to be disgusted at these comments made by Lord Sumption

[DoreensEatingHerSoreen]

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2021/jan/17/jonathan-sumption-cancer-patient-life-less-valuable-others

Lord Sumption today told Deborah James, who is living with stage 4 bowel cancer, that her life is less valuable than the lives of others.

As a fellow stage 4 cancer patient, I find it appalling that someone could suggest our lives are less valuable than those without cancer.
In spite of my diagnosis, I live a wonderful and fulfilling life, and intend to carry on doing so for as long as is possible.
It's terrifying to think that I may be denied access to a ventilator should I become ill with Covid, and I believe we have a collective duty to do everything we can to reduce pressure on the NHS and minimise the horrific collateral damage of Covid on those living with other illnesses and conditions.

Sorry, formerbabe not hamstersarse...

I agree that some people's lives are more valuable and worth saving than others. It's a hard thing to hear but it's true.

If you had to make a choice between the life of a child and the life of an elderly person, most people would save the child (although here was an article on the paper he other day that actually this decision was cultural and that in some cultures they would save he elderly person but still a decision being made as to he value of life.

So if a doctor has one ventilator and has to weigh up who to give it to then it is likely to go to the person who does not have stage 4 cancer if that is the choice. Ideally there will be enough resources so that the choice does not have to be made but these types of decisions are made in medicine all the time l(do we pay for that medicine, does that person get to go on the transplant list etc etc. Hard and difficulty choices that I am glad I don't have to make.

However what seems to be being said here is that we shouldn't have a lockdown as the rights (not lives, but rights) of the majority are more important than the LIVES of the old and the sick and the vulnerable and I would vehemently disagree with this very selfish POV.

This is a temporary measure and quite frankly if you think your right to pop out and socialise is more important than protecting the life of your vulnerable neighbour then there is something very wrong with you.

@hamsterarse are you able to provide any concrete evidence to prove any of your points? You seem absolutely convinced of yourself.

Namechange600 Mon 18-Jan-21 12:49:30
I didn’t watch the programme and haven’t RTFT but I thought his treatment of Deborah James was appallingly arrogant and rude: to interrupt someone to say their life is is less value than someone else’s is utterly crass and I think he should apologise to her. She did very well to respond in a very dignified way and make some very good points about cancer care during the pandemic.

Hang on. He only only interrupted her because she misquoted him by saying that he had said that her life had NO value. He was absolutely right to correct her. Can you image the outrage on here if he had actually said that?!

@hamstersarse Can't see beyond your own nose is the phrase that springs to mind Funnily enough my GS is definitely beyond my own nose.

I see the Daily Mail are trying to make it personal by saying that Lord Sumption thinks that a 25 year old is more valuable than Sir Tom Moore.

Which is what Piers Morgan was trying to get him to say this morning - even though Piers didn't listen to what was said.

Hang on. He only only interrupted her because she misquoted him by saying that he had said that her life had NO value. He was absolutely right to correct her. Can you image the outrage on here if he had actually said that?! And then he said exactly what he has been reported as saying, that her life was less valuable.

I support fully what he said and am happy that this conversation is being opened up to the wider audience. It will certainly be being discussed by decision makers so it’s infantile to say it shouldn’t be talked about elsewhere. Decisions which affect life, death and quality of live should be transparent. It’s not a case of actively wanting people to die, it’s a decision whether prolonging certain lives is more important than trying to avert economic catastrophe and permanently jeopardising the life chances of many of our young. Lots of people on here are the prolonging life at all costs. Others feel that we should cancel all lockdown measures. Most people are in the middle.

@RavingAnnie

That choice wouid never come to pass because paeds are completely separate from adult services.

Hypothetical is one thing, but impossible and (presumably) designed to be emotive/provocative is below the belt.

Your understanding of what stage 4 cancer means is also a little lacking. That patient may well be more able to withstand and survive ICU and have a better quality of life than an overweight diabetic.

In a non-Alert 5 NHS, these decisions would not need to be made, as all those who wouid benefit will get an ICU bed (not the same as everyone gets it).

When the decisions do need to be made, it should never on the basis of 'worth' or 'value', and I think Sumption is both despicable in his "less valuable" comment and just plain wrong in his understanding of relevant co-morbidities.

Very, very glad it will continue to be doctors making these decisions.

@DoreensEatingHerSoreen

I don't take issue with debate on the effectiveness of lockdown, but to tell someone to their face that their life is "less valuable" is abhorrent, particularly coming from a former Judge.

Is it worse to say it behind their backs? Or by their actions? Seems more two faced to me!

Either we want to protect these people or we don't. Whether that is directly to them or not.

So if a doctor has one ventilator and has to weigh up who to give it to then it is likely to go to the person who does not have stage 4 cancer if that is the choice. Ideally there will be enough resources so that the choice does not have to be made but these types of decisions are made in medicine all the time l(do we pay for that medicine, does that person get to go on the transplant list etc etc. Hard and difficulty choices that I am glad I don't have to make.

I think the decision would be based on who is most likely to leave ICU alive rather than who is likely to lead a long and healthy life afterwards. If the person with stage IV cancer had a better chance of survival than a previously healthy younger person then they would be the ones to get treatment. Hopefully, with the lockdown we will never get to that stage.

Right now, we are putting money into research. Some diseases get way more money and research effort than other diseases.

