MEDICINE AND ANTI-AGING

In an old Sunday Times magazine,(https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/magazine/17antiaging-t.html) Tom Dunkel wrote about a man and his doctor working together to slow or reverse the aging process and about other organizations promoting similar treatments.  He also included rebuttal from other doctors who reject this as "quackery".  Other more recent articles describe other approaches: (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/business/aging-protein-elevian.html)  (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/health/taurine-supplements-aging.html)

In the context of current healthcare debates, the cost  of  elder healthcare looms large, so reducing elder disability could be helpful.  The body changes and deteriorates with age,  which can be interpreted three ways:  1) the changes are programmed into the species to eliminate those who have reproduced to make room for the next generation.  2) the changes are failures of human design which impacts  current human longevity.  or 3) "Aging" is a disease like any other and needs investigations to cure or prevent it.   The first view means aging is part of the normal evolutionary cycle that humans should do nothing to interfere with.  The second and third views support  finding ways to arrest or prevent aging by stopping or reversing the biological factors that contribute to it.  While Dr Comite is quoted in the article as distinguishing between "optimal health during life" and preventing death,  the latter is the stronger motivation for engaging in these studies.  It is interesting that this article concentrates on examples of males trying to prevent aging, and the hormonal changes women naturally experience are not discussed.  Male aging seems to be a reality that men strive to hide.  Should men do this? Certainly some of the treatments are simply placebos,  but there is clear evidence that hormone supplements have impact on the body.   But are they  effective in preventing "aging" or promote "optimal health" without undesirable side effects?   Nature seems to reduce certain hormones with age to prevent certain effects,  while worsening others.  Which consequences are preferred?

Should people have the right to choose?  And should medicine be free to research the potential consequences and develop "antidotes" to prevent them?   In short, should our scientific community explore ways to prevent the changes of aging and "optimize health" for as long as possible in the population?  This is not simply a scientific question, despite the impression given by Dunkel in the article.  It is a moral issue illustrated by the following example:  if a plant is discovered in the Amazon tomorrow which conveys eternal (or prolonged) life should it be developed and distributed to everyone at whatever cost?  If there are really vampires in the world somewhere,  should we allow ourselves to be bitten so that we can enjoy eternal life (albeit in this case only in the dark)? By framing the question this way, " optimal health" becomes "escaping death",  and the finite-ness that gives meaning to human life is gone.   The moral answer for most of us,  even with our fear of death,  would be "no.  This is not a good thing to do."  But where is the line between the two,  when does "optimizing health" become "trying to live forever".   When does improving life become attempting to prevent death which ultimately changes the meaning of life?  The urge for immortality is seen in other scientific quests:  creating a computer "upload" of the mind, so the person's "mind" lives forever.  We humans have an intense desire to prevent the loss of our "self", so that it continues eternally.