Ageism, often seen as a universally negative bias, can have beneficial aspects, according to Associate Professor Stephen Buetow of the University of Auckland.

In his recent publication, Ageism and Person-Centred Care: Rehabilitating Bias for Age-Friendly Practice, Buetow argues for a nuanced understanding of ageism.

Coasties may be intrigued by Buetow's perspective, which challenges conventional views and suggests that ageism, unlike other forms of discrimination, can sometimes yield positive outcomes.

Buetow, from the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, points out that ageism involves discriminating against both current and future selves.

He emphasises the importance of distinguishing between harmful and beneficial forms of ageism, citing examples from health care and social policies.

"Of course, I'd denounce all forms of racism and sexism," Buetow says. "But I'd also question whether ageism is always a problem that people must never tolerate."

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the detrimental effects of ageism, framing older individuals as expendable.

This overt ageism contrasted with subtler forms, such as treating children and older adults as invisible.

Yet, Buetow argues that recognising ageism’s potentially positive aspects is equally important.

Buetow references the World Health Organisation’s definition of ageism as involving stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination based on age.

While these terms are usually seen negatively, he argues that they can sometimes be justified and beneficial.

"Positive action deliberately and legally targets and safeguards the age interests of protected groups without directly and unfairly disadvantaging other age groups," Buetow explains.

He cites mentorship programs where older individuals share their knowledge with younger generations and age-targeted health and social care services as examples of beneficial ageism.

Other instances include age-appropriate restrictions, such as minimum ages for driving and accessing certain goods, which can save lives and promote maturity.

Buetow also points out that society endorses age-based welfare benefits, such as superannuation for older individuals and health care subsidies for younger people.

These measures demonstrate that ageism can sometimes result in fair and beneficial outcomes.

In the realm of social interactions, ageism manifests in preferences for romantic partners of similar age, which is socially acceptable and often beneficial for shared interests.

Additionally, offering an older person a seat on public transport, while seemingly paternalistic, can also be seen as considerate and promoting safety.

Buetow’s argument extends to controversial areas, such as mandatory mental competency tests for politicians over 75, which he says might be welcomed for reasons beyond age alone.

He suggests that focusing solely on the negative aspects of ageism misses opportunities to understand its moral implications and benefits.

In his upcoming book, Buetow delves deeper into these themes, advocating for a balanced view of ageism.

He believes that recognising both its positive and negative aspects can help create fairer and more effective policies.

"Unlike other ‘isms,’ ageism can have detrimental, favourable, or neutral outcomes," Buetow concludes.

"True justice respects individuals' freedom to optimise and access differential treatment based on relevant age differences."

Buetow's perspective invites locals to reconsider their views on ageism, encouraging a more nuanced approach that recognises the potential benefits alongside the harms.