is, at best, a lack of knowledge to address the problems associated with an aging population, at worst, an acknowledgment that nothing in aging is a priority or effective…

Starting the mandate with such an “age” bill sends a very bad signal to the population (that’s 13.4 million people over age 65) and health care professionals who work every day in the field of aging (who still have trouble digesting the broken promise of the “aging” law).