value of life

[armsid]

Reading an article about Lord Sumption (judge)saying not all lives are valuable Mine and everyone elses life is valuable Is this how the Establishment view us? This was on BBC and he was talking to a lady with bowel cancer how insensative

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, WHO Lord Sump **** 👎

[GingerCat]

I don't think that was quite what he was saying. 

[WalkedUp]

It doesn’t pay to be so detached in discussing people’s lives. But yes of course lives have different values and that changes. Ask yourself how much of your worldly goods you would pay to keep your child alive, yourself alive and then finally your 95 year old deaf-blind gran with arthritis, incontinence and dementia.  

[dodgy dave]

i think you will find the lady with bowel cancer was only 35

[WalkedUp]

Yes I agree the optics look poor and she will have young children being deprived of a mother so extra heart breaking. Having 6 more good months with your mum would be incredibly important if you were a child. 

[Lloyd90]

“One of the problems is that we were talking across each other… I was certainly not making any comments about her or her own health position. I was making a perfectly simple point as the context quite clearly shows. Every policy maker has got to make difficult choices and sometimes that involves putting a value on human life.

"It’s a standard concept in health economics. Quality adjusted life years. That’s what I was talking about. Policy makers have to do that because otherwise they cannot weigh up the consequences of different policy choices. It does not mean that people are morally worth less, or worth less in the eyes of God or in the eyes of their fellow citizens, but sometimes policy makers have to say some lives are worth less than simply because they cannot…” 

 

“Listen, I was not intending to make any comment on Deborah James‘ personal position. I have made it perfectly clear to her since, we have had a friendly exchange on the point. I regard this matter as closed. I am not going to say any more on this subject."

 

 

On arguing that if the choice was between saving a 98-year-old and a 25-year-old with limited resource then it would have to be the 25-year-old because of the 'quality of life' ahead, Sumption said: "This is a tool for policy makers. It's not a way of valuing individuals.

On Covid, he added: “The government is in the process of turning a public health disaster into a social, economic and educational disaster.” Speaking about the younger generations, he went on: “Eventually we will get over Covid, but these people will be living with the consequences of the economic destruction visited on our society for years and years and years.”

 

 

People these days are more concerned about not hurting someone's feelings than telling the truth. There's nothing wrong with what he said. Its got nothing to do with "Is this how the Establishment view us?" 

Don't drag that nonsence into this. 

[chrisjpainter]

His argument is illogical, badly put together, callous and short-sighted. He has done his argument no good at all in the way he has phrased it. Whatever the argument is for anti-lockdown, he is a terrible spokesperson for it.

[Dave-G]

Lets not be forgetting there are a lot of scummy runts on this earth that are completely worthless to any society.

That's why some countries still have the death sentence - USA used it a few days ago.

[Lloyd90]

29 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

His argument is illogical, badly put together, callous and short-sighted. He has done his argument no good at all in the way he has phrased it. Whatever the argument is for anti-lockdown, he is a terrible spokesperson for it.

 

His argument is when you are POLICY MAKER (as he is/was) you make Policy's based on cold hard facts, that have to apply to everyone, not indivual cases. 

Policies such as who do you treat when the hospital's and ICU wards are over run (which we are facing as we speak!) and they have to decide who gets treatment and priority, and who they leave in the corridor knowing they are going to pass away.

 

A young man or woman, in their teens or twenties, that is otherwise healthy is a priority to be treated, compared to a 35 year old woman with stage 4 terminal cancer, who if saved from Covid is going to pass away in the coming months anyway.

 

The 50 year old with no other health conditions who has three children at home, is a higher priority than the 95 year old in the nursing home who has dementia, heart failure, and is in the last stages of life anyway. 

 

 

You don't make policy based on every single situation that you come across, that is impossible. Policy has to take a one size fits all approach. 

 

[chrisjpainter]

57 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

His argument is when you are POLICY MAKER (as he is/was) you make Policy's based on cold hard facts, that have to apply to everyone, not indivual cases. 

