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.

It beggars belief that parents are now expected to watch their children's mental health deteriorate in a bid to save random elderly people....and even worse, if we don't go along with this, we are monsters. Quite the opposite I would say.

I'm surprised that so few people think that it's valid to discuss this. We did it as an exercise in secondary school, and for interviews:

texags.com/forums/15/topics/1014375

Interesting note on the exercise above - I've seen a dozen groups do this exercise and the same four people are always agreed on. Not that everyone thinks that's the correct priority, but it's the only four a group will agree with. (side note, I tend to discount for employment people who shut down and won't discuss the issue, because if they can't detach enough to take part then they're unlikely to cut it in work debate).

I personally think it's a bit of a mental flex to count lives as unitary - I.e. A life is a life - when we have a subunit of life too - years lived. We don't say that everyone who is paid by an employer has the same amount of money.

I have to say YABU OP, on the grounds that refusing to even discuss the ethics of death doesn't actively help anyone, and blocks the opportunity to debate euthanasia. The fact that I could hold my beautiful, suffering cat in my arms and gently and painlessly say goodbye was a privilege and it is a scandal that my grandmother spent years suffering severe dementia without the same opportunity.

@formerbabe

It beggars belief that parents are now expected to watch their children's mental health deteriorate in a bid to save random elderly people....and even worse, if we don't go along with this, we are monsters. Quite the opposite I would say.

And it is not just their mental health.

Their physical health.
Their educations
Their career prospects
Their social learning
Their sport

I am ashamed of how we have treated our children

I'm surprised that so few people think that it's valid to discuss this. We did it as an exercise in secondary school, and for interviews

How is discussing it as an abstract idea with teens anything at all like saying to someones face, on live tv "your life is not worth as much as other peoples"?
Seriously, what an inane comparison.

How is discussing it as an abstract idea with teens anything at all like saying to someones face, on live tv "your life is not worth as much as other peoples

So what should he have said?

@bobbojobbo

I'm surprised that so few people think that it's valid to discuss this. We did it as an exercise in secondary school, and for interviews

How is discussing it as an abstract idea with teens anything at all like saying to someones face, on live tv "your life is not worth as much as other peoples"?
Seriously, what an inane comparison.

Because it all stems from the ability to discuss it at all. If the subject is taboo, then it shouldn't have been discussed at all.

It was said in the relevant real life context to someone who willingly took part in the discussion. She wasn't blindsided into the debate. I applaud her for her bravery in taking part and facing such comments down. I applaud his detachment in saying what he believed.

No, he's not facing imminent death in the same way that she is. It doesn't erode the fact that we need to be able to discuss these things as a nation. Both of them contributed to that by taking part and for that I thank them.

So what should he have said?

Not what he said, obviously. Is that a serious question? On what planet is it an acceptable thing to say to anyone, for any reason, ever?

Because it all stems from the ability to discuss it at all. If the subject is taboo, then it shouldn't have been discussed at all

Nobody said the subject is taboo, did they?

It was disgusting what Lord Sumption said to Deborah James's face. She is a woman in her thirties with two children, who works, pays taxes (presumably!) and has contributed a huge amount to the cancer community. She has totally smashed the stereotype that people with Stage 4 Cancer are bald, frail and useless (indeed when I was diagnosed with cancer and discovered DB, I couldn't understand how she had cancer, let alone stage 4, because she had a full head of hair, that's how ignorant I was!).

But even if none of those things were true, saying that someone's life is 'less valuable' because they have cancer and they aren't going to live until old age still seems dodgy ground.

We know that difficult decisions are made in medicine all the time, we know that value judgements on people's lives are made. And that where resources are limited choices will be made over who is more 'deserving' of treatment.

But the point that DB was making was that lockdown is needed in order to protect the NHS so as many lives as possible can be saved, whether those people have Covid, cancer or have been in a car accident.

Lord Sumption appears to be anti-lockdown and his argument seems to be to lock away people like Deborah James, because she is going to die anyway, and let people with more worthy lives (eg. Who haven't got cancer) crack on. When he tells a 39 year old stage 4 cancer patient that her life has less value it has nothing to do with the fact that in a burning building we would save a 10 year old over an 80 year old. For starters on a human level is dismisses the fact that people with life limiting cancer might want to make the most of the time they have left!

I also have to say props to DB for holding it together and not losing her shit and telling him to fuck off!

You'd be amazed at what some people think. I was once told on here that a grandparents life was worth more than a toddlers life because the grandmother could provide free childcare to enable the mother to work... utterly batshit

@MrsKoala

Did you watch the programme op? I did and I think his words have been taken out of context. 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.

