Lord Sumption

[Northernsoulgirl45]

www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jan/17/jonathan-sumption-cancer-patient-life-less-valuable-others?CMP=share_btn_link

Wow. Just wow

I watched the programme yesterday and that clip misrepresents what Lord Sumption said. He did say some lifes are more valuable than others but based that purely on age and the time they have left. He did not base that on disabilities or under lying conditions.

I agree with him that the life of a 90 year old does not have the same value as the life of a 9 year old. Other commentators on the programme believe that all lifes have equal value.

I think what he said is correct from a societal point of view. The life of someone with a life limiting condition is of less value TO SOCIETY than a young healthy person. From a personal point of view of course they are of equal value. But either way, it's extremely callous to point this out directly to someone with stage 4 cancer.

@Thingybob

I agree with him that the life of a 90 year old does not have the same value as the life of a 9 year old.
Really? What do you base that on? Are you talking economically or what?

What about 94 year old Sir David Attenborough, who has and continues to educate so many of us?

What about I00 year old Captain Sir Thomas Moore?

What about Queen Elizabeth II?

Their lives aren't as valuable as a 9 year olds? What if the 9 year old will never be economically active or so disabled that they will never live an independent life? Are they less valuable than a child who is not disabled?

This is a bit of a storm in a tea cup, not helped by a misleading headline. The one quote has been taken wholly out of context. However, I agree that pointing this out to someone with stage 4 bowel cancer is, at best, tactless.

[quote Calmandmeasured1]**@Thingybob

I agree with him that the life of a 90 year old does not have the same value as the life of a 9 year old.
Really? What do you base that on? Are you talking economically or what?

What about 94 year old Sir David Attenborough, who has and continues to educate so many of us?

What about I00 year old Captain Sir Thomas Moore?

What about Queen Elizabeth II?

Their lives aren't as valuable as a 9 year olds? What if the 9 year old will never be economically active or so disabled that they will never live an independent life? Are they less valuable than a child who is not disabled?[/quote]
Genuine hypothetical question - if you had to choose between two people to decide who received medical treatment and were told there was only enough treatment for one of them and the one who doesn’t receive the treatment would die - and the two people were a 95 year old and a 5 year old, who would you choose?

He's right though. Sadly, in clinical decision making, somebody with a terminal diagnosis has less potential life left, therefore they are considered 'less valuable' in terms of the cost/benefit of treatment.

It's terribly harsh, and in normal times this isn't a consideration, but in a pandemic situation then of course somebody who is already dying is a lesser priority for treatment over a younger, healthy person.

@FlyMyPrettiesFly

I'd sooner toss a coin because I believe we are all equal.

Presumably this is exactly the thinking that some people (health economists, NHS managers, government etc) have to make all the time when they are deciding how to allocate resources to fund different types of health care.

And for all the time that people insist deaths from Covid is the priority regardless of age, overall health and realistic life expectancy, cancer patients will continue to receive a death sentence in the form of delayed operations and treatment to otherwise treatable issues with a better likely outcome for a longer period of time

We shouldn’t have to choose. No one in their right mind wants to, but sticking your head in the sand about the realities of life and death in a pandemic changes nothing about the situation in which we find ourselves

[quote Calmandmeasured1]**@FlyMyPrettiesFly

I'd sooner toss a coin because I believe we are all equal.[/quote]
Really? If you were on a sinking ship with your mother, your grandmother and your child, you would toss a coin for the space in the lifeboat?

[quote Calmandmeasured1]**@Thingybob

I agree with him that the life of a 90 year old does not have the same value as the life of a 9 year old.
Really? What do you base that on? Are you talking economically or what?

What about 94 year old Sir David Attenborough, who has and continues to educate so many of us?

What about I00 year old Captain Sir Thomas Moore?

What about Queen Elizabeth II?

Their lives aren't as valuable as a 9 year olds? What if the 9 year old will never be economically active or so disabled that they will never live an independent life? Are they less valuable than a child who is not disabled?[/quote]
No not economically, just that basic gut instinct that prioritises the survival of the young.

Using my lifeboat analogy go you think that David Attenborough, Tom Moore or even the Queen would take the last space on a lifeboat over a 9 year old?

Maybe the Queen would but would that be right?

This is not about whether you decide to treat an 8 or 80 year old though is it? It is about whether the elderly and those of all ages with health conditions should just be locked up and all the normal people can than just get on with life without restriction.
Of course this plan can't work because of how intermingled the vulnerable are with the "normal people". Plus this plan wouldn't protect the NHS.

@Northernsoulgirl45

This is not about whether you decide to treat an 8 or 80 year old though is it? It is about whether the elderly and those of all ages with health conditions should just be locked up and all the normal people can than just get on with life without restriction. Of course this plan can't work because of how intermingled the vulnerable are with the "normal people". Plus this plan wouldn't protect the NHS.

