The very nasty Laurence Fox

To whom are these people less valuable?

It's eugenics and most people would disagree.

growstuff

No, I don't know it Lucretzia. My understanding is this lady has terminal bowel cancer. Her life is not worth less than anybody else's life.

Hear hear growstuff I worry that reports like these are going to make older people feel that they have to refuse treatment because they would be saving the young. Look at the number of people on here who say they would rather give their vaccination slot to somebody younger and more economically active.

It appears that most people would opt to save our children/grandchildren and would rather die than them

Of course, but it's not a case of either/or.

It sounds quite sinister

growstuff

No, I don't know it Lucretzia. My understanding is this lady has terminal bowel cancer. Her life is not worth less than anybody else's life.

Did you watch the programme? Not the small clip that has been shown?

Of course her life isn't worth less than anyone else's. She's been a fabulous campaigner for bowel cancer awareness.

However, if you asked her should her life be saved over her children's I think I know what her answer would be.

Maybe I'm wrong

What about you, growstuff? Would you demand your life be saved over your children's?

In a world of limited resources, not just in the UK, these decisions have to be taken.

DNR's exist for a reason

Death is inevitable.

Look at the number of people on here who say they would rather give their vaccination slot to somebody younger and more economically active.

I did say that Alegrias but that is because I can stay away from other people.
Those on the front line cannot, especially healthcare workers.
It appears that the Welsh Government think the same way.

As some of you will have read we had some Police problems with regards to masks last week here.
Well, I was leaving the building!! to go to the wee shop yesterday afternoon when I noticed a young woman who lives on the 2nd floor coming up the hill.
No mask, when I questioned her she was really rude and said as she had a cup of coffee, sealed, she did not need to wear a mask, but, it was in her pocket.
She and her partner just moved in in June and there have been some problems with them.
SIL had put a notice in to each of the apartments and I wonder if she took the mask off when she saw me.
Mid twenties and just daft.

Death is inevitable to all of us, but nobody welcomes the idea of popping off early due to covid.

As has already been pointed out:

The current situation is different, if a 93 year old is vaccinated it doesn't mean a 2 year old will die.

One is not consequent upon the other.

In fact, the 2 year old is more likely to have a chance if all adults are vaccinated.
Why would the resources be limited? They are manufacturing vaccines as fast as they can.

Sumption's background is as an academic in mediaeval history. From a historical perspective, the Black Death was the catalyst for great social change and the shortage of labour hastened the end of the feudal system. With hindsight, it's a valid argument (not that there was any treatment for the plague), but society has changed in 700 years. Medicine and science mean that we have some control over nature and a responsibility to use it for good. Presumably, Sumption would consider babies born with disabilities to be of less value.

MissAdventure

Death is inevitable to all of us, but nobody welcomes the idea of popping off early due to covid.

Quite agree but that wasn't really the point of the conversation on the programme!

But seeing as I'm no better then Hitler I'll bow out o-0

Callistemon

^Look at the number of people on here who say they would rather give their vaccination slot to somebody younger and more economically active.^

I did say that Alegrias but that is because I can stay away from other people.
Those on the front line cannot, especially healthcare workers.
It appears that the Welsh Government think the same way.

Let's not get into the argument about who should be vaccinated first, I think that's been covered a lot in other threads. (I know I brought it up.) I believe that the Indonesian government are taking the approach that the young and active need to be vaccinated first, so we will see how that goes.

But once we start to talk about people dying because they don't think their lives are worth as much as somebody younger, it does set a precedent that people might think they have to follow.

But once we start to talk about people dying because they don't think their lives are worth as much as somebody younger, it does set a precedent that people might think they have to follow.

I didn't say I thought I was worth less than someone younger, just that I'm not working in a hospital or other frontline service.
If it means waiting another couple of weeks or so, I'm happy with that.

The other argument is illogical.
In fact, the 2 year old is more likely to have a chance if all adults are vaccinated.

"What about you, growstuff? Would you demand your life be saved over your children's?"

If a gunman was going to shoot one of us, whatever I said, then yes I would want my children to be saved because I have motherly instinct. I don't think their lives are any more valuable than mine - and I don't think they think like that either.

However, that's a hypothetical situation. Vaccinating me would have a greater effect than vaccinating either of them. They would be less likely to suffer severe symptoms and the healthcare system would have greater capacity to treat them, should they become ill. If the most vulnerable have all been vaccinated, there's more chance that society can resume more quickly.

It also means that other life threatening illnesses can be treated in a timely manner, so it benefits everyone.

