Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Anti-lockdown member of the House of Lords tells stage-four cancer sufferer that her life is worth less than his children and grandchildren   (theguardian.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Supreme Court of the United States, Lord Sumption, Sumption's remarks, Big Questions, government action, best friends, Cancer, former justice  
•       •       •

2881 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jan 2021 at 10:17 PM (12 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



59 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-01-17 8:29:42 PM  
House of Lords.

Sounds about right.
 
2021-01-17 9:55:15 PM  

andrewagill: House of Lords.

Sounds about right.


Just a general Tory c*nt. Checked his wiki page to confirm, and:

Sumption has been described as "conservative neo-liberal and libertarian."

So, yeah.
 
2021-01-17 10:20:10 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2021-01-17 10:23:58 PM  
Dude acts like its a choice between either the elderly dying or his children and grandchildren dying.

This is the farking Mt. Everest of Bullshiat, its not a choice between your children and grandchildren dying or the elderly dying.  Its a choice between being slightly inconvenienced in your life for another year or sacrificing millions of people's lives
 
2021-01-17 10:24:44 PM  
Will their heir be inheriting the seat? If so, they'd be well within their rights to take a running kick into their balls. They could challenge a joust. I'd watch either way.
 
2021-01-17 10:26:10 PM  

Meatsim1: Its a choice between being slightly inconvenienced in your life for another year or sacrificing millions of people's lives


To twunts like this, being slightly inconvenienced is of more importance than other peoples' lives.  Hell, anti-maskers can't even be bothered to protect their own families.
 
2021-01-17 10:26:21 PM  
House of lords is the senate of British government.
 
2021-01-17 10:28:03 PM  
Our society determines the value of a person's life frequently, and there are laws and precedences for doing this:

The value of life is an economic value used to quantify the benefit of avoiding a fatality.[1] It is also referred to as the cost of life, value of preventing a fatality (VPF) and implied cost of averting a fatality (ICAF). In social and political sciences, it is the marginal cost of death prevention in a certain class of circumstances. In many studies the value also includes the quality of life, the expected life time remaining, as well as the earning potential of a given person especially for an after-the-fact payment in a wrongful death claim lawsuit.
As such, it is a statistical term, the cost of reducing the average number of deaths by one. It is an important issue in a wide range of disciplines including economics, health care, adoption, political economy, insurance, worker safety, environmental impact assessment, and globalization.[2]
In industrial nations, the justice system considers a human life "priceless", thus illegalizing any form of slavery; i.e., humans cannot be bought at any price. However, with a limited supply of resources or infrastructural capital (e.g. ambulances), or skill at hand, it is impossible to save every life, so some trade-off must be made. Also, this argument neglects the statistical context of the term. It is not commonly attached to lives of individuals or used to compare the value of one person's life relative to another person's. It is mainly used in circumstances of saving lives as opposed to taking lives or "producing" lives.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_o​f​_life

How Government Agencies Determine The Dollar Value Of Human Life

SARAH GONZALEZ, BYLINE: There is kind of an official price tag on human life. We can tell you what it is. One human life is worth about US$10 million. And here's the guy who helped us come up with this figure.
KIP VISCUSI: I've gotten a lot of criticism, and I still do.

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/843310​1​23/how-government-agencies-determine-t​he-dollar-value-of-human-life
 
2021-01-17 10:30:10 PM  
Sumption is four volumes into writing a massive, definitive, and fantastic history of the Hundred Years War.  Well worth a read if you've got the time.

He is also, and has been for a long time, an asshole with bad ideas.
 
2021-01-17 10:30:19 PM  

ansius: Our society determines the value of a person's life frequently, and there are laws and precedences for doing this:

The value of life is an economic value used to quantify the benefit of avoiding a fatality.[1] It is also referred to as the cost of life, value of preventing a fatality (VPF) and implied cost of averting a fatality (ICAF). In social and political sciences, it is the marginal cost of death prevention in a certain class of circumstances. In many studies the value also includes the quality of life, the expected life time remaining, as well as the earning potential of a given person especially for an after-the-fact payment in a wrongful death claim lawsuit.
As such, it is a statistical term, the cost of reducing the average number of deaths by one. It is an important issue in a wide range of disciplines including economics, health care, adoption, political economy, insurance, worker safety, environmental impact assessment, and globalization.[2]
In industrial nations, the justice system considers a human life "priceless", thus illegalizing any form of slavery; i.e., humans cannot be bought at any price. However, with a limited supply of resources or infrastructural capital (e.g. ambulances), or skill at hand, it is impossible to save every life, so some trade-off must be made. Also, this argument neglects the statistical context of the term. It is not commonly attached to lives of individuals or used to compare the value of one person's life relative to another person's. It is mainly used in circumstances of saving lives as opposed to taking lives or "producing" lives.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of​_life