Policies such as who do you treat when the hospital's and ICU wards are over run (which we are facing as we speak!) and they have to decide who gets treatment and priority, and who they leave in the corridor knowing they are going to pass away.

 

A young man or woman, in their teens or twenties, that is otherwise healthy is a priority to be treated, compared to a 35 year old woman with stage 4 terminal cancer, who if saved from Covid is going to pass away in the coming months anyway.

 

The 50 year old with no other health conditions who has three children at home, is a higher priority than the 95 year old in the nursing home who has dementia, heart failure, and is in the last stages of life anyway. 

 

 

You don't make policy based on every single situation that you come across, that is impossible. Policy has to take a one size fits all approach. 

 

The government has taken a one size fits all policy for lockdown (broadly speaking) - but that is exactly what he has been complaining about. His argument is that taking a one size fits all approach disproportionately protects the less valuable at the expense of the more valuable. So, lockdown should apply to the old (like himself, as he pointed out) and the vulnerable/at risk. But therein lies one problem: what is vulnerable/at risk? Now his policy has to deal with specifics. Sometimes it's obvious, but plenty of times it's not, made more complicated by the fact that this new strain does seem to have a more deleterious effect on the age group supposedly better able to cope with the disease. Who is vulnerable? Given the respiratory nature of the disease, anyone with respiratory conditions should be considered vulnerable, regardless of age. 8 million people suffer from asthma; 12% of the population. Do they all have to be locked down? 3 million people in the UK have cancer. Would it be sensible to lock them down too, to further protect both them and the NHS? What about the clinically obese, do the fatties have to be locked down? 12 million people are over 65 in the UK. Are they old enough? And of course, within this, there are varying degrees of disability. How do you make a decision on whether someone's asthma is bad enough, or not bad enough to warrant lockdown? the whole thing suddenly becomes biblically complicated. And that's before you take into age! There are plenty over 65's who would be 'more valuable' than some otherwise healthy dimwit, benefit scrounging drug dealing lowlife, but that can't be taken into account. And you can bet your bottom dollar that under such a system, an unconsidered demographic will suffer serious fatalities because they were forced out of a protective lockdown, who might have had more future value than anyone in the perfect zone of young, fit, employed, non-criminal people, but we never got to find out. If he's looking for a practical solution to current lockdown methodology, his idea just isn't it. It necessarily demands a case-by-case basis - and a hell of a lot of paperwork. You cannot determine value based on raw differentiation; there's far too much variability. 

Who makes that call, because you're getting perilously close to saying the government should have the power of life or death over its citizens. As soon as you put value on people beyond the pure, simple truth of value as a human being, you open up Pandora's box - particularly if you're rather woolly around the edges of what it is to be valuable. It's desperately short sighted.

It's also not abundantly clear why a theoretical longer time to live is inherently more valuable. It assumes that the ostensibly more valuable members of the next generation will, overall, in their long running years (that won't happen for millions of them) be better than whatever those of less value (both past and future). But because of the vail of ignorance we have over the future, that's impossible to gauge. Furthermore, if anything more valuable/positive can be gauged about them, it will be because of the legacy of the previous generation, whether that's financially, economically or socially. They will stand on the shoulders of giants and given that those giants paid their taxes into and NHS system so that it was there for them when they need it, it is not for the government or the courts to decide they don't deserve the help they essentially bought through years of faithful tax paying. 

His examples are also too devoid of reality. 

'98-year-old and a 25-year-old with limited resource then it would have to be the 25-year-old because of the 'quality of life' ahead, Sumption said: "This is a tool for policy makers. It's not a way of valuing individuals.'

No one is just a 25 year old. Is he a drug addict? A criminal? has he no family? has he abused women, or kids? is he a multi million pound tax dodger? Is he a con artist?

No one is just a 98 year old. is she a grand mother/great grand mother? soon to be a great great great grandmother? does she still have every faculty in her head? Did she spend her whole life faithfully paying into the system? did she save countless in a hospital in Bastogne as it was being shelled and bombed in the War? Is she valuable as a symbol that in the UK society, no one gets left behind? 

