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.

bobbojobbo
Children all over the world are doing it admirably. Mine are, not a bother on them. But then maybe Ive taught mine to be both resilient and empathetic, and even the 5 year old understands we don't want our granny (and others) to die so its a temporary need to stay home without our friends

What a smug and ignorant post. Lots of children are not ‘resilient’ and it’s really insulting and dismissive of you to blame their parents.

I hope your words don’t come back to bite you.

@DenisetheMenace

Sending you love and hope. Lord Sumption is a moron.

Please don’t call him a moron - he is well-known to be one of the best legal minds this country has ever seen. The word genius is regularly used by those who know him - he is off-the-scale clever. You may not agree with his views (I do by the way) but to call him a moron is, well, moronic.

Watching the debate.

The word 'value' was brought up at the start of the debate. Lord Sumption made it clear that he was talking about QALYs and discussed for example his grandchildren lives' being more valuable than his because of QALY.

A few minutes later, Deborah James was brought in and Nicky Campbell asked her about Lord Sumption's comments about lives having less value.

She talked about being one of those people who 'he said were not valuable' - and at that point, he corrected her and said that he did not say they were not valuable - but were less valuable. In the context of what was said before.

So he did go out and say it to her from the off, she was responding to his general comment and misquoting him.

A woman with stage 4 bowel cancer has only a 20% chance of surviving for 5 years.

At a population level it’s the bare numbers that should be used to determine policy not emotive reactions to individual tragic stories.

Making that mistake will cost lives.

@Fr0thandBubble if you agree with this man's views, then you're a moron too. Clever people have the capacity to be massively stupid, and that is what is happening here.

His first claim on this show was 'there is zero correlation, none at all, that government actions globally relate to mortality rates'.

That's just unsubstantiated crap.

@Sarahandduck18

A woman with stage 4 bowel cancer has only a 20% chance of surviving for 5 years.

At a population level it’s the bare numbers that should be used to determine policy not emotive reactions to individual tragic stories.

Making that mistake will cost lives.

Cancer statistics are so problematic though. By they're very nature they are consistently out of date ... the statistic you have quoted there needs to be at least five years old to even exist, and new treatment options are being developed all the time which improve survival rates.

But let's say that's accurate - what of the 20% - do their lives matter less because they were dear a bad hand, if they are likely to recover from Covid with treatment do they not deserve the same opportunity as someone else?

@Perfect28 Just because people don’t agree with you, it doesn’t make them a moron.

Sumption is not a moron. And he’s pointing out that in effect there will be some very difficult decisions to come which will have to be done on a rational basis. That’s where the country has got to. The NHS is now working to allow the country to survive. It can’t meet all the high standards that occur normally.

*thier 🙄

@LexMitior

Sumption is not a moron. And he’s pointing out that in effect there will be some very difficult decisions to come which will have to be done on a rational basis. That’s where the country has got to. The NHS is now working to allow the country to survive. It can’t meet all the high standards that occur normally.

Yes, and if we didn't have lockdown (and Sumption is anti-lockdown I believe) that situation would be even worse.

I don't agree with Lord Sumption but he is not 'an old fruitcake' - calling him that makes you sound completely ignorant.

But that is exactly how NHS treatment decisions are made: by using the concept of quality life years. So this is nothing new and isn't some evil idea that he came up with.
The concept is in place for reasons both practical and social/ethical/ecological, ie 1. in any society where resources aren't endless (ie every society) a neutral and objective decision has to be made on how to share those resources; and 2. pre-Covid, the vast majority of people would have said that given a straight decision between saving their grandparent and saving their child, they would save their child. Of course they would. As a sentient being who has brought a child into the world, it would be completely bizarre not to want to protect that child at pretty much all costs - that's why crimes etc that affect children are so particularly disgusting to people.
And as a species - as opposed to as individuals - we must breed to keep the species going and therefore must protect first our offspring and second those who can produce offspring.
It's simple ecology, and "Qalys" simply extrapolate those views out to society as a whole and before Covid we wouldn't have thought twice about it.

The media are whipping this up into a good story, and this sort of fuss doesn’t help.

Actual quote from Lord Sumption: “I object extremely strongly to any suggestion that I was inferring that Miss James’s life was less valuable because she had cancer. I thought she was responding to my earlier comments about older people being protected by a total lockdown which is causing immense harm to the young who are unaffected.
That harm can be to their mental health or through cooping undergraduates up at university or through the loss of jobs. I was saying this should not be inflicted on the young to protect old people like me. If Miss James has misinterpreted that then I can only apologise to her as it was not my intention to suggest she was less valuable. Sometimes on videolinks it can be difficult to hear what the other person is saying.”

