I am one very confused lady. That statement will come as no surprise to some of my friends, who will tell you they have known that for some time.

However, be that as it may, I find the Government's attitude to ageing somewhat schizophrenic, to put it mildly.

On one hand we have the pensions gurus telling us the pensions pot is running out of money and women will have to go on working until they are at least sixty-two and a half - possibly till they are sixty-five - and, in a worst case scenario, until they are seventy. Only then can they expect to draw their State pension.

Now I am sure you, like me, have friends who are very happy and capable at their job and would be happy to go on working at least for a few more years, especially if it meant a bonus added to their eventual pension.

I also know some members of the Third Age who would arouse considerable misgivings if they knew they were likely to be dealing with my comfort and welfare, since it would appear that, like some wines, they had not aged well.

It would seem the most intelligent approach should be on a case-by-case basis, so energetic, sensible people who happen to have reached a certain spot on the calendar are not hurled willy nilly on to the dust heap, while those who, for whatever reason, do not meet certain criteria, are free to do whatever appeals to them without any let or hindrance.

This has come home to me in a big way recently, when I bumped into an old friend whom I knew as an excellent nurse. We are told there is a terrible shortage of nurses and yet when I asked her what was new in the hospital world, she told me she was no longer working.

What was the trouble, I inquired - had she been unwell? No, she had merely reached the age of sixty and suddenly she was shown the door, so to speak. Since she was an outstanding nurse and looked considerably younger than her age, it seemed an awful waste of talent.

But hang on a moment, what about the need to work till sixty-two etc? After all, that is the Government's own policy, isn't it? Yes, on paper it may be but out in the real world it would seem the message has not got through. Look at any job advertisement and you may find there is an upper age limit, sometimes stated, sometimes merely apparent at the interview stage.

In the case of nurses, clearly, there has to be a sensible attitude to age and ability, because of the use of drugs etc but there are many jobs an older person could do while releasing younger members of staff for more demanding jobs. My friend was obviously saddened at having to give up what had been her life's work and it did seem a terrible waste of her talents. But it is the muddled thinking which is so aggravating.

On the one hand, the Government is telling her she should go on working but on the other hand, she is being told she can not to do the thing for which she has spent a lifetime training.

If ever there was a case for personal assessment, surely that is one. The other thing is, that having been forced to give up the job she loves at sixty, she knows it is highly unlikely she will get a job elsewhere.

But what a waste of a precious commodity in a profession where there is such a shortage of good talent. We are continually being told we have an ageing population and, in a very short time, there will be more of us over the age of sixty-five than below.

Who will then be the carers? Who will run the hospitals, old folks' homes and the like? At the moment, getting older is merely inconvenient. At the rate things are going it will soon be a crime, unless the powers-that-be get their acts together and all sing from the same hymn sheet.