His problem is that the more you make the example real, the less able it is to prove that his thinking isn't case-by-case anyway. 

and to say that it's not a way of valuing individuals is nothing more than semantics: What's the tool doing? Assessing potential quality of life. How does it reach a conclusion? it places a likely value of people's contributions, thus showing that one person is more valuable than another. That is placing a practical value on individuals

The one size fits all maxim of every life is equally valuable is far more workable and far more edifying than one of 'authorities are allowed to define people out of value (whether all or part) and thus treat them as more expendable for the sake of a workable policy'. At best, that's confusing and cold hearted, at worst it's down right dangerous. 

I think, in the long run, we're probably better off leaving a legacy of simple equality rather than complex inequality. Apart from anything, we won't be going around grossly insulting terminal patients through our own arrogance. 

[Houseplant]

Resources are rationed in public healthcare systems. By giving to one group of patients, you take from another. It doesn't matter how you dress it up that is the reality. It gets interesting when you have to decide who gets what. The life extending new cancer therapy for the few versus hospital beds for the many?

Edited January 19, 2021 by Houseplant

[243deer]

chrisjpainter, the reality is, just as one example, that the nhs already descriminates on a daily basis against 'obese' folk without trying to understand the underlying reasons why they are the way they are. The nhs (along with other parts of our society) considers the solution 'simple' and that everyone can 'easily' lose weight. Where does that fit in to your concept of 'simple equality'?

[Mungler]

One of the great forever debate topics.

Stolen from elsewhere.

 

Sumption is actually right.

The "value" of your life is largely down to how many active years you have left.

If I have to go for treatment and there is a healthy 20 year old and a frail 85 year old queueing up with me I fully accept the 20 year old should get first priority, then aged me, and finally the coffin dodger.

The 'elf service well knows that - they deal in "Qualies".

Fun starts when you try and get sophisticated.  I mean a 3 year old child hasn't got a lot of skin in the game, they are easily replaced, right?  And some sod with a long criminal record who has a court date pending for thumping his partner, we'd be better off without him, no? 

Best not go there else we end up like China, and so we go with life expectancy.

EDIT

These issues go round and round and fascinate me.

Like the out of control trolley bus - would you knowingly kill 1 person to save 5? If your instinct is to say yes to the simple maths, then what about killing 1 convicted murderer to harvest their organs and save 10 people?

Or given that money and resources are finite, then would you spend £10m to send one small child to the US for specialist treatment or use the money to build a wing to a hospital to treat 1000? Most would dispassionately vote for the hospital wing until it’s their child.

In practice eg rolling out a vaccine you need a battlefield triage approach else you end up spinning your wheels as everyone argues for an individual case by case approach when there’s no time or resource to entertain the notion.

Discuss. Extra marks for showing your working etc 😆

Edited January 19, 2021 by Mungler

[WalkedUp]

Great points, a good eye opener. 

[Prospero]

3 hours ago, 243deer said:

the nhs already descriminates on a daily basis against 'obese' folk without trying to understand the underlying reasons why they are the way they are. 

Probably because the fat ******** eat too much.

[Scully]

2 minutes ago, Prospero said:

Probably because the fat ******** eat too much.

But doesn’t that open yet another truckload of debate? Are they obese because they have underlying mental health issues? Are they fat because they’re disabled and can’t exercise? Are they fat because they don’t exercise? Are they out of work or unable to work, or perhaps they can’t cook, are  living in poverty and spend all their benefits on nothing but KFC and Macdonalds? Or are they just lazy? 🙂

[SpringDon]

The authorities ration care through nice approval and limits to health budgets. The nhs rations care by restricting procedures for the obese or smokers. The state should not judge the worth of the individual, the 25 year old should be prioritised over the 98 year old. 
it doesn’t matter in care terms if the young one is a murderer and the old one is  war hero, it must be judged on health bang per buck. Now if the young one is a drug addict then care decisions must take that into account.

At the personal level such considerations become important but that’s why the state should keep value judgements out of the equation.