How Government Agencies Determine The Dollar Value Of Human Life

SARAH GONZALEZ, BYLINE: There is kind of an official price tag on human life. We can tell you what it is. One human life is worth about US$10 million. And here's the guy who helped us come up with this figure.
KIP VISCUSI: I've gotten a lot of criticism, and I still do.

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/8433101​23/how-government-agencies-determine-t​he-dollar-value-of-human-life


And none of that applies here, as the whole exchange is based on a faulty premise of a false choice.
 
2021-01-17 10:32:21 PM  
This was Lord ConSumption at two years old 'solving' the trolley problem:

A two-year-old's solution to the trolley problem
Youtube -N_RZJUAQY4
 
2021-01-17 10:32:54 PM  
What a (word which is acceptable in the UK but not so much across the pond).
 
2021-01-17 10:34:26 PM  
F#ck this arsehole.

I deem his life less valuable than everyone else's in the world, so f*cking die already, you old pos.
 
2021-01-17 10:37:55 PM  
The funny part is that while stage 4 cancer is still cancer, it's not a death sentence, and we already have a treatment plan in effect.

For example, my chemo is stage 4, but since it's lymphoma, I have an extremely good chance of it being cured, 85-90%.

So this "less valuable" person could easily outlive this guy if they get treatment. But it helps paint this guy as a total asshole to mention that it's stage 4, because you're out of stages after that.
 
2021-01-17 10:38:10 PM  
Welcome to conservative thinking.

/Somehow, I think he would value his 90 year old mother's life above a 44 year old Ph.D. holder, because "it's my mum and I love her". A.k.a., the rules are whatever I feel like because I'm a rich arsehole.
 
2021-01-17 10:38:36 PM  

ansius: Our society determines the value of a person's life frequently, and there are laws and precedences for doing this:

The value of life is an economic value used to quantify the benefit of avoiding a fatality.[1] It is also referred to as the cost of life, value of preventing a fatality (VPF) and implied cost of averting a fatality (ICAF). In social and political sciences, it is the marginal cost of death prevention in a certain class of circumstances. In many studies the value also includes the quality of life, the expected life time remaining, as well as the earning potential of a given person especially for an after-the-fact payment in a wrongful death claim lawsuit.
As such, it is a statistical term, the cost of reducing the average number of deaths by one. It is an important issue in a wide range of disciplines including economics, health care, adoption, political economy, insurance, worker safety, environmental impact assessment, and globalization.[2]
In industrial nations, the justice system considers a human life "priceless", thus illegalizing any form of slavery; i.e., humans cannot be bought at any price. However, with a limited supply of resources or infrastructural capital (e.g. ambulances), or skill at hand, it is impossible to save every life, so some trade-off must be made. Also, this argument neglects the statistical context of the term. It is not commonly attached to lives of individuals or used to compare the value of one person's life relative to another person's. It is mainly used in circumstances of saving lives as opposed to taking lives or "producing" lives.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of​_life

How Government Agencies Determine The Dollar Value Of Human Life

SARAH GONZALEZ, BYLINE: There is kind of an official price tag on human life. We can tell you what it is. One human life is worth about US$10 million. And here's the guy who helped us come up with this figure.
KIP VISCUSI: I've gotten a lot of criticism, and I still do.

