Ageism: now let’s finish the job
15/09/2008
Earlier this summer, Ministers took the first momentous steps towards recognising the rights of older people. The Equality Bill will include measures to ban age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services and place a duty on public authorities to promote age equality. It represented a tremendous leap forward in the Government’s thinking.
So what is the legislation really about? As part of its “Just Equal Treatment” campaign, Help the Aged gathered stories of the reality of people who had found their age to be a road-block to decent treatment. People like Jean whose doctor told her he would have treated her foot if she’d been younger, or David who couldn’t visit family because his insurance premiums had gone through the roof without explanation. But the reality of age discrimination goes beyond individual stories: the culture created by a world in which it’s fine to discriminate on the grounds of age is one in which older people can be patronised, denigrated and ignored.
In calling for a ban on age discrimination outside the workplace, we are seeking to address systemic ageism, such as the deprioritisation of services like podiatry, which are mainly used by older people; or the lower standards applied to care for older people. And, further, we want to start a shift in cultural attitudes towards ageing and older people. In a rapidly ageing society, such change is a necessity if we are to avoid casting aside the talents and contributions of a huge chunk of our population.
Age discrimination law is not about becoming age blind. Our experiences, needs and wishes shift as we go through life. We need to respond to these changes.
Age discrimination law would not mean age could never be taken into account, but would ensure it was only used where it was relevant. So, in health care, where there is clear scientific evidence linking risk from influenza to age, then we would continue to use age to segment the population; and in insurance where there is a clear actuarially justified link between age and risk, then premiums may need to differ. Where there are clearly important social goals to be achieved - such as improving the mobility of a group who so often struggle to get out - then benefits such as bus passes could continue. But the societal signal would be clear: do not dismiss, or presume on the grounds of age.
Sadly however, while we may have won a battle, the war is far from over. The Government has understood the damaging signal sent by a law which bans racism and sexism, but leaves ageism perfectly legal, and has accepted in principle that age discrimination law can be made to work. However, we still don’t know when a ban will come into force, or how it will work in practice. Worryingly the Government fears it will not be ready give us chapter and verse by the time it brings forward its Equality Bill some time in the New Year. At the moment its plan is simply to “take powers” to ban age discrimination in the Bill – effectively writing itself a blank cheque to bring in the legislation at some non-specific point in the future.
This is not good enough. Campaigners up and down the country battled hard to win the argument on age discrimination, and the Government owes it to them to deliver on its promises. It would be a betrayal indeed to talk the talk on age discrimination without ever having the guts to walk the walk.
While we all want to get the detail of the legislation right, and to avoid any unintended consequences, we cannot allow ageism to remain unchallenged. A recent article in the BMJ confirmed that every day there are older people sitting in hospital beds and visiting doctors’ surgeries facing second rate treatment far below the standards which medics believe they should expect. The Government owes it to them to convert rhetoric into reality without delay.