When are we old? Let’s relook at our fixation on chronological age

Social attitudes towards the aged vary with the country of residence. The inherent age structure of the population, the inbuilt cultural values and its set of man- made rules are some of the determinants. The attitude of Sri Lankan society towards its elderly population at present, may need revision. It seems as if there is almost a belief in a threshold- “Cross it, and thou shall be cast into the limbo of redundancy”.

The Buddhist preachings of the “peranimithi” adds fuel to this thought and nails to this dubious coffin. How shall we apply a bit more compassion and resurrect this mindset? Let me try to dissect this current concept of “old age”.

Disengaging the “retirement” age from its entrenched but didactic status, to be based on a chronological age of 55 or 60 years will revolutionise an individual’s or society’s acceptance of one’s worth. The concept of age, as is commonly accepted, is archaic. There is a chronological age, a biological age of the physical structure and a mental age. The old concept of lumping all three into one basket and talking of retirement based on chronological age, may unfortunately herald the death knell of the other two, both in the minds of one’s associates and possibly even oneself. It casts into the dustbin, a wealth of talent, wisdom and experience harvested over years. It stunts many a being who probably are in the most “contributive” phase of their lives but are unfortunately shown the door.

We need to think and graduate our mindset now, as to how we would think, in say, 2030. Sri Lanka will in 2020 we are told, have 25 % of its population over 60 years. That is, as we now accept, the retired Govt. servants in some ways will be dependent on the state. Pensions for the Govt. servants, free health care at this age, requiring repair and replacement, a proverbial ogre as we outlive our designed span.

The care of the NCDs ( non communicable diseases ) like strokes, their acute and long term care, surgery on the coronary artery of the heart, cost of cardiac stents, fractures due to osteoporosis, cost of metal hip and knee prostheses, prostatic surgery, and drugs and hospice care of cancer patients, transplants be they of the kidney, liver, heart or lung, according to current national policy has to be borne by the state. All of these are going to make the free health almost too much to bear for a country like ours.

Economically advanced countries have grappled with the problem by trying to provide Universal Health Insurance. Life insurance for some strange and unreasonable premise, stops at 65 years, when one most needs it! Further, it is a contentious problem as the premiums become more costly with handicaps we are likely to get with senescence. In a free health service that these costs have to be borne, in reality by the ever dwindling numbers of the sub 60s, as the population ages. That we need to address this problem before it comes upon us, is the need of the hour

Let’s separate the “chronological retirees”, be they in the public or private sector, from those who truly wish to “down tools” and put their feet up and those who don’t. There would be many who are physically fit and mentally young who would greatly appreciate the opportunity to work. This attitude maybe borne by a desire to be useful, the financial remuneration it begets or simply the”camaraderie” of the workplace. Promotional prospects of the young are not hindered as its contracted jobs we envisage. Let’s make after 60 full of choices and cater to this need.

To some of them a contractual job in keeping with their individual expertise would be a boon . The state could conceptually change its paradigms , taking on a role of a sort of matchmaker , trying to fit the “wanted column to the available column”. All it needs to my naive and empirical mind is a desk, a chair, a computer and a motivated compassionate being.

This will allow the state to reap many benefits. As the public sector of this country is quite large and requires the state to sustain them after the chronological retirement, it would be useful if the state could help those retirees who are biologically fit and mentally sound to secure jobs in the private sector.

Many experts and experienced state sector professionals who could be harvested into this programme could prove to be an asset to the private sector. We speak of lack of skilled experience and even look for foreign inputs, when by simply not ostracising the over 60 into limbo, we would come to a “win win” situation, for both parties concerned. It would be good to anticipate large populations of retirees, like in the tri- forces. Train them to provide skilled manpower before they retire so that they can be gainfully employed when the time comes. To say we are short of skilled labour, I feel, is a constipation of the administrators’ mind or rather, a poverty of thought.

Pensions could be paid only for those who do not wish to work, who do not secure a job or till they do. They could finally retire when the biological or mental age demands it, having played out their time

“Retirement” should in principle be one’s own decision rather than be foisted on one. Let it be a happy occasion. Let’s relook at our fixation on chronological age, expand our mindset to be wider and be more inclusive. Dr Channa Ratnatunga Kandy