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.

Coronawireless This is what I'm saying. If a ventilator was required, and would likely work for me, and my prognosis is unknown, (but optimistic), then I would like to think that I would be placed on a ventilator regardless of my cancer status.
I'm not advocating every frail and elderly patient being put on a ventilator - I'm just asking that those of us living well with cancer, potentially with many years ahead of us not be written off!

@Fr0thandBubble

His words have been taken out of context. He said his grandchildren’s lives were more valuable than his, because he is old and has had most of his life already. I completely agree with him on this and everything else he has said on the this government’s approach to the Coronavirus.

^ this.

I know it’s a difficult point to swallow, but we’re going to have to accept it at some point. I only hope we do before we utterly torch the whole of our society.

He's only saying what scores of MNetters have said

And I think they are all both wrong and cruel

Op, if it really came down to you getting a ventilator, or a person of a similar age who had a full life expectancy ahead of them, would you really still fight to have it yourself, instead of the other person?

MN should delete this thread.

Lord Sumption simply did not say what is being alleged here. It has been misreported. The actual interview is still available online for people to check for themselves.

Anyone willing to criticise someone for saying something they didn’t actually say is an imbecile.

Yes let's leap to the very worst possible interpretation of remarks made with the context removed. That'll help to aid compassion and understanding during the worst crisis of our lifetime.

It’s nothing to do with value. It’s to do with whether putting you on a ventilator would work or not. It’s less likely to help if you’re very frail and elderly

He explicitly said 'less valuable' so of course it's about that,

And it's also not a case of whether to ventilate or not based on medical needs and likely benefit - from which the very frail/extensively damaged are often deemed unsuitable. It's 'which of these potentially salvageable people, of any and every age, are worth it?'

And that can still be achieved by looking at the balance of medical issues (the 'Three Wise Men' approach), not the terrifying idea of who is 'worth' it

Lord Sumption simply did not say what is being alleged here. It has been misreported. The actual interview is still available online for people to check for themselves

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lord-sumption-bbc-cancer-patient-lockdown-b1788690.html

He said it on air, on the record.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

Op, if it really came down to you getting a ventilator, or a person of a similar age who had a full life expectancy ahead of them, would you really still fight to have it yourself, instead of the other person?

No one can say what my life expectancy is, just as we cannot predict that of someone without cancer. If mine was known, of course the decision would be much simpler.

To answer your question, no, I would not fight to have it over someone else, and I'd like to think this would be the case regardless of cancer.

The NHS is not in the position usually of deciding between two people who need the same ventilator at the same time. Our services shouldn't be run that way. If we end up there - be clear that is due to ten years' underfunding not covid. USA has more than double the number of ventilators per million, Germany I think has four times as many. Our ICU provision was decided under Cameron's government.

The decision 'treatment x will not benefit this patient' is very different to 'there are two patients but only one space, which one goes without'.

Once we start weighing lives against each other, an important ethical line has been crossed. Every life is valuable in its own right. End of.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

Op, if it really came down to you getting a ventilator, or a person of a similar age who had a full life expectancy ahead of them, would you really still fight to have it yourself, instead of the other person?

Even asking this is disgraceful. This situation should not arise in a nation as wealthy as ours.

People need to stop tolerating an underfunded health system.

@Balhammom

MN should delete this thread.

Lord Sumption simply did not say what is being alleged here. It has been misreported. The actual interview is still available online for people to check for themselves.

Anyone willing to criticise someone for saying something they didn’t actually say is an imbecile.

I hear him saying directly to Deborah:

"I didn't say your life was not valuable, I said it was less valuable".

I find that unacceptable

In principle, I’d agree with the sentiment @inquietant but if the only way we can create an environment in which it can be the guiding principle, is to lockdown society, then it isn’t a valid long term option.

Logically therefore, it has to change.

Overpopulation was the chicken that was always going to come home to roost. It has, and we need to deal with the situation that we actually face, not the one we prefer we had to face.

Locking down society to artificially create the situation we prefer is just not viable.

*Even asking this is disgraceful. This situation should not arise in a nation as wealthy as ours.