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/8433101​23/how-government-agencies-determine-t​he-dollar-value-of-human-life


In short - he's an assole, the point he is trying to prove is asinine, and he's an asshole. But, quantifiably speaking, yes, her life is worth less than that of someone younger and in good health, purely from a medical triage perspective and/or according to insurance company policy tables

Still an asshole
 
2021-01-17 10:41:12 PM  

montreal_medic: ansius: Our society determines the value of a person's life frequently, and there are laws and precedences for doing this:

The value of life is an economic value used to quantify the benefit of avoiding a fatality.[1] It is also referred to as the cost of life, value of preventing a fatality (VPF) and implied cost of averting a fatality (ICAF). In social and political sciences, it is the marginal cost of death prevention in a certain class of circumstances. In many studies the value also includes the quality of life, the expected life time remaining, as well as the earning potential of a given person especially for an after-the-fact payment in a wrongful death claim lawsuit.
As such, it is a statistical term, the cost of reducing the average number of deaths by one. It is an important issue in a wide range of disciplines including economics, health care, adoption, political economy, insurance, worker safety, environmental impact assessment, and globalization.[2]
In industrial nations, the justice system considers a human life "priceless", thus illegalizing any form of slavery; i.e., humans cannot be bought at any price. However, with a limited supply of resources or infrastructural capital (e.g. ambulances), or skill at hand, it is impossible to save every life, so some trade-off must be made. Also, this argument neglects the statistical context of the term. It is not commonly attached to lives of individuals or used to compare the value of one person's life relative to another person's. It is mainly used in circumstances of saving lives as opposed to taking lives or "producing" lives.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of​_life

How Government Agencies Determine The Dollar Value Of Human Life

SARAH GONZALEZ, BYLINE: There is kind of an official price tag on human life. We can tell you what it is. One human life is worth about US$10 million. And here's the guy who helped us come up with this figure.
KIP VISCUSI: I've gotten a lot of criticism, and I still do.

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/8433101​23/how-government-agencies-determine-t​he-dollar-value-of-human-life

In short - he's an assole, the point he is trying to prove is asinine, and he's an asshole. But, quantifiably speaking, yes, her life is worth less than that of someone younger and in good health, purely from a medical triage perspective and/or according to insurance company policy tables

Still an asshole


As someone who has an economics degree, we can measure people based on return value to economic growth, and use that as a metric for triage.

As a human with a working set of morals and a soul, this is atrocious and anyone who resorts to that method to make decisions is an inhuman monster that deserves to have their dick kicked, every day, forever.
 
2021-01-17 10:42:56 PM  
Okay, Sumption.
Since elderly/ill/ poor people have less value--you first.

You're old.
You're mental
and you have poor ethics.

On the cart.
 
2021-01-17 10:45:06 PM  

iron de havilland: andrewagill: House of Lords.

Sounds about right.

Just a general Tory c*nt. Checked his wiki page to confirm, and:

Sumption has been described as "conservative neo-liberal and libertarian."

So, yeah.


(Con) Sumption was born about 150 years too late.
 
2021-01-17 10:45:34 PM  

Meatsim1: Dude acts like its a choice between either the elderly dying or his children and grandchildren dying.

This is the farking Mt. Everest of Bullshiat, its not a choice between your children and grandchildren dying or the elderly dying.  Its a choice between being slightly inconvenienced in your life for another year or sacrificing millions of people's lives


Not agreeing with the twunt, but deciding who lives and dies in a triage setting is tricky. In a hospital with limited space, you generally choose those with the best odds of living. Economics, moral values, or life choices of the patient shouldn't factor in to the choice.

When it comes to vaccines (excluding medical and essential person), the opposite is true. You vaccinate the most at risk first and the least at risk last. This gives the best odds of overall survivability.

This is the same mentality behind hospital triage with limited resources.
 
2021-01-17 10:46:06 PM  

Meatsim1: Dude acts like its a choice between either the elderly dying or his children and grandchildren dying.

This is the farking Mt. Everest of Bullshiat, its not a choice between your children and grandchildren dying or the elderly dying.  Its a choice between being slightly inconvenienced in your life for another year or sacrificing millions of people's lives


Came here to say nearly exactly this. Also, before I click, I asked "old, white guy?" Yep, old white guy.
 
2021-01-17 10:50:04 PM  
A good old fashioned imperial capitalist. These guys are evil. No regard for anything but what they gain and own.
 
