The Introduction
While all human beings are afforded equal rights and opportunities, a person’s abilities and capacity change as they grow older. Older adults are therefore at times disadvantaged as a result of diminishing physical abilities or the stereotypical views that the general public holds concerning the old. As a result of this, older adults are sometimes categorized as being vulnerable. This paper shall argue that the categorization of older adults as vulnerable is right. To reinforce this assertion, the paper shall highlight some of the risks that make older adults vulnerable.
Why the Elderly are at risk
A major risk that the elderly face is that of abuse. Black (2008) states that abuse of the elderly is an escalating problem due to the huge dependency that the elderly have on caregivers. This dependency is a result of physical deterioration such as vision and hearing impairment, slowed mental response and decreased coordination that the elderly face (McGee, 2008). Most abuses against the elderly occur in the home setting and these abuses include neglect and exploitation of the elderly by the people who are supposed to be caring for them. The highest growing category of abuse is financial exploitation which is characterized by unscrupulous persons engaging in an illegal or improper use of the finances of the elderly.
Another risk that older adults face is discrimination in the workplace. McGregor and Gray (2006) note that persistent stereotypes are hugely responsible for this discrimination which arises from social prejudices against older people in general. A study by McGregor & Gray (2006) revealed that older workers were perceived to have problems with technology, rigid (resistant to change) and less willing to work for longer hours, therefore, reinforcing the claim that discrimination against older workers is mostly a result of stereotypical views held about them.
How to Eliminate the risk
With regard to the issue of discrimination in the workplace, the role of the government cannot be overstated. McGregor & Gray (2006) assert that employers if left to themselves, would be reluctant to enforce policies that protect the elderly from discrimination if they did not yield to additional profits. The welfare of the older adult workers would therefore be secondary to profitability. The government can step in and combat discrimination on the basis of age through the enactment of policies that outlaw this practice.
As has been noted, the most prevalent form of abuse against the elderly is financial exploitation. This abuse is especially adverse since it robs the elderly of their means of sustenance in old age. Black (2008) reveals that stricter laws crafted by states can help prevent elder abuse. For example, laws have been enacted in some states which require that financial institutes safeguard older adults from abuse. This protection is implemented by having the banks report all suspected incidents of financial abuse against the elderly bankers.
Conclusion
This paper set out to argue that older adults can be rightfully categorized as vulnerable. It has been demonstrated that as a result of their deteriorating physical conditions, the elderly are forced to rely on caregivers who may abuse them. In another case, the elderly may be ill-treated in the work setting due to stereotypical views. This paper has proposed measures of eliminating these risks to the elderly. The role of the government has been seen to be of great importance since the government can come up with policies that outlaw discrimination and/or protect against exploitation.
References
Black, J. A. (2008). “The Not-So-Golden Years: Power Of Attorney, Elder Abuse, and Why Our Laws are Failing a Vulnerable Population”. St. John’s Law Review, Vol. 82: 289.
McGregor, J. & Gray, L. (2006). “Stereotypes and Older Workers: The New Zealand Experience”. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, Issue 32.
McGee H, M., et al. (2008). “Vulnerable older people in the community: Relationship between the Vulnerable Elders Survey and health service use”. J Am Geriatric Soc 2008; 56:8–15.