While I don’t agree with him, I think this article is portraying a much more callous statement that was originally said. I’m sure you can get the programme on catch up if you want to see the discussion.

He started off saying that but he did interrupt her to say he didn't say her life wasn't valuable he said it was less valuable. It wasn't out of context, he was quite clear in correcting her.

I think Deborah James showed great dignity in how she dealt with it.

Yes, his words weren't taken out of context.
She said 'I am one of the people whose life you say is not valuable'

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

Less valuable that what? DB has done more to help people with cancer in 4 years than most will do in their lifetime?

I honestly couldn't believe what I was hearing. Straight up eugenics from the leader of the anti lockdown brigade who believe that being made to wear a mask in a shop is a slippery slope to 1930s Germany. What I find so bewildering is that he is clearly an educated man, how can he be so utterly misguided. It made me feel sick.

Let's try to remember that the very reason for the lockdown is to avoid nhs staff having to make horrible decisions about who to keep alive and who to put on pallative care. Nobody wants to be in that position. He is arguing that old and disabled people should die for the 'freedom' to go to the blinking pub.

Outrageous.

It beggars belief that parents are now expected to watch their children's mental health deteriorate in a bid to save random elderly people....and even worse, if we don't go along with this, we are monsters. Quite the opposite I would say. One of my children had meningitis as a teenager, they needed a hospital bed so I think it is reasonable to ensure that young people will have access to hospitals if they are unwell with any illness/accident. A friend of mine had a life threatening hemorrage when she gave birth, thank heavens the hospital had a bed in ICU and she survived.

If my child had died from meningitis or my friend had died from blood loss there would have been no second chances. Children can catch up with their education, mental health problems can be treated, you don't come back from death.

@Jetatyeovilaerodrome

Yes, his words weren't taken out of context. She said 'I am one of the people whose life you say is not valuable'

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

Less valuable that what? DB has done more to help people with cancer in 4 years than most will do in their lifetime?

It couldn't have been clearer could it? I don't understand people trying to make out it was out of context.

Children can catch up with their education, mental health problems can be treated, you don't come back from death

You do realise everyone will eventually die don't you? You cannot avoid death forever.

Sorry, I have realised I kept referring to Deborah James as DB when I meant DJ!

It's equally shocking, though not surprising, how many on this thread agree with him. Even going so far as to say we all agree secretly! No, we don't. Don't speak for me. How is it your place to judge value of life? You could happily argue that a toddler has less value than a 50 year old doctor who saves lives every day. Don't be so simplistic as to base such decisions on age alone. It's moral philosophy, and it's complex. For this reason, ethically, it's better to stick with 'all lives have equal value' because quite frankly who are we to assign subjective value measures??

Please, research eugenics. We are so dangerously to repeating history.

@BeforeThisThenWhat

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.

Deborah James is a young woman isn't she? Or is just at my age that I can look at her and see a young woman?

Please, research eugenics. We are so dangerously to repeating history

Eugenics is actively killing people to create a certain type of society.

Isn't this more to do with "Who do we save?"

And by actively saving certain people, that means other people are less likely to be saved.

Who would you save?

@DoreensEatingHerSoreen I completely agree YANBU.
I'm glad you are living your best life possible.

There will be people who think I'm not as valuable as others because I have Schizoaffective disorder & epilepsy & don't have children... that way of thinking is a slippery slope to Eugenics which as we know was practiced by Nazis.

Well people who think in that horrible way are worth Nothing to me or my family & friends.
They are just like dirt on my shoe!

I'm glad I'm not a nasty individual & I care about everyone equally.

Deborah James is a young woman isn't she? Or is just at my age that I can look at her and see a young woman?

She is young by anyone's standards. She has 2 children who are about 13 and 10 I think.

@formerbabe

Children can catch up with their education, mental health problems can be treated, you don't come back from death

You do realise everyone will eventually die don't you? You cannot avoid death forever.

So you think letting the NHS come to a standstill and leave young people like my child and my friend to die is a good way forward? Lots of elderly dying and lots of young dying as well?

Are you younger than Deborah James, much younger? She wouldn't have expected to die for another 50 years so is it unreasonable for her to expect a chance at life, are her children unreasonable to expect to have a mother?

We can't avoid death forever, let's all just commit suicide today, what's the point of delaying the inevitable. Do you want to go first?

How many times have we watched movies, depicting an Extinction Level Event, and the Government have spaces in an underground bunker for the select few hundred thousand, who will save the human race? They send young people of reproductive age, who are Doctors, Engineers, Scientists, Farmers....no one ever questioned that.