We have a right to education, a right to personal liberty, a right to family time, or we did before Covid.

[Treesofwood]

But not any more. So how do we decide when some people's rights (including right to life) mean that others lose their rights. There have always been people who could get very sick and even die if they were to catch anyone of a number of viruses that circulate every year. No one suggested everyone should give up their right to personal liberty to prevent that. There have always been people who are killed on the roads every year. No one suggested that non essential car journeys should be banned to reduce or prevent this. Why are people with cancer's lives seen as less worth saving than those who might catch Covid? Why are people OK with this? How can the government make it illegal for me to see my parents?

My cancer treatment wasn’t moved to home - don’t think there are portable MRIs

My point - as was @Namenic - is that the trope that there was NO cancer treatment is simply incorrect. Do you actually believe that, say, Guys Cancer Centre closed during lockdown or became a covid centre?

(that was in response to @Treesofwood)

Is it murder when we don't give antibiotics to old people with chest infections so that they die. No it's just letting someone who is at the natural end of their life die

Actually if drugs are deliberately withheld against the wishes and consent of the individual it could be legally medical negligence and a violation of human rights by the state.

For it to be legal it would need to be with the consent of the individual (which includes demonstrating that they have made this choice freely and not been unduly influenced by others - so for example telling a patient that the demand for beds is so high, a child might die instead of them if they are given the drugs)

Or if this is a state decision there woukd have to be a demonstration that an individual hadn't been unfairly discriminated against due to their age, sex, disability, race or any other reason. If the state has the capacity and ability to aid a person and others are recieving that treatment then this is an issue.

You only get into the realms of 'let nature taje its course' when you exceed capacity - at which point doctors have to play god and make clinicial decisions based on who has the best chance if survival.

But even in this situation the state has to legally demonstrate that they have done everything they can to avoid capacity being exceeded and that they have done everything to prevent unnecessary harm to others otherwise they risk legal action being taken.

This is why stuff like releasing a covid positive patient into a care home is particularly sticky - there are alternatives to doing this. The argument that the hospital is at capacity and the patient is blocking a bed doesnt necessarily wash. The problem is that doing this needlessly and recklessly endangers the lives of others - and isnt allowing nature to take its course - because the government hasnt demonstrated its done everything to protect the lives of those in the care home. They have to demonstrate theyve tried to set up alternative covid positive caring facilities to be free of their obligations under law.

Im quite grateful we live in a country where the law is that we only let 'nature take its course' where a patient is able to and has given consent freely and the state is legally obliged to protect the sanctity of life in all other situations.

There are many other countries where this isnt true and economic factors are more important.

Unless you are advocating for people to die if they cant afford to live and that your right to healthcare no longer exists i suggest you shut up.

That’s interesting, Red.

To extrapolate, the government would presumably have no choice other than repeated lockdowns in order to prove that they had done everything possible not to put those lives at risk?

But that is a choice people have made. They do not have to delay surgery (unless there is no non-covid beds available or a high number of surgeons and nurses are isolating due to lack of tests, family members sick etc). I would argue that no lockdown is more likely to lead to these conditions than having a lockdown but making an exemption for medical treatment.

I think that it is very important not to compromise infection control in health setting - eg Not sendIng Covid positive people back to care Homes, holding off some operations if the only space available in a covid ward. This is because hospitals and care homes have a high density of vulnerable people with high contact between people and workers. Transmission could be v quick to v vulnerable people.

Perhaps the delays are due to reducing number of appointments in order to clean the room? In which case, I guess you have to see whether there is a way of getting around this - eg employing more people to clean equipment, work on weekends. This would cost money.

Aridane I never said there was none. But it was much harder to access treatments, especially for those soon after/at diagnosis.

Userzzz

Amen, OP. I can’t believe people blindly accept this violation of our basic human rights. When I saw people happily masking their children, I knew we were done for. Insanity has taken over and I don’t know that our lives will ever be the same.“

And just who “happily” masks their children?
People do it because they’re pragmatic and have at least a modicum of consideration for other people.

Don’t be ridiculous.

Red, "Unless you are advocating for people to die if they cant afford to live and that your right to healthcare no longer exists i suggest you shut up."
Who are you talking to and what do you mean by this? I'm not sure how it links to end of life pathways and care? If that us what you are talking about?

@CountessFrog

That’s interesting, Red.