[henry d]

Wasn't there a bit of a hooha recently with a lot of people shouting that all lives matter, not just black?

Who is anyone to say whether one human lives and one dies? We should not be having this conversation if people thought as much about others as themselves especially during this pandemic, no masks, lack of distancing, no sanitising hands before entering shops, not getting the jab, having a few friends around...

Edited January 19, 2021 by henry d
Typo

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

Who is anyone to say whether one human lives and one dies?

Apparently doctors on covid wards do , if theres not enough ICU spaces, the least likely to survive , due to age ect, get pushed to the back, or was the media lying ?

3 hours ago, Scully said:

 living in poverty and spend all their benefits on nothing but KFC and Macdonalds? Or are they just lazy?

Not being funny , but I wouldnt call it a cheap way of eating, using those establishments.
The cheapest is buying  £1 ready meals and bunging them in the micro, or is that too much effort for them 

 

4 hours ago, Mungler said:

Like the out of control trolley bus - would you knowingly kill 1 person to save 5? If your instinct is to say yes to the simple maths, then what about killing 1 convicted murderer to harvest their organs and save 10 people?

I dont think many sensible people would have a problem with that.
But thats the problem , looking at some comments on this subject, theres obviously some on here whose liberal fantasies outweigh their intelligence.

Good input from Lloyd and Mungler BTW .

Life does have a value, it always has , and hopefully always will.
But, the individual  value of each life is not always the same.
This is obvious if you think about it.

[Mungler]

You can go on and on on this. 

What about vaccinating a tramp in front of a higher rate tax payer? On paper, that’s an easy one right, and the higher rate tax payer has paid for more of the NHS.

But applying the same logic, is it right that say a rocket scientist who also hold a phd in European law and advanced economics gets one vote at a general election? What if he votes left and his super clever and well thought out vote gets cancelled out by his neighbour who votes Tory because he just loves the colour blue 😆

 

[Scully]

5 hours ago, Rewulf said:

 

Not being funny , but I wouldnt call it a cheap way of eating, using those establishments.
The cheapest is buying  £1 ready meals and bunging them in the micro, or is that too much effort for them 

 

 

Fair point, I wasn’t aware there was such a thing, although I once gave my son a fiver to get a snack as he was rushing out with his mates and he later told me he’d bought five burgers at a quid apiece from Burger King! 
I have a mate who buys ready meals quite a bit as he lives on his own and works shifts. Not ideal admittedly, but it’s yet another reason. 
Hospital staff do indeed make decisions on who lives and dies; hence the DNR notes. 
Every life has a value to someone, and there often comes a time when each has a cost, which is what it’s value is ultimately based on. Quality of life can often determine that value and its cost. 

The value on a personal level is often at odds to that of the state, but that’s just the way it is, and has to be unfortunately. 
 

[henry d]

2 hours ago, Mungler said:

On paper, that’s an easy one right, and the higher rate tax payer has paid for more of the NHS.

So are you saying the NHS is a private health insurance system? Perhaps we should let pre term babies just die? CP; sorry but you haven't paid in mate!

[Mungler]

2 hours ago, henry d said:

So are you saying the NHS is a private health insurance system? Perhaps we should let pre term babies just die? CP; sorry but you haven't paid in mate!

I’m playing devils advocate - it’s a discussion point.

Since you’re on the subject though, the NHS employs 1.5 million people and costs £150 billion a year to run.

Where does that money come from? Could we have an NHS tiered system where those that pay more in can get preferential treatment or jump a queue etc. Like one of those expensive fast passes they have at Disney.

[henry d]

Just now, Mungler said:

it’s a discussion point.

Absolutely, a life unexamined and all that. 

We could have that system, oh hey we do it's called going private but you already knew that. 

Do people want to then go down the route of either being able to pay for treatment or F-off and die? I'm sat here covered with discoid eczema and have been for nearly a year, I can't have light treatment, emollients and steroidal creams don't work and my skin is trying to crawl off me several times a day, and as far as I am concerned that is F-all compared with what is going on today. Would I get light treatment if I was private? No idea