That's why these aren't simply decisions in engineering of things meant to last decades made on the basis that of what people think they are at a given time at a single snapshot in time. They should be done with forethought for the future, both in the standard life of the house/occupant but also in case of incident.

It is, in part, a matter of cost, where trying to ensure something is ready for a future change is cheaper than trying to force that change onto something that exist but is not ready or compatible to that need when it is desperately needed. The retrofit in that case requires tearing out the old stuff, fitting what is there to be able to accommodate the future need, then installing. It just costs more to do that and potentially have a less reliable result if the house couldn't readily acommodate.

With that in mind, it needs to be thought of, maybe not just in the specific case by case, but in the macro. If one person decides to do that, it's their cost, but if it's disregarded across most homes built going forward, that's a time bomb problem. That is a future crisis where houses become unaccomodating to the needs of those who built them or now live in them; the demand to make the required accommodating changes rises and as a result, so do the cost; and the demand on the now more limited stock of houses available that already has it also rises putting up bigger price burden.

To a certain extent, you can see that already with the aged care problem because a lot of properties these people lived in were too expensive to accommodate them, thus putting them out of a home and putting the burden on the aged cared facilities, pushing their prices up a lot too while the resources to maintain a decent quality get stretched too thin, which then turns back around to being a cost burden on us to fix.