To extrapolate, the government would presumably have no choice other than repeated lockdowns in order to prove that they had done everything possible not to put those lives at risk?

You have the argument about what is 'reasonable' to contend with.

What is a reasonable expectation of mitigating risk and at what point are you discrimating on the basis of age and disability?

A general private citizen might struggle to argue how far the government is obliged to go to 'reasonably' protect them in a national crisis.

But its not that straightforward and there are situations where it is more clear cut and the legal bar is higher.

People in state care are under state protection - the state are directly responsible for them in a way that other citizens dont have. So the bar of legal protection is higher than for the general population. Their right to life is enshrined to a higher degree of proof and a demonstration of taking measures to protect them especially because they are vulnerable and not able to take steps to do this on their own.

Thus protecting well residents against a known threat (a covid positive patient) or a high known risk (a patient who is at high risk of being covid positive as they have been in hospital but hasnt been tested) is a clear health and safety matter for which there is a set of protocols which should be adhered to.

For the wider public this set of rules isnt quite so clear cut in terms of who is responsible for every situation.

But if for example we got to a point where the level of infections were extremely high and we started having hundreds of teachers dying because they were prohibited from wearing masks in the work place you might have a problem. You could legitimately argue that since the government had previously shut schools and other work places had masks as part of basic health and safety that teachers had a reasonable level of expectation that schools would shut again if the level of risk became too high.

So the answer is that the government do not have to legally keep putting in restrictions, but its simultaneously does have particular legal responsibilities in certain situations which are clearly set out in law.

This may be one reason that the government is keen to get rid of human rights law going forward though too. (lots about cutting red tape etc in the newspapers in relation to brexit atm. But it also has serious implications with the ongoing covid crisis too)

To further confuse the issue I will add though that the government does have the legal ability (particularly with the covid act and the civil contingency act and the size of the government's majority) to suspend these legal responsibilities anyway. They could unilaterally without parliamentary scrutiny remove health and safety law. But it does get more complex because of how human rights law works - under your right to life.

This would be a) highly controversial and b) at present the uk government is still answerable to a higher court of law - the ECHR (note any moves to end this which are currently in progress) so if the government did remove responsibility under uk law they could still be taken to court (most likely by one of the devolved governments i suspect).

So i would strongly recommend people watch what happens with brexit talks in relation to this area of rights. The Withdrawal Agreement enshrined our willingness to continue to adhere to and to be answerable to the ECHR. No deal leaves us extremely vulnerable to the whims of this government and who they value pritecting and who they don’t.

Sorry thats not a more straightforward and simply and non political answer.

@Treesofwood

Red, "Unless you are advocating for people to die if they cant afford to live and that your right to healthcare no longer exists i suggest you shut up." Who are you talking to and what do you mean by this? I'm not sure how it links to end of life pathways and care? If that us what you are talking about?

End of care pathways are only legal if there isnt undue pressure applied when the patient us able to consent and when there is a treatment available which has a reasonable chance of success and is in the best interests of the patient (eg if they are going to be indefinitely on life support their quality of life and dignity is so low to argue its not) if the patient is unable to consent themselves.

Clear legal framework.

This is a great topic to find all the idiots.

Why would we let nature take its course with covid when we wouldn't with ebola or hiv or cancer?

Because the treatments for those things only involve personal treatment. You don't have to deny a child their education to provide anti viral meds. You don't need to stop your neighbours seeing their friends and families to have chemotherapy.

@RedToothBrush

Non of what you said bares any relevance to what I said. I said is it murder to let someone at the end of their life die. I didn't ask under what legal defenition can we withhold medical treatment.

And we don't withhold treatment because wards are full. It's withheld because there are no meaningful treatments avaliable and/or the patient cannot regain any meaningful quality of life.

So again, how is letting an old person at the end of their life get covid and die any different to letting them get a chest infection, or flu and dying. This is what happens, my own grandfather died in this way after a very sad and dehumanising 2 years of life.

Well 'left to die naturally' implies no intervention at all.

Someone who freely declines going on a ventilator for example, still has a right to pain relief during their care and that would probably be the default rather than 'dying naturally'.

What we have seen is examples where appropriate palliative care has NOT been provided - and shipping covid positive patients into care homes probably would be inappropriate due to staffing experience, skills and patient to staff numbers...

Very very few people in this country die without some form of support and intervention. Letting nature take its course isnt a modern day reality / expectation nor something to aspire to in anyway because it usually compromises the dignity of a patient and increases their suffering.