Tragically it is exactly that if the 8 year old in question needs diagnostics or treatment for a potentially life threatening disease.

I’m in favour of lockdown (just about) but we are throwing a different subset under the bus by doing so imo. That element of lockdown I am fully against

There are other threads discussing this already (I don't mean you can't start another thread, just that you might find them interesting!)

I think he's being misrepresented.

I did have a quick look to see if a thread had been started but probably didn't look back far enough. Will take a look. Thank you

[quote Calmandmeasured1]**@Thingybob

I agree with him that the life of a 90 year old does not have the same value as the life of a 9 year old.
Really? What do you base that on? Are you talking economically or what?

What about 94 year old Sir David Attenborough, who has and continues to educate so many of us?

What about I00 year old Captain Sir Thomas Moore?

What about Queen Elizabeth II?

Their lives aren't as valuable as a 9 year olds? What if the 9 year old will never be economically active or so disabled that they will never live an independent life? Are they less valuable than a child who is not disabled?[/quote]
You can find exceptions to any rule. That's always been the case. But if you had to save the life of either a 90yo not the ones you've mentioned, or a child, you would save the child - because they have the most life ahead of them, so the value of the decision is greater, as more years of life were gained through your choice.

@CarolEffingBaskin

He's right though. Sadly, in clinical decision making, somebody with a terminal diagnosis has less potential life left, therefore they are considered 'less valuable' in terms of the cost/benefit of treatment.

It's terribly harsh, and in normal times this isn't a consideration, but in a pandemic situation then of course somebody who is already dying is a lesser priority for treatment over a younger, healthy person.

Agree with this

@WitchesBritchesPumpkinPants

There are other threads discussing this already (I don't mean you can't start another thread, just that you might find them interesting!)

I think he's being misrepresented.

Thank-you I've found another thread on AIBU

Judgements are made all the time about whether a treatment is worth pursuing, covid or no covid. There are many treatments that the NHS simply won't fund because they believe the benefit isn't worth the cost - it doesn't matter if it'll save some lives, they don't consider that worth it. Equally, a 90 year old with severe pneumonia is very unlikely to be put on a ventilator as doing so would amount to cruelty - it's not worth putting a person through that when the chances of survival are low. A child with the same low chances of survival may be given the treatment on the basis that the value of the outcome is greater and so the risk is worth it. The fact that people seem unaware of this is weird - is it believed that in pre-covid times every single person got every available treatment no matter what and no clinical judgement at all went into it?

In terms of whose lives are more valuable, currently the lives of people susceptible to covid are being valued more highly than the lives of children - children are being left at home without education, without social interaction, without the support of other children and adults, to protect the health of other people. If some of those children die to due to neglect/abuse then that's considered a fair trade as far as I can tell. So again the value situation is going on, it's just that no one wants to address it in any honest way.

I got the impression that the programme was about lockdown restrictions. So I took it mean the same old rhetoric that Lockdowns affect the young more than the old and we are only looking down to protect the elderly and well terminal cancer patients and other sick people so we should shield the vulnerable and others get on with it..
After all that's what he stands for

[quote Calmandmeasured1]**@FlyMyPrettiesFly

I'd sooner toss a coin because I believe we are all equal.[/quote]
I suspect a 90 year old would rather you chose a 9 year old than them. My experience of older people is that they are sanguine about death and recognise that they have lived a full life.

I watched the show yesterday and was so glad that at last the Mainstream media are allowing these views to be debated. I agreed with everything he said and that the younger generation are being disproportionately punished by lockdown. All lives are valuable but how can one argue that the death of a 90 year old dementia sufferer in a care home is as tragic as a 20 year old student who kills themselves due to lockdown induced depression?Lord Sumpton’s views are bold and he is outspoken and I am glad to hear his views being discussed but now he is being vilified. His words have been twisted.

The younger generation might be being disproportionately being affected by lockdown, but it has benefits to them too. If they want healthcare or diagnostic treatment, we need the capacity and the staff to be able to do that. Which we aren't going to have if hospitals are overrun with people needing treatment and all the staff are off sick with Covid.
Framing this as a choice between an 8 year old and a 90 year old is sort pointless because those sorts of decisions aren't being made.

I have nothing against the pros and cons of lockdown being fully debated in the mainstream media (finally). Lord Sumption certainly seems to be doing that.

However, I do find his comment to a stage four bowel cancer sufferer about her life being less valuable to be unbelievably tactless. A really crass foot in mouth moment. He should never have said it. I have listened to clips and read newspaper articles about it. Maybe he is being misrepresented, but that hasn’t come across to me yet and I have lost some respect for him over this.