2021-01-17 10:50:13 PM  

ansius: Our society determines the value of a person's life frequently, and there are laws and precedences for doing this:

The value of life is an economic value used to quantify the benefit of avoiding a fatality.[1] It is also referred to as the cost of life, value of preventing a fatality (VPF) and implied cost of averting a fatality (ICAF). In social and political sciences, it is the marginal cost of death prevention in a certain class of circumstances. In many studies the value also includes the quality of life, the expected life time remaining, as well as the earning potential of a given person especially for an after-the-fact payment in a wrongful death claim lawsuit.
As such, it is a statistical term, the cost of reducing the average number of deaths by one. It is an important issue in a wide range of disciplines including economics, health care, adoption, political economy, insurance, worker safety, environmental impact assessment, and globalization.[2]
In industrial nations, the justice system considers a human life "priceless", thus illegalizing any form of slavery; i.e., humans cannot be bought at any price. However, with a limited supply of resources or infrastructural capital (e.g. ambulances), or skill at hand, it is impossible to save every life, so some trade-off must be made. Also, this argument neglects the statistical context of the term. It is not commonly attached to lives of individuals or used to compare the value of one person's life relative to another person's. It is mainly used in circumstances of saving lives as opposed to taking lives or "producing" lives.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of​_life

How Government Agencies Determine The Dollar Value Of Human Life

SARAH GONZALEZ, BYLINE: There is kind of an official price tag on human life. We can tell you what it is. One human life is worth about US$10 million. And here's the guy who helped us come up with this figure.
KIP VISCUSI: I've gotten a lot of criticism, and I still do.

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/8433101​23/how-government-agencies-determine-t​he-dollar-value-of-human-life


And if we were on a sinking boat, starving to death in the wilderness, or any "your death increases my chance of survival" situation, that might be applicable.

This isn't even close to that so this gentleman and people who think as he does need to take a big hearty chug of STFU.
 
2021-01-17 10:52:51 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: iron de havilland: andrewagill: House of Lords.

Sounds about right.

Just a general Tory c*nt. Checked his wiki page to confirm, and:

Sumption has been described as "conservative neo-liberal and libertarian."

So, yeah.

(Con) Sumption was born about 150 years too late.


They all are. There's a reason Rees-Mogg is known as the Member for the 18th Century. And Robert Jenrick was in the news today for changing laws to protect statues and the worst parts of Britain's history.

Fun fact: I forgot exactly what Jenrick's name was, but if you Google "corrupt housing minister" you'll find him pretty easily.
 
2021-01-17 10:54:08 PM  

Elliot8654: In short - he's an assole, the point he is trying to prove is asinine, and he's an asshole. But, quantifiably speaking, yes, her life is worth less than that of someone younger and in good health, purely from a medical triage perspective and/or according to insurance company policy tables

Still an asshole

As someone who has an economics degree, we can measure people based on return value to economic growth, and use that as a metric for triage.

As a human with a working set of morals and a soul, this is atrocious and anyone who resorts to that method to make decisions is an inhuman monster that deserves to have their dick kicked, every day, forever.


You know who else deserves that? I'm sure you can guess, but the answer is a Laffer.
 
2021-01-17 10:55:06 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: House of lords is the senescence of British government.


Ftfy
 
2021-01-17 10:55:09 PM  
These kinds of calls are made all the time.

I was nearly killed last summer because a trivial medical procedure went wrong due to lack of post-op care due to the moronic "covid" restrictions, so I sympathize with the needs of the cancer patients.

But if the question is put, as in TFA, in its abstract form "isn't all human life equal", what do you think, subby, should they have let the women and children to get off Titanic first, or should they have fought for a place on those boats?
 
2021-01-17 10:56:59 PM  

montreal_medic: In short - he's an assole, the point he is trying to prove is asinine, and he's an asshole. But, quantifiably speaking, yes, her life is worth less than that of someone younger and in good health, purely from a medical triage perspective and/or according to insurance company policy tables

Still an asshole


And his response would make sense if he were discussing vaccine distribution. Maybe misguided, but you could follow some thread of logic.  But he wasn't. He just simply thinks other people are worth less than others from a moral perspective. That's bad from someone in charge of a country.  Very very bad.
 
2021-01-17 10:57:01 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: House of lords is the senate of British government.


They're appointed, not elected.
 
2021-01-17 11:01:25 PM  

baron von doodle: Meatsim1: Dude acts like its a choice between either the elderly dying or his children and grandchildren dying.

