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.

I think young people's mental health would be much better if people stopped telling them their lives are ruined. As I'm typing this I can hear my year 11 GS's maths lesson which is going on in my dining room and in homes all round our town. Later he will be going on a 2 mile run with the aim of beating yesterday's time. He's missed out on some stuff for the last year but his life isn't ruined.

I think he obviously didn’t word the comment he made back to her well...at all.
However it wasn’t as if he spoke to her in the street or as her personal prescription we. 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:

The reality is that these hard decisions about who gets the last ventilator (suggesting someone’s life has been priorritise) and if a certain drug is worth funding for the outcome it provides someone are/or might happen in reality.

@ancientgran

I think young people's mental health would be much better if people stopped telling them their lives are ruined. As I'm typing this I can hear my year 11 GS's maths lesson which is going on in my dining room and in homes all round our town. Later he will be going on a 2 mile run with the aim of beating yesterday's time. He's missed out on some stuff for the last year but his life isn't ruined.

Can't see beyond your own nose is the phrase that springs to mind

Personal practitioner I meant

@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.

Possibly ... But I now have seen it in full and I remain disgusted by LS's comment to Deborah James.

As I've said a few times here, I don't take issue with his comments on valuing his children and grandchildren's life over his own, nor on the debate about the effectiveness of lockdown.

My issue is with his specific comment to Deborah, and the inference that we should prioritise other lives over those of cancer patients like Deborah any myself who are not elderly, and living well.

I'm not sure all children will be fine.

My dc are relatively lucky...they are in a loving family in a nice house. My dd hasn't played with another child for a month now, best case scenario is another month...probably more. Two months without playing with other kids...that's not normal. Even in refugee camps, children can play with other kids. We have no idea what this is doing to them. My DD cries most days now...the first lockdown was a bit of a novelty, now she's just really sad. Quite frankly her happiness is my priority...I'm genuinely past caring about whether random elderly people I don't know die. Random people died before covid and I didn't go to pieces over it so no idea why I'm expected to now.

What you mean is you will be fine.

No, I'm about to be made redundant plus my operation has been postponed so not particularly fine.

You have no idea whether children will be fine. Much of the evidence points to children not being fine. It's an experiment that has never been done before on children, so your confidence in them being 'fine' is interesting.

Your confidence in them not being fine is interesting too. What evidence do you have that your children's education and future career prospects are ruined?

@chomalungma No, that's not just what eugenics means. This is my point exactly, too few people understand what it means and where it stems from. It starts by thinking that some lives are more valuable, i.e. superior, to others.

My issue is with his specific comment to Deborah, and the inference that we should prioritise other lives over those of cancer patients like Deborah any myself who are not elderly, and living well

Do you think any lives are being prioritised at the moment?

two months without playing with other kids...that's not normal

It's not equal to a persons life. Your kid not playing for a couple of months is not a good reason to just let people die.
You're past caring about randomers dying because your kid is sad she can't go play with friends? If you can't see how fucked up your attitude is, you have much bigger problems.

@ancientgran

I think young people's mental health would be much better if people stopped telling them their lives are ruined. As I'm typing this I can hear my year 11 GS's maths lesson which is going on in my dining room and in homes all round our town. Later he will be going on a 2 mile run with the aim of beating yesterday's time. He's missed out on some stuff for the last year but his life isn't ruined.

I agree. I wonder if the parents being hysterical about their children's education and future career prospects are affecting their children's mental health more than the lockdown itself.

@chomalungma

My issue is with his specific comment to Deborah, and the inference that we should prioritise other lives over those of cancer patients like Deborah any myself who are not elderly, and living well

Do you think any lives are being prioritised at the moment?

I believe the intention of the lockdown is to prioritise saving as many lives as possible. I don't deny that this is coming with horrendous collateral damage. I don't have a solution, as I don't believe that the alternative (easing lockdown too soon and overwhelming ICUs) is any less horrendous.

[quote Perfect28]@chomalungma No, that's not just what eugenics means. This is my point exactly, too few people understand what it means and where it stems from. It starts by thinking that some lives are more valuable, i.e. superior, to others.[/quote]
So when a doctor puts a value on a life and has to decide who gets an organ, who gets the life saving treatment, who gets the expensive cancer drugs, are they commiting eugenics?