I think I haven't explained myself properly Call. Many people, including you, have said that they would give up their place in the vaccination queue in favour of younger, more economically active people, which goes to show how people want to do the right thing. That's not a criticism, but I'm trying to say that people will put others first if they think its the right thing to do.

So if there was a lot of reporting of elderly people refusing ventilators, or other treatment, because they think that by doing that they are saving others, then some people might feel that it is incumbent on them to do the same.

I'm confused by your post felice. You say your neighbour was "coming up the hill" and not wearing a mask. It isn't mandatory to wear masks when outside.

I think Felipe may be in France. Many other countries have mandatory mask wearing outside now.

Thanks Iam.

Just another reminder about the general vile attention seeking of Laurence Fox: he is being sued by the head of Stonewall after Fox accused him, on twitter, of being a paedophile. There were others named in his accusations too. He has presumably made himself unemployable through his actions and rightly so.

So if there was a lot of reporting of elderly people refusing ventilators, or other treatment, because they think that by doing that they are saving others, then some people might feel that it is incumbent on them to do the same.
Point taken, Alegrias

I hope I never need one but no, I wouldn't refuse treatment.

GillT57, yes, that was what I was thinking of when I posted upthread.

If, as lemongrove? says, he is just seeking publicity then he's succeeding.

I am in Belgium and it is mandatory to wear a mask when outside your home at all times. From age 12 just now but going down to 10.

Lucretzia

So, to those who think what Sumption said was wrong

Isn't it entirely natural to want our children/grandchildren to outlive us?

Wouldn't we agree that saving the life of a 2 year old is more important than saving a 93 year old?

Wouldn't the 93 year old say the same? Or 83 year old? 73 year old?

Didn't we admire/agree with this woman?

www.boston25news.com/news/trending/coronavirus-90-year-old-with-covid-19-says-no-ventilator-said-keep-it-younger-ones/OLIN2MUR4BBMLDBRZOXTMIWPDE/

The media , (Daily Mail) has reported this in its usual sensationalist fashion. I watched the programme. And on this I agreed with him.

I certainly don't agree with everything he says but in this he was spot on.

And I think we all know it.

I think I agree with you Lucretia and you shouldn't be made to feel bad about expressing your views. Jonathan Sumption was set up on that programme. Apparently, he and the lady in question had been in amicable correspondence with each other before they went live on TV.
But what surprises me is that very few people realise that putting a relative value on a life is inherent within our health service. Someone upthread mentioned DNRs. And the way drugs are both authorized and prescribed is dependent upon a cost/benefit analysis. The benefit of saving a life of someone who is going to live for twenty more years is more than that of someone who will live only five more years. The more resources we have the less important that calculation is.
The other thing that is really worrying to me, though I know a lot on this site do not agree, is that the government hasn't done a cost/benefit analysis for lockdown. The longer it goes on the more damage it will do to the economy and people's lives. I would have felt much happier being hidden away for a year if I had thought my doing meant that young people were able to get on with their lives and keep the economy going.

my doing so

The other thing that is really worrying to me, though I know a lot on this site do not agree, is that the government hasn't done a cost/benefit analysis for lockdown

I’m not sure that a cost/benefit analysis of lockdown is even possible GrannyRose because there are so many variables and so many variations between different communities.
The new variant has thrown previous predictions & models off course anyway.
But the main aim of lockdown isn’t to save lives.
It’s to stop the NHS being overwhelmed, so that it’s actually able to save lives.
At the moment the pressure on staff is horrendous and there could be no justification in my view for easing restrictions & allowing transmission of the virus to increase.
I was listening to Dr John yesterday & latest figures suggest only 20 -25% of the population have been exposed to the virus.
Without vaccination and lockdown the situation would be unthinkable.

The fact remains that thousands of people are suffering because of lockdown, be it from mental health issues or financial hardship. There comes a time when you have to admit that the cure is worse than the disease.

I understand that the first lockdown was to stop us in the UK seeing scenes like those from Italy of people on the floor in corridors. But with ten months to plan for a winter surge it is really unforgivable that the NHS wasn't better prepared this time.

It's interesting that you report someone (I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the Dr John you speak of) as saying that ONLY 25% of the population have had the disease. This implies that it would be better if more of us had had it. In fact restrictions may have prevented the very spread of the disease that would have helped it to burn itself out more quickly.

And I don't have your faith in the efficacy of either lockdown or the vaccine. Restrictions have gone on long enough and although it is temping to say "it would have been far worse if they hadn't been put in place" the evidence is very shaky, and disputed. Governments do have a tendency to want to be seen to be doing something.