Are we infantilizing our elders by stripping away their agency?
in The World Around Us ·
I was thinking about this the other day while watching my grandfather navigate his daily routine, and it hit me how much we tend to view aging as a slow slide into total dependency. It’s like there’s this unwritten social contract where, as soon as you hit a certain age or move into a certain type of facility, you’re suddenly treated like a child again. We start making decisions for people—what they can eat, when they can sleep, how they should spend their leisure time—under the guise of "safety" or "wellness." But at what point does "care" just become "control"?
I see it all the time in my own family. When my aunt moved into an assisted living community, I noticed this subtle shift in how the staff interacted with her. It wasn't malicious; in fact, it was incredibly kind. But there was this pervasive sense of paternalism. They managed her schedule so tightly that even the smallest deviations felt like "disruptions." It made me wonder: if we take away someone's ability to make even the most minor, seemingly frivolous choices—like whether they want a cocktail at 4:00 PM or if they want to stay up late reading—are we actually helping them live a better life, or are we just making it easier for the caregivers to manage them?
There is a massive difference between being looked after and being stripped of your autonomy. I think we often conflate the two. We assume that because someone might be physically frail, their spirit or their right to personal expression should also be diminished. We treat aging as a loss of status, where the "adult" in the room is no longer the senior citizen, but the institution or the family member overseeing them. It feels incredibly patronizing to suggest that a person who has lived seventy, eighty, or ninety years of life suddenly lacks the judgment to enjoy a little social ritual or a specific way of unwinding.
It brings up a deeper philosophical question about dignity. Dignity isn't just about having your physical needs met; it's about having the agency to define your own existence. If you're in a communal living situation, you're often expected to conform to a "standardized" lifestyle to keep things orderly. But human beings aren't standardized. We are all shaped by decades of individual habits, preferences, and little rebellions. When you sanitize those habits away to create a "safe" or "regulated" environment, you’re essentially erasing the personhood of the individual.
I’ve noticed that the more we try to "optimize" the lives of the elderly for longevity and safety, the more we seem to starve them of the very things that make life worth living. A life without spontaneity, without the ability to indulge in a small pleasure or a social tradition, isn't a life of high quality—it's just a life of high maintenance. We talk so much about "quality of life" in policy and healthcare, but we rarely define what that actually means for the person living it. Is it just a lack of falls and a steady heart rate? Or is it the freedom to be a little bit "unregulated" once in a while?
I'm curious to hear what you all think about this. Do you think there’s a point where "safety" should absolutely trump personal freedom, especially in communal or care settings? Or are we doing a disservice to our elders by trying to manage their every move in the name of protection?
I see it all the time in my own family. When my aunt moved into an assisted living community, I noticed this subtle shift in how the staff interacted with her. It wasn't malicious; in fact, it was incredibly kind. But there was this pervasive sense of paternalism. They managed her schedule so tightly that even the smallest deviations felt like "disruptions." It made me wonder: if we take away someone's ability to make even the most minor, seemingly frivolous choices—like whether they want a cocktail at 4:00 PM or if they want to stay up late reading—are we actually helping them live a better life, or are we just making it easier for the caregivers to manage them?
There is a massive difference between being looked after and being stripped of your autonomy. I think we often conflate the two. We assume that because someone might be physically frail, their spirit or their right to personal expression should also be diminished. We treat aging as a loss of status, where the "adult" in the room is no longer the senior citizen, but the institution or the family member overseeing them. It feels incredibly patronizing to suggest that a person who has lived seventy, eighty, or ninety years of life suddenly lacks the judgment to enjoy a little social ritual or a specific way of unwinding.
It brings up a deeper philosophical question about dignity. Dignity isn't just about having your physical needs met; it's about having the agency to define your own existence. If you're in a communal living situation, you're often expected to conform to a "standardized" lifestyle to keep things orderly. But human beings aren't standardized. We are all shaped by decades of individual habits, preferences, and little rebellions. When you sanitize those habits away to create a "safe" or "regulated" environment, you’re essentially erasing the personhood of the individual.
I’ve noticed that the more we try to "optimize" the lives of the elderly for longevity and safety, the more we seem to starve them of the very things that make life worth living. A life without spontaneity, without the ability to indulge in a small pleasure or a social tradition, isn't a life of high quality—it's just a life of high maintenance. We talk so much about "quality of life" in policy and healthcare, but we rarely define what that actually means for the person living it. Is it just a lack of falls and a steady heart rate? Or is it the freedom to be a little bit "unregulated" once in a while?
I'm curious to hear what you all think about this. Do you think there’s a point where "safety" should absolutely trump personal freedom, especially in communal or care settings? Or are we doing a disservice to our elders by trying to manage their every move in the name of protection?