“If you are over 65 . . .”
My only advice to the young is simple, “Don’t get old!” Cling to your youth with every fibre of your being. Go into every birthday with a solemn vow that this will be the last one. Lie about your age, dye your hair, make People Magazine your bible, just don’t get old.
I’ve got to the point that every time I hear the mellifluous tones of some disembodied advertiser on television utter the words “If you are over 65. . .”, I immediately hit the mute button or switch to another channel. This phrase is never followed by anything good. It carries the same sense of alert or panic that the annoying emergency buzzer does when the orange band at the bottom of the screen announces that northern Vermont and southern Quebec can expect heavy rains and tornado-like winds.
And the warning list of the horrors you can expect if you are over 65 is growing. Concerned, as I am, with imminent death and possible dismemberment, I did a one-day television survey of what to fear if you’re over 65. Here’s what came up: pneumonia, shingles, high blood pressure, diabetes, numbness in my extremities, loose dentures, loss of hearing, drowning in the bathtub after a fall, acid reflux, gas, and falling down stairs without a state-of-the-art chair lift.
Since I don’t watch TV non-stop during the day, as a matter of fact I hardly watch it at all during the day, the list could be longer. I also left off erectile dysfunction since, although common, it can apparently be cured with any one of about twenty pills available.
The airwaves are also filled with inducements of every sort designed entirely, we are ensured, to improve the lifestyles of those over 65. There are dozens of advertisements touting a variety of “community living” arrangements where your every whim from breakfast to bedtime is catered to and you can enjoy the comfort of living with other golden agers all in the same boat. All at clearly affordable prices.
Like the beluga whale, the monarch butterfly and the woodland caribou, it appears that “if you are over 65” you’re in danger of extinction. The only difference is, unlike the first three, you have a fighting chance. All it takes is a handful of preventative shots and vaccinations, a daily multi-vitamin, the installation of railings, walk-in tubs and chairlifts, an anti-gas tablet, better glue for your uppers, hearing aids, a good diuretic, a handful of Tums, Billy Jean King’s foot massager and an endless supply of flax seed.
Apparently, if the advertisements are to be believed, “if you are over 65” you are not only cursed with diarrhea but troubled by constipation. Your eyes are dry, your sinuses leak and your lips are prone to chapping. The good news is that if you are troubled by arthritic pain it can be fixed by taking a pill every twelve hours, or a different pill every eight hours, or by applying a heating ointment to the sore area, or by wrapping a heating pad around the entire affected limb. The warnings are clear, “if you are over 65” you can expect to lose your hair, women too. You will need adult diapers and you might as well give up corn on the cob or steak unless you’re happy using the dental equivalent of super glue to hold your dentures in place. Any article of clothing that is not elasticized will be of no use and if shoes require laces forget it.
The bright side of all this, I suppose, is that if you’re over 65 you likely outlived your grandparents and all the rest of your ancestors whose expected lifespan was considerably shorter. And it is gratifying to know that someone cares about your health even if the sole reason for keeping you alive is to sell you more merchandise. This is not to say, by the way, that all the aforementioned nostrums don’t work. I guess it’s a matter of finding the ones that do and the ones you actually need and getting on with it.
DEAR EDITOR;
In response to the letter last week from Mr. Pierre Petelle concerning neonicotinoid pesticides, I would like to add the following comments/questions. Mr. Petelle represents the interests of manufacturers of agricultural products; some of those products include pesticides. His motivation is clear. Some of his arguments however are not.
He states that studies concerning the effects of neonicotinoid pesticides are "...rife with bias and misinformation." All studies, some studies, a study? What is the bias and misinformation? Who stands to gain, and what do they stand to gain, by concluding that pollinators are being adversely affected by neonics?
Mr. Petelle then states that the number of commercial bee colonies in Canada has increased. An increase in the number of commercial colonies doesn't necessarily reflect that commercial bees are doing well. In fact, it could reflect a decision on the part of beekeepers to compensate for increased bee mortality.
Mr. Petelle states that"... David Suzuki is opposed to modern agriculture in general." Why? What does he stand to gain? And what is the evidence, besides the statements put out on neonicotinoids? Is Suzuki plotting to put farmers out of business? Was Rachel Carson secretly plotting to kill millions of songbirds so her predictions in 'Silent Spring' could come true? Mr. Petelle, please do not call environmentalists fearmongerers; many of them would rather not have to worry about the state of the environment. And, caring about the environment and being a farmer are not mutually exclusive - many farmers would tell you so.
CAROL SMITH, SHERBROOKE