Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to be disgusted at these comments made by Lord Sumption

458 replies

DoreensEatingHerSoreen · 17/01/2021 22:52

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.

OP posts:
BeforeThisThenWhat · 18/01/2021 10:10

OP I think it was wrong to start a thread about this without having watched the full interview. I don't think he said anything wrong. He would put more value on a young life. You said yourself you would prioritise younger members of your own family.

NikeDeLaSwoosh · 18/01/2021 10:11

Death will happen to everyone though.

There is no such thing as saving a life, all we can ever do is postpone the inevitable by a few years.

When you reframe it in that way, it starts to look a bit different, doesn’t it?

Would most people give up literally everything, families, businesses, their liberty etc, just to buy an elderly or sick person another year of life?

ZenNudist · 18/01/2021 10:12

It's easier to talk about this when its at the extremes: a child's life vs an octogenarian, a terminally ill patient vs a healthy person of the same age. It's harder in the middle which is most of us. I read his comments and thought: Im not sure my family woukd agree that my life is less valuable than your grandchildrens! My dm has said before about the worry that she would be a lower priority for treatment as she is 70. She could have 10,15,20 years or more of life ahead so it's not fair.

When it comes to allocating ITU beds its about what is going to get the best results. You dont give it to the person who will be stuck on it for months when you could treat two three or four people in that time.

I think its a mistake to have spoken so bluntly about the value of life. But I agree its a privileged cosseted position to pretend that you can rise above it and say all lives are equally valuable. I would hate to be the person making those decisions.

Madhairday · 18/01/2021 10:15

I think there are two different things being talked about here.

One is Lord Sumption making a very unpleasant remark; in context or out of it it is still vile, ableist and without compassion.

Then there are doctors having to make clinical decisions. But they are not making them weighted on the language of 'worth less', they are making them on outcomes for that patient.

The problem is, if LS and other lockdown deniers got their way doctors would have to start making value judgements on lives because they would have no choice one they were utterly flooded, one after the other, with covid patients.

I am CEV and well aware I wouldn't be a candidate for ventilation, but I know that's not because I'm worth less, but because my body would not take it. However if there are too many people needing say oxygen treatment, doctors might have to then look at me and say that I'm less likely than that young person to survive so sent home to die. And that's a shocking decision for a doctor to make with severe ramifications for MH. They are making these calls for elderly people every day, but younger CEV people like me and the OP are usually able to access treatment to a point, treatment that might save our lives.

If no lockdown though, we won't. It's simple as that.

NikeDeLaSwoosh · 18/01/2021 10:16

@ZenNudist

It's easier to talk about this when its at the extremes: a child's life vs an octogenarian, a terminally ill patient vs a healthy person of the same age. It's harder in the middle which is most of us. I read his comments and thought: Im not sure my family woukd agree that my life is less valuable than your grandchildrens! My dm has said before about the worry that she would be a lower priority for treatment as she is 70. She could have 10,15,20 years or more of life ahead so it's not fair.

When it comes to allocating ITU beds its about what is going to get the best results. You dont give it to the person who will be stuck on it for months when you could treat two three or four people in that time.

I think its a mistake to have spoken so bluntly about the value of life. But I agree its a privileged cosseted position to pretend that you can rise above it and say all lives are equally valuable. I would hate to be the person making those decisions.

In a wider sense, I’d agree.

With this pandemic though, we are dealing with the extremes.

The average age of a Covid death is 82. So it is undeniably a disease of the elderly, whatever people say to the contrary.

It will be our DC and GDC who have to make the necessary sacrifices pay back the money we borrowed to fund the lockdowns.

So I would argue that, in this instance, it is very much a case of young v old,

LakieLady · 18/01/2021 10:17

By putting those people under unbearable stress we are increasing deaths to suicide

Have you got a link to where you got this info @UrsulaVdL?

Because suicide can only be determined by a coroner, it's not uncommon for registration to be delayed for several months, so I'm intrigued as to how the data has been gathered. Deaths by suicide after about July are likely not to have appeared in the stats yet.

Suicide rates have been generally on the increase for many years and 2019 was bad. But this BMJ article

www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3431

says that the provisional ONS figure for the early part of last year was the lowest since 2001.

Given that deaths by suicide have had an upward trend for some years, it's hard to know how many are attributable to Covid, although I'm not denying that it's having an impact.