For those who watched the whole piece and who have heard other things that this man has said, he thinks that the elderly and vulnerable should shield whilst the rest of us continue as normal. He was even challenged by the host who said that there are 22 million people in this category. He is straight up advocating for a two tier system. One for the weak and one for the strong. Again, not because difficult decisions have to made in ITU but so those of us who are 'strong' can continue with our normal lives with no sacrifices, go to pubs, festivals and do what we like whilst 22 million people live in isolation. I'm spelling this out in the hope that you will find this ridiculous but having read this thread, a heap of you probably think that's perfectly acceptable.

@chomalungma Nope. They are making difficult ethical decisions, usually with the help of a board and other professional experts.

The two situations are frankly, incomparable.

You're past caring about randomers dying because your kid is sad she can't go play with friends? If you can't see how fucked up your attitude is, you have much bigger problems.
It's her mental health innit

@bobbojobbo

People died before covid... people die every day of many things. I don't see it as such an unusual event it warrants this level of absolute hysteria.

[quote Perfect28]@chomalungma Nope. They are making difficult ethical decisions, usually with the help of a board and other professional experts.

The two situations are frankly, incomparable.[/quote]
You said that eugenics is putting a value on a life.

Isn't that what they are doing?

It's her mental health innit

@choli

The mental health of young people is no joke. My friends teenage cousin took his own life. Sadly more under 20s have died from suicide during this time than they have from covid.. but yeah, it's funny to you.

Oh and how charming you find my dds distress funny...you absolute vile human being

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.

This isn’t a case of prioritising one life over another though, it’s a case of looking at the impact of treatment on various individuals, and the likelihood of success of that treatment.

And I agree with @ HazyJuly that DNR is something which everyone should talk about, as well as what measures they would and wouldn’t want in the event of serious illness.

People throw out the word DNR as if it is the worst thing that can happen to people. And yet there is very little discussion of what CPR and resuscitation involves, and the potential impacts on the individual. E.g. someone who is resuscitated in hospital has only a 20% chance of survival, a high likelihood of broken or fractured ribs and added to that the possibility of punctured lungs. Added to which there is a significant risk of brain damage based on how long the individual is deprived of oxygen. So you could bring someone back only for them to to spend the rest of their lives in a vegetative state. Would you want to live like that? I wouldn’t.

CPR is absolutely brutal, I’ve been there. And frankly to put a 90 year old, any 90 year old through that is barbaric.

This isn’t just about talking about DNR, it’s about talking about the wider implications of certain interventions. How much treatment would you want? At what point would you want to have all medical treatment withdrawn in order that you could slip peacefully away rather than live the rest of your life in extreme pain, possibly with no understanding, no movement.

Decisions have to be made on the likelihood of someone’s survival and the likelihood of their quality of life in the event of e.g. CPR. It’s not a case of choosing one life over another, but we need to accept that we can’t always provide life at all costs.

This isn’t a case of prioritising one life over another though, it’s a case of looking at the impact of treatment on various individuals, and the likelihood of success of that treatment

I completely disagree with you in thus.

It's not looking at whether you care suitable for and likely to benefit from treatment.

It's about deciding, when there is only one bed and three people who wouid benefit from it, not on medical grounds (modified reverse triage by Three Wise Men) but on who is worthy.

That stinks

@formerbabe

I assume with such a statement you're able to back that up with some evidence? Particularly would like to see suicide rates by age and vs other years.

I'll just wait here :)

@chomalungma
They are making difficult, resource based decisions. Such decisions will be based on a multitude of interwoven factors, such as likelihood to recover, the patients willingness to help themselves, chances of rejection (in the case of a transplant).
I don't think a single person sitting around in those meetings and making those decisions would ever say something as crude or reductionist as 'their life is worth more'. And I'm pretty sure that they would prefer not to be making those decisions in the first place.

Now, can you see why that is wildly different from an individual deciding 'your life has less value'. Or are you going to continue to be ignorant?

I was originally horrified when they put a DNR on my 66 year old dad who was (looking back I see it now) at death's door with pancreatic cancer.

I was very upset at the time - 11 years ago

I totally get it now though.