It might not be what you meant but unless you can explicitly articulate this and still understand what duty of care still remains and that choosing a pathway which is end of life is not resource free in the modern world. Nor should it be.

Fwiw i do think we have a problem of unrealistic expectations of who medicine can save and medical intervention often being used in situations where its not in the best interests of a patient.

But thats a wider debate and not really one to be having in the context of a pandemic where the debate can be used to further a pro-eugenics agenda.

Really informative reply, thanks Red.

I agree with you regarding unrealistic expectations. DH is an ITU consultant and explained clearly at the beginning of the pandemic regarding the choices they had to make regarding ventilation of the elderly

The premise of this thread is set up in a person v person dynamic. With emotions running high you therefore can not rewrite the rules half way through a pandemic without the most vulnerable being exposed and at the mercy of the very things the law is supposed to protect them from.

You have to say that the law must be followed as it stands if you value the right to life above all. If you start to question that you open up the can of worms of who decides who lives and dies. There are situations in emergency where triage rules apply but these must be a last resort and followed robustly to protect all concerned.

The time to decide the rights and wrongs of this is only after the crisis has passed and the emotion of them v us in terms of life quality or life has gone. Otherwise decisions are made a) in haste b) in the vacuum of too much emotion c) without proper scrutiny of how things might be abused in other circumstances.

@Redtoothbrush Why can't you rewrite the rules? They have rewritten lots of rules around sectioning, autopsies etc etc
If the plan is not working, or prolonging the inevitable at the cost of many (different) peoples livelihoods, and lives then surely we must.
I don't think we have valued the right to life above all in the past. Examples around RTAs and other avoidable deaths show that. People don't expect the community to put their lives on hold to protect them. Or at least they didn't until Covid.
I found your post on rights and Brexit very troubling. The tories have had their sights set in the Human Rights Act for sometime.

Also, the whole covid bill would fit your points a, b and c above

What would you classify as Pro-eugenics? To me, ensuring an elderly person is happy, surrounded by people they love in their final days is more important than them having 90 extra days alone in a room with no contact with people they love. That's not eugenics. Surely?

Eugenics is consigning the elderly and vulnerable to a quick death to get them out of the way, no matter how many nice people are with them

If people could just act like intelligent people the elderly would not need to die alone in isolation.

We have an option that does not require them to die ( until their time) it's just some people are too selfish and weak

Midgebabe What option do we have? Lockdown? Wearing masks?

Social distance , 2 m , even from best friends and family, even when a little tipsy, even when just helping Out in the kitchen , wear the mask, limit your social contacts especially indoors, isolate when your should ( government cock up not getting sick pay sorted ) , get test and trace working (ok that's another government cock up) , ignore Boris and WFH if possible

Unfortunately too many people have not been doing that so we have no choice but another , hopefully short , lockdown

@Treesofwood

What would you classify as Pro-eugenics? To me, ensuring an elderly person is happy, surrounded by people they love in their final days is more important than them having 90 extra days alone in a room with no contact with people they love. That's not eugenics. Surely?

Its difficult to define but when we are having debates over 'we should all go back to work because the quality of MY life is shit and if a few vulnerable OTHER people die thats ok'.

Basically when the framing of other people's death is for the direct benefit of another and includes the othering of vulnerable groups as somehow not having the same right to life as all others.

Saying that we should have more honest conversations about quality of life and dignity in death on your own terms is removed from that - provided there isn't a tone of 'if they die it will make my life better'.

The trouble with your above point is the fact its still an infectious disease so if you have family visiting anyone covid positive, its going to create a risk to wider society - it not just about the person dying, and there already exceptions within the law about protecting public health (so pandemic is fully covered) because everyone else has a right to life which ultimately has to come ahead of someone already dying seeing family. And given we know how many people are breaking quarratine, it does mean that its hard to argue for anyone but professionals being allowed contact.

I believe there are rules about TB requiring people to get treated. Though I think there are limits to what they can do.

People will have different opinions over what they would prefer - ie to see people and risk death or reduce risk of death and isolate. The govt can still put in rules to benefit the whole of society - just like speed limit, Wearing helmets,!drug taking.

I mean the wearing helmets thing - if people want to take the risk, why not let them? - it doesn’t directly affect other people. We do not have compulsory helmets for bike riders, but I think other countries do.