Taking a longer term view, rising suicide rates generally may well be a sign that the continued under-resourcing of mental health services is a factor. The cynic in me suspects that the obsession with measurable results and every service having to meet KPIs disadvantages MH services. It's easy to count hips replaced and waiting times, but very hard to measure improvement in clients' mental health.

Two MH services in my county have closed in the past year, despite having been hugely successful and well used by clients.

Kendodd · 18/01/2021 10:18

Doesn't NICE make these calculations as well though? Cost of treatment v additional years of life expected?
I heard an ethics expert explain it on the radio once in a hypothetical but realistic situation, that if you have a 10 year old with cancer that can be treated with a 70% chance of cure, the treatment costs £1,000,000. Do you spend the money? Apparently, most people say yes, as would I. Same cancer and chance of survival, this time the patient is a 95 year old, do you spend the money? Apparently most people say no, as would I. If I had to choose who survived between my 80 year old mother and my eleven year old daughter, I'd choose my daughter everytime, I imagine most people would, does that make some people's lives worth less than others? Well I suppose you could argue it does. This isn't comparable to genocide or disability cleansing or any other emotive language people want to use. Ethics is complicated and I don't think many people would agree, when you really drill down into it, that every life is of equal value and deserves equal resources spent on it.

Sinful8 · 18/01/2021 10:25

Women and children first?

Some lives have always been deemed more worthy of saving that others if there's limited choice

formerbabe · 18/01/2021 10:26

Whilst it may sound unpalatable, I think he's right.

People seem to think death is something we can avoid indefinitely and if it does happen it's a tragedy whatever the person's age. Death is a perfectly normal thing to happen once you become elderly.

Clearly the death of a child is objectively far more tragic than the death of someone in their nineties. Anyone who equates the two, is completely off their rocker.

Buddytheelf85 · 18/01/2021 10:36

Consider the life of a young man who has never and will never work, nor do any good turn for anyone until his dying day, and who has killed as many people as he could, who states he wants to kill more, the moment he finally gets out of prison, and to convince others to his mindset while he is in there, costing the taxpaying families of his victims a fortune. His life must be 'worth more' than theirs, and worth more than that of someone like Professor Hawkins, who couldn't move unaided, but earned an excellent living, did pioneering work and paid a lot of tax until the day he finally died, mustn't it? And the imprisoned mass killer's life must be worth more than old people like the doctor now in his 90's, still braving a war zone because nobody else dares go, and nobody else has his skills as a war injury surgeon.

My understanding (although I’m not a doctor or HCP) is that the NHS England has used ‘QALYs’ (quality-adjusted life year) as a metric for assessing cost vs. benefit for years and years. It aims to spend less than £30,000 per QALY. So an intervention that costs £50k and gives a patient another 6 months is unlikely to be worth it because that’s a cost of £100k per QALY. But an intervention that costs £50k and gives a patient another 5 years is worth it because it’s a cost of £10k per QALY.

It’s really grim to think about but doctors have to make these ugly decisions all the time (and had to long before Covid). Quality years of life left has pretty much always been the basic metric used to assist with those decisions.

Of course as other posters have said, the reality is likely to be far more complicated than ‘would you save an 80 year old or an 8 year old from a fire?’ or ‘there’s one ventilator and 2 patients, one’s 91 and one’s 35, who gets it?’

That said, I think Sumption is a bit of an arse and a rent-a-gob.

derxa · 18/01/2021 10:39

We're mammals. We protect our young. Most mammals will abandon their newborns if their own lives are in danger. They might put up a fight but their instinct is self preservation.

inquietant · 18/01/2021 10:40

Lockdown sceptics and covid deniers try to reframe the conversation, and talk about 'logic', but human life is deeper than just that, once you lose the ethics you lose what it means to be human.

formerbabe · 18/01/2021 10:41

The whole saving lives v freedoms discussion is so interesting.

During the second world war, we sent our young men off to fight knowing some would die, but we considered it worth it to protect our freedoms.

Now we are willingly giving up our freedoms to protect the lives of, in the main, quite elderly people.

Seems absolutely bizarre to me.

luckylavender · 18/01/2021 10:42

He's been outrageous all the way though. Nasty human being.

SummerBlondey · 18/01/2021 10:44

Not quite the same, but I do think that young people with health vulnerabilities should have been vaccinated before people who are 80+

It's not nice to compare the value of life, but to give an example, I would vaccinate a 25 year old with severe asthma, before someone in a care home.