@fr0thandbubble he's not a moron for having different views to me, you're right, he's a moron for having moronic views on this issue that make no sense. Saying things like government actions have no effect on mortality for example. Pitting himself against the majority scientific and medical consensus. You'll never guess what, there are plenty of 'genuises' on that side of the debate too.

How can you seriously think that resisting a temporary restraint on civil liberty is worth a massive loss of life. It's bonkers. Only the most selfish in our society could think this.

I actually thought he talked sense. He was talking about the value of a child's life versus his. A child who has a whole life ahead of him/her versus him who has lived a great proportion of it. This makes sense to me. Resources are not endless so decisions like this have to be made. He may have been saying something that is unpalatable but he makes sense.

How can you seriously think that resisting a temporary restraint on civil liberty is worth a massive loss of life. It's bonkers. Only the most selfish in our society could think this

How much life and quality of life will be lost due to this lockdown?

Is the damage done to young people and the effect on their futures worth what this pandemic has achieved by protecting the lives of vulnerable people who may not live that many years and also protecting the NHS and the effect it could have on other people who need to use it?

I don't know the answer. I don't know if that answer can even be worked out?

Sumption’s objections to lockdown have a reasonable legal basis, which is that usually in a pandemic those who are sick or at risk are made to stay home by operation of law, not the whole population.

He’s not a fruitcake; he’s been making significant life changing decisions for years. Just because he points out a difficult truth doesn’t mean he should smeared like that.

I think a big part of the issue here is semantics
'Value/valuable' is a highly emotive word which most of us use conversationally to talk about our friends, families, people who have contributed to society, and so on
But it's also one which is also used in specific clinical decision-making contexts, which have to be by their nature highly pragmatic and devoid of emotion
Same word, different meanings. Or at least contexts. And rightly so -- otherwise healthcare systems would struggle to make practical decisions on anything

Accurately put, NastyBlouse, but as so often the whole thing's getting clouded by principle vs personal. Easy to do, I know, but not always helpful when it comes to drawing up policy

As for what he was hoping for, I imagine that could be a discussion about some very difficult topics - something which may be sorely needed in time, however much folk might wish to avoid it

But that is exactly how NHS treatment decisions are made: by using the concept of quality life years. So this is nothing new and isn't some evil idea that he came up with.

Not really. They will look at how many quality of life years a drug will give before deciding whether to pay for it for all patients rather than choosing who does and doesn't get it.

@Perfect28 I believe that it is wrong that the fundamental rights and freedoms of all - such as the right to work, the right to an education, the right to leave your house, the right to see your family and friends - should be sacrificed by the government for the benefit of a minority of society.

It’s not moronic, “bonkers” or selfish to believe that. You may have a different view - fine. But my view - and Lord Sumption’s - is entirely valid.

@fr0thandbubble If your job is essential, you can still do it. Education is still happening (I'm a teacher), just not in the way that it was before, you can still leave your house for reasons such as excersize, getting medical attention, buying food (and various unnecessary items via click and collect). So really what it comes down to is that you can't socialise. Temporarily. Oh and that benefit that you talk about? That's the benefit of not dying. Not much benefit imho.

So let's weigh it up
People die, but you get to see friends and family.

Mmm.

Now tell me that's not selfish

When you look at what people have had to sacrifice over the past year then I don’t think it’s surprising that some people have this attitude. People have lost their entire livelihoods and when this is all over many are going to have lost their homes. That’s not a small thing. The sacrifices certain age groups have been asked to make is disproportionate to others and we haven’t even started to recognise the true cost yet. It’s all very well to say that children will catch up on lost education, but will they? The psychological effects of all this will be keenly felt throughout this generation.

So no, I don’t think the comments are right, but I do see where they have come from; from fear, desperation, isolation, depression, confusion and in some cases the edge of suicide.

Oh and that 'minority' you refer to is about 20 million people who are in vulnerable catagories.

He was saying that people in their 80s dying wasn’t as tragic as children dying. And that the measures will lead to terrible effects on younger people. He said continue to shield the vulnerable and lift lockdown on the rest of society

None of them seems unreasonable, although the practicalities of shielding the younger vulnerable who need to go out to work is a more difficult one to solve. The government can't pay everyone to stay at home.

I think students should be vaccinated ahead of work from home 40 somethings. I think that's practical, not callous.