I’ll be 65 early next year and eligible for a range of senior-citizen discounts. I have long believed that these discounts are a relic from previous generations, when seniors had the highest rate of poverty of any age group. But while more than 60 years of government programs have substantially reduced extreme poverty among seniors, these discounts remain.
Of course, there are still needy seniors, but I believe that any discounts should be based on income, not age. If private organizations like museums want to offer senior discounts, I have no issue. But I’m more troubled by accepting senior discounts such as half-price transit fares from government entities as we are fortunately in a position where these subsidies are unneeded. And I would much prefer any benefits I’m eligible for to go to those more in need.
Now, I have no reason to believe that any discounts I decline will be redirected to the needy, but I am still troubled by accepting them. Am I a hypocrite for accepting subsidies that I’ve long opposed? Or do I accept the subsidies, as they are currently government policy, regardless of my personal views? — Alan, New York
From the Ethicist:
We provide free primary and secondary education but only to the young. Adults who want to learn algebra, English or foreign languages aren’t entitled to free schooling, however much they could use it. This age-based restriction helps show why senior discounts aren’t inherently unjust. Both are benefits tied to where we are in life, not to our financial need. Some children receiving free education come from wealthy families, just as some seniors receiving discounts have ample savings. Yet we don’t consider free K-to-12 schooling unfair because rich kids can access it, so why treat senior discounts differently?
To assess fairness, we should look at how resources are distributed over the long haul. Child discounts and senior discounts are available to us all, just not at every segment of our existence. This cradle-to-grave perspective, to be sure, doesn’t capture everything that matters for intergenerational justice, in ways my colleague Juliana Bidadanure has explored. Old and young should be able to relate as equals. Ageism doesn’t become OK if all old people are subjected to it. We probably should worry too that our Senate looks like a gerontocracy. But a scattering of special rates hardly threatens to create such rifts.
What’s more, these discounts often serve practical purposes we all gain from. Transit systems like the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North offer senior discounts with certain restrictions on when they can be used, helping spread out crowds by encouraging retired people to travel when commuters aren’t. Some movie theaters use senior discounts to fill otherwise empty matinee or midweek seats. These practices not only help businesses but also assist seniors living on fixed incomes — people who may not be poor but whose resources may not easily stretch to accommodate rising prices. Such arrangements can even encourage retirement, potentially opening up opportunities for younger workers.
Your worries about hypocrisy, then, are premised on views I would encourage you to rethink. Like age-restricted free education, senior discounts aren’t really poverty-relief programs; they’re benefits tied to particular life stages, available to all who reach them. And just as we don’t let a 40-year-old accountant get free high school French lessons, perhaps we shouldn’t fret that she can’t yet get the senior discount on the L.I.R.R. Her time will come.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from a reader who was concerned about her granddaughter’s well-being. She wrote: “My adult granddaughter has longstanding mental-health and substance-abuse issues, with little success from multiple treatments. Her psychiatrist seems to be trying various medications, some of which require careful monitoring and are risky for women of childbearing age. My grandchild is not responsible about taking meds properly, getting lab work done or using birth control. I know her doctor can’t discuss her case with me, but would it be wrong for me to voice my concerns, given the potential risks?”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “Nothing stops you from sharing your concerns with the doctor. Just keep in mind that a responsible psychiatrist may feel that patients have the right to know about communications regarding their care. If she later learned you contacted the doctor without her knowledge, after all, she could feel that a paternalistic alliance was formed behind her back. … Your right to voice concerns doesn’t come with a right to confidentiality — and what feels like protection to you may feel like betrayal to her.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
As a psychiatrist, I often face the challenge of balancing the ethical principles of nonmaleficence (the idea of doing no harm) against autonomy and confidentiality. There’s a common belief that we always know if our patients are sticking to their treatment, but that’s not always the case. I agree that it’s wise for the letter writer to share this information with her granddaughter’s psychiatrist, but the doctor also needs to weigh the info against his or her own observations and what the patient says about herself. — Alexander
⬥
I am a therapist. When I get a call from someone in a patient’s life, I inform the caller that I am going to share what was told to me with the patient. I further inform the caller that I will not share anything about my patient and can only listen. If I feel it is a life-threatening situation, I immediately contact the patient. Not sure what my colleagues do. — Linda
⬥
As a licensed mental-health counselor, if a family member contacts me about an adult client, I can neither confirm nor deny that they are a client. Acknowledging to a third party that we are working together violates the client’s confidentiality. — Peggy
⬥
Psychiatrist for 48 years here. The grandmother should inform the psychiatrist about important facts the granddaughter may be withholding. Failure to do so could render the treatment ineffective. Discussing it with the psychiatrist requires informing the granddaughter. If she sees this as a betrayal, this needs to be discussed in therapy. In the long run, the relationship between granddaughter and grandmother will be better if it’s based on honesty and openness, rather than living in a make-believe universe where crucial realities are conveniently ignored. — Harvey
⬥
The Ethicist’s advice was spot on. Years ago, I had a person close to me contact my psychiatrist about some concerns they had, and to say that I felt “betrayed” is an understatement. If the letter writer is concerned about her granddaughter, she should talk to her directly. No good can come from the letter writer contacting the doctor. — Victoria
The post Isn’t It Time to Retire Senior Discounts? appeared first on New York Times.