I also think that teachers and police officers should be nearer the front of the queue.

HerculesMuligan · 18/01/2021 10:46

I completely agree with the gist of what he said, though maybe he explained it awkwardly. It seems to me a weird type of virtue signalling to refuse to see that the death of a 10 year old is inherently more tragic than the death of a 90 year old.

Growing old is a privilege, one that is denied to a lot of people. To pretend that the death of someone who has lived 10+ years beyond the life expectancy of one of the richest countries in the world is equally tragic to the death of a child seems a wilful form of ignorance to me.

And yes, it may be unpalatable to some, which is why you’re unlikely to hear a politician saying this outright for example, but that doesn’t make it less true.

Kendodd · 18/01/2021 10:47

Most mammals will abandon their newborns if their own lives are in danger. They might put up a fight but their instinct is self preservation.

I've heard that this is show to be true of humans facing these dire situations as well.

formerbabe · 18/01/2021 10:52

I imagine most species protect the youngest or strongest. It's a highly unnatural state to expect anyone to prioritize someone else's elderly relative. No other mammal would do that.

UrsulaVdL · 18/01/2021 10:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Madhairday · 18/01/2021 10:53

Now we are willingly giving up our freedoms to protect the lives of, in the main, quite elderly people.

This is not what lockdown is about though. It's about keeping the NHS going and all other sectors of society as a result, because of the sheer number of hospitalisations of people who are much younger in the main. They're not dying because their lives can be saved in hospital at present. Without lockdown it would be another story.

*Bangs head on brick wall

NikeDeLaSwoosh · 18/01/2021 10:56

@Madhairday

Now we are willingly giving up our freedoms to protect the lives of, in the main, quite elderly people.

This is not what lockdown is about though. It's about keeping the NHS going and all other sectors of society as a result, because of the sheer number of hospitalisations of people who are much younger in the main. They're not dying because their lives can be saved in hospital at present. Without lockdown it would be another story.

*Bangs head on brick wall

Can you provide a source for this claim?

If you can show a breakdown of itu bed occupancy by age and underlying conditions, that would be really helpful.

Kendodd · 18/01/2021 10:57

I would vaccinate a 25 year old with severe asthma, before someone in a care home.
I would as well. Apparently the average length of stay in a care home is two years, if this is true approximate 50% of care home residents who've had the vaccine will have died, possibly before you've even got down the list to reach the 25 year old. Having said all that, getting people vaccinated as fast as possible should be the priority as so it might just be quicker to work through on a simple age metric and so that might be the best way to save the most lives. If it was up to me though I'd but anyone who has to step foot on a covid ward for work at the very top of the list for vaccination followed by other key workers. That would be a case of fixing your own oxygen mask before helping others.
Personally, I'm glad I'm not the one making these decisions as there are no good options.

Carysmatthews · 18/01/2021 10:59

@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.
What’s even more shocking is he didn’t bat an eyelid saying it.
CamdenLurker · 18/01/2021 11:00

I watched the show, Lord Sumption said that his life wasn't as valuable as his children or Grandchildren's.

When Deborah came on she stated "I'm one of the people that you say life isn't valuable - at this point he hadn't said that at, he interrupted with I said not as valuable.

So actually if Deborah hadn't made this error to begin with he wouldn't have said the bit about 'less valuable'.

I don't thing he was wrong to clarify what he did/didn't say at all.

hamstersarse · 18/01/2021 11:01

I am glad he said what he said, we need to have the discussion like adults and snap ourselves out of the culture that life is some utopia where we all live happily ever after.

NICE make decisions about quality of life all the time.
Health care professions make decisions about quality of life all the time.
Even insurance companies have very explicit actual monetary value placed on age and health - anyone tried to get a life insurance policy for a 90 year old with underlying health conditions? Even a 50 year old with health conditions will be penalised by an insurance company and we have all accepted this so far, without any hysteria. Or maybe, people have just never allowed themselves to think about it.

I think the naivety to "all lives are of equal value" is a real bind in where we are now. We have never operated like this in the whole of the evolution of our species - we have always put children first and somehow that has been forgotten throughout the last year. It is unpalatable and if you are one of the ones who falls into the 'less valuable' groups, it is awful, but what can we do? The survival of the species overall is what drives this.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.