The most important problem facing any attempt to create a satisfactory QoL.measure is that those that exist are under-theorized and ill-defined (Smithet al. 1995; Murrell 1999; Kerschner and Pegues 1998; Hornquis 1982; Gilland Feinstein 1994). The lack of a theoretically informed measure of OoL inearly old age has meant that no single measure is up to the task of differen-tiating good from not-so-good quality of life in this population. As we havepointed out above, there has been a failure to incorporate into research thereal changes that have been occurring in later life. A number of writershave discussed the implications for society of quality of life in old age butcannot escape the dominant paradigm of decline as representing the essen-tial nature of older pcople's lives. Harry Moody ([1995) predicts a declinc inquality of life as one of the consequences of increasing longevity. Facing upto this will necessitate an acceptance of limits to life (after 7o there should beno life-enhancing biomedical interventions) if social catastrophe is to beaverted. In a similar fashion, Longino and Murphy (1995) see the low qualityof life in old age as posing the fundamental challenge to high-tech biomedicine. The effect of older populations will be, they argue, to usher in moreholistic and community-based services as quality of life replaces biomedicalintervention.The necessary starting point for theorizing QoL in early old age is theincreasing acknowledgement that most older people are living longer, health-ier lives (Laslett 1996; Monsen 1998). There is growing recognition that QoLamong older people is a complex and a multifaceted phenomenon thatrequires greater understanding (Bowling 1995b) and cannot be reduced to(ill) health (Farquhar 1995: Fletcher et al. 1992; Hodge 1990). One solution