But if this dictatorial State is going to 'protect our dignity' then surely the age of forced retirement should be lowered to the lowest age that may have any age-related medical conditions could cause a loss of flying medical? I am sure that on those grounds a case for enforced retirement between about 45 and 50 could easily be argued. All to protect everyone from the risk of the indignity of any age-related loss of medical.
The same with mental competence. What is the lowest age that people suffer from dementia? That is what The State should dictate as the forced retirement age for pilots, all to protect them from themselves and 'preserve their dignity' of course!
Now if defining the age that low is seen as ridiculous, then why is the present age not equally ridiculous. It is a nicely 'rounded off to the nearest five' figure. Why not 70 or 75? Why not any figure in between? What about people who are unfairly penalised by a day because they were born in the 'wrong' year and didn't get their fair share of extra leap-year days through their career? I'll go back to our vet's comment: "Age is just a number". But a thumb-sucked number-to-the-nearest-five is chosen as the cliff-edge to 'protect people from themselves' and ensure that The (Nanny) State can chose your indignities for you.