Why isn't the same amount of effort put into some diseases? We could have a massive impact on those diseases if effort was put into them.

We could have a massive impact on world health if we put the effort in. But we don't.

So as a society, we already prioritise whose lives we care about - and often it's not about resources, or where we can have the biggest impact, but we don't see those lives as important or worth saving as others.

We have never judged lived equally as a society, we have always sacrificed the lives of one group for another. Usually it is the poorest that have their lives cut short for the richest. In the times of war it is young people in their prime who have their lives cut short. Every year we celebrate sacrificing the lives of mainly young men in world war 1 and 2. World war one was particularly tragic as it was so pointless. So yes his comments were insensitive but they just reflect what already happens in terms of medical resources and the in the wider society.

If you cannot see that your life, as someone who has lived many years and has unquestionably few years left to live, is less "valuable" than a perfectly healthy ten year old, then that's your failing.

@epythymy

If you cannot see that your life, as someone who has lived many years and has unquestionably few years left to live, is less "valuable" than a perfectly healthy ten year old, then that's your failing.

Nasty comment. As I think others have pointed out it is the suggestion that her life is less valuable than someone the same age which is objectionable.

Nasty comment. As I think others have pointed out it is the suggestion that her life is less valuable than someone the same age which is objectionable

What makes the life of a 10 year old more valuable than her?

Is it because that 10 year old has, all things being equal, more chance of a longer, healthier life?

@epythymy

If you cannot see that your life, as someone who has lived many years and has unquestionably few years left to live, is less "valuable" than a perfectly healthy ten year old, then that's your failing.

I can't tell if this is aimed at me, or a comment made in general about an elderly person. If it's the former then "lived many years" is subjective - I've lived for 35 years. "unquestionably few years left to live" is not accurate. But in spite of the above - I would absolutely prioritise the life of a healthy 10 year old above mine, though it would be undoubtedly difficult to do so.

Hopefully, with the lockdown we will never get to that stage.

We did get to that point within days of lockdown. Certainly in my ICU.

Your assessment of resource allocation is broadly correct though. It is a decision I have had to make.

They were having an active debate about the issue and from memory she turned the debate to her personally by asking if he didn’t think her life was valuable? Had she not made that comment he most likely wouldn’t have commented about her specifically

This is key here. For the record, they are both people for whom I’ve previously had the utmost admiration. But she turned an abstract debate into a personal one and he answered her honestly. Not in the most diplomatic way, sure. But he did her the courtesy of owning his opinion.

One of my friends is the son of immigrants. He regularly hears people talking about “foreigners” and people “going back to where they came from”. He will often employ the same tactic and say to them “Oh, you mean my parents. And me.” And they then attempt to backtrack with a “Oh, we aren’t talking about you”/“We don’t mean you, obviously”. But it’s dishonest. Because they do. Because, at the heart of it, he and his parents are exactly the sort of people that the objectors to “foreigners” are talking about. They just won’t own up to it to him (or maybe to themselves). So - yes - Sumption could have been kinder, could have couched it in more palatable terms. But at least he did her the courtesy of an honest answer.

@Almostslimjim

Hopefully, with the lockdown we will never get to that stage.

We did get to that point within days of lockdown. Certainly in my ICU.

Your assessment of resource allocation is broadly correct though. It is a decision I have had to make.

I'm sorry to hear that you have had to make that decision already.

@NataliaOsipova

They were having an active debate about the issue and from memory she turned the debate to her personally by asking if he didn’t think her life was valuable? Had she not made that comment he most likely wouldn’t have commented about her specifically

This is key here. For the record, they are both people for whom I’ve previously had the utmost admiration. But she turned an abstract debate into a personal one and he answered her honestly. Not in the most diplomatic way, sure. But he did her the courtesy of owning his opinion.

One of my friends is the son of immigrants. He regularly hears people talking about “foreigners” and people “going back to where they came from”. He will often employ the same tactic and say to them “Oh, you mean my parents. And me.” And they then attempt to backtrack with a “Oh, we aren’t talking about you”/“We don’t mean you, obviously”. But it’s dishonest. Because they do. Because, at the heart of it, he and his parents are exactly the sort of people that the objectors to “foreigners” are talking about. They just won’t own up to it to him (or maybe to themselves). So - yes - Sumption could have been kinder, could have couched it in more palatable terms. But at least he did her the courtesy of an honest answer.

But he's backtracking this morning, saying that's not what he meant after all.

But he's backtracking this morning, saying that's not what he meant after all

What do you think he's trying to say?

This is key here. For the record, they are both people for whom I’ve previously had the utmost admiration. But she turned an abstract debate into a personal one and he answered her honestly. Not in the most diplomatic way, sure. But he did her the courtesy of owning his opinion.

It really is key here. Nicky Campbell was almost frothing at the mouth at the click bait that was coming from that interaction. It was pretty ludicrous to 'put them up against each other'

But he's backtracking this morning, saying that's not what he meant after all.

He is saying it is a "gross misrepresentation" of what he said

And it is.

@chomalungma

But he's backtracking this morning, saying that's not what he meant after all

What do you think he's trying to say?

To me it sounds as if he is backtracking, he's seen the reaction, realised he's said something crass and is trying to deflect by saying that he didn't mean Deborah's life specifically.

I find it tricky to make that fit, as he specifically says "your life".