People need to stop tolerating an underfunded health system*

No, we need to have this conversation.

Surely you can see that the current thinking of reproducing unchecked, while simultaneously keeping people alive long past their natural lifespan is not Viable?

Chucking money at the symptoms of overpopulation is not going to make the underlying problem go away.

I didn't say your life was not valuable I didn't catch the 'your life' bit but I'll listen again.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

*Even asking this is disgraceful. This situation should not arise in a nation as wealthy as ours.

People need to stop tolerating an underfunded health system*

No, we need to have this conversation.

Surely you can see that the current thinking of reproducing unchecked, while simultaneously keeping people alive long past their natural lifespan is not Viable?

Chucking money at the symptoms of overpopulation is not going to make the underlying problem go away.

I fundamentally disagree with you that the conversation you propose is acceptable.

A conversation about overall healthcare provision is NOT the same as 'person x can have this treatment' because someone has decided they are worth it.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

In principle, I’d agree with the sentiment *@inquietant* but if the only way we can create an environment in which it can be the guiding principle, is to lockdown society, then it isn’t a valid long term option.

Logically therefore, it has to change.

Overpopulation was the chicken that was always going to come home to roost. It has, and we need to deal with the situation that we actually face, not the one we prefer we had to face.

Locking down society to artificially create the situation we prefer is just not viable.

Ethics and logic are linked it not the same thing.

Harvesting organs is 'logical'. Doesn't mean it is acceptable.

A conversation about overall healthcare provision is NOT the same as 'person x can have this treatment' because someone has decided they are worth it

You’re (deliberately?) missing my point.

The patient themselves should be making this decision. Not leaving doctors to have to make it for them.

If a donor organ comes up and there are several possible matches, how do they decide who gets the organ?

Is it worth the cost of doing a transplant if the patient is unlikely to have many years left, even after the transplant?

These are hard conversations - and they are putting a value on a life.

I see Piers Morgan has weighed in - and not listened to Lord Sumption. He made it personal by bringing in a reference to Sir Tom Moore.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

A conversation about overall healthcare provision is NOT the same as 'person x can have this treatment' because someone has decided they are worth it

You’re (deliberately?) missing my point.

The patient themselves should be making this decision. Not leaving doctors to have to make it for them.

Well that's just not going to happen so that's moot I think.

Harvesting organs is 'logical'. Doesn't mean it is acceptable

This is a really interesting analogy to draw, and I’m surprised you have because it really doesn’t support your argument.

We used to have an opt in system for organ donation, but that wasn’t resulting in a sufficient number of organs for transplant.

The decision was made to change the basis of consent to an opt out one, which is a really dramatic change in the whole nature of organ donation.

It is (in my view) a perfectly logical thing to do, but when you examine the ethics of it, it’s really stretching the bounds of acceptability - the State now effectively owns your organs unless you actively refuse.

Point is, we do sometimes have to make logical choices which are morally questionable.

@DoreensEatingHerSoreen

Coronawireless This is what I'm saying. If a ventilator was required, and would likely work for me, and my prognosis is unknown, (but optimistic), then I would like to think that I would be placed on a ventilator regardless of my cancer status. I'm not advocating every frail and elderly patient being put on a ventilator - I'm just asking that those of us living well with cancer, potentially with many years ahead of us not be written off!

If you are living well and are expected to last for a good few years yet you would not be denied life-saving treatment or I’d be very surprised.

Well that's just not going to happen so that's moot I think

It will have to happen, it’s unavoidable.

What do you see as being the alternative? Chucking more money at it?

Coronawireless I'd like to think so, and yet others in my position are being asked to sign a DNR on admission with Covid, and being told in advance that they will not be offered a ventilator.
As a previous poster said, with the current shortage of ITU beds, I may not be offered one due to my cancer status, regardless of my quality of life / outlook

@Sittingonabench

Most people would accept their life being more difficult (even in extremes) if it meant saving a life. That is what is being compared it is not death of a child v death of elderly as that’s not the situation. It is financial and social hardship versus death.

But financial and social hardship does lead to extra deaths when you look at the population as a whole.