This is the farking Mt. Everest of Bullshiat, its not a choice between your children and grandchildren dying or the elderly dying.  Its a choice between being slightly inconvenienced in your life for another year or sacrificing millions of people's lives

Not agreeing with the twunt, but deciding who lives and dies in a triage setting is tricky. In a hospital with limited space, you generally choose those with the best odds of living. Economics, moral values, or life choices of the patient shouldn't factor in to the choice.

When it comes to vaccines (excluding medical and essential person), the opposite is true. You vaccinate the most at risk first and the least at risk last. This gives the best odds of overall survivability.

This is the same mentality behind hospital triage with limited resources.


The context was a lockdown, though, and the context is key.  He doesn't think people who would die if there wasn't a lock down are worthwhile because it would inconvenience his children and grandchildren. It would not kill them. He simply thinks other people are worth less. Not because of a necessary triage.
 
2021-01-17 11:03:41 PM  
At least he wasn't in France in the late 18th century talking to madam guillotine in french.
 
2021-01-17 11:03:52 PM  

pup.socket: These kinds of calls are made all the time.

I was nearly killed last summer because a trivial medical procedure went wrong due to lack of post-op care due to the moronic "covid" restrictions, so I sympathize with the needs of the cancer patients.

But if the question is put, as in TFA, in its abstract form "isn't all human life equal", what do you think, subby, should they have let the women and children to get off Titanic first, or should they have fought for a place on those boats?


There is an echo in here, I swear to goodness.  They aren't talking about a triage situation. There isn't a shortage of anything in this scenario. He is just ok with people he deems lesser dying so his family doesn't have to be inconvenienced.
 
2021-01-17 11:07:46 PM  
A reminder that the guillotines missed a few.
 
2021-01-17 11:10:20 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-01-17 11:13:18 PM  
I'm willing to travel internationally to piss on his grave. I'm putting him on the list.
 
2021-01-17 11:14:17 PM  
Can I have their stereo?
 
2021-01-17 11:17:30 PM  
David Olusoga tweeted a capture of Jenrick's Telegraph column:
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size


A pretty low-res capture, to be fair. But it reads like today's "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!"
 
2021-01-17 11:17:51 PM  

roc6783: They aren't talking about a triage situation.


And I'm not talking about your need to engage in an outrage outburst every now and then.

Life is too short to spend it on screaming at assholes on a distant third-world island somewhere.

Sorry.
 
2021-01-17 11:22:31 PM  

pup.socket: roc6783: They aren't talking about a triage situation.

And I'm not talking about your need to engage in an outrage outburst every now and then.

Life is too short to spend it on screaming at assholes on a distant third-world island somewhere.

Sorry.


Nice deflection, Coriolus.
 
2021-01-17 11:25:12 PM  

Ragin' Asian: Will their heir be inheriting the seat? If so, they'd be well within their rights to take a running kick into their balls. They could challenge a joust. I'd watch either way.


Kick hard enough so there won't be an heir, if it's not already too late.


I just found out I do NOT actually have COVID (it was just a coincidence that I had mild pneumonia and lost my sense of taste and smell), but having just had a nasty scare, I have no sympathy for these idiots.

We DON'T KNOW yet if there are dangerous long-term effects of this virus.  It's a new virus.  This blase "let everyone get it" approach is a terrible policy when the virus hasn't existed long enough for us to know if people currently infected are going to have severe complications in a few years.

Also, killing hundreds of thousand of people so this twit can get a haircut is insane.
 
2021-01-17 11:26:28 PM  

roc6783: pup.socket: roc6783: They aren't talking about a triage situation.

And I'm not talking about your need to engage in an outrage outburst every now and then.

Life is too short to spend it on screaming at assholes on a distant third-world island somewhere.

Sorry.

Nice deflection, Coriolus.


It is Coriolis, smartypants.
 
2021-01-17 11:29:33 PM  

iron de havilland: "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!"


And for those not aware of that, it was when the Daily Mail went all in on support of fascism.

Fark user imageView Full Size


/The Crazy News Reel on the right was the equivalent of 1930s Fark.
 
2021-01-17 11:34:33 PM  
"The former supreme court justice Jonathan Sumption has been criticised for telling a woman with stage 4 cancer that her life was "less valuable" during a televised discussion of the costs of coronavirus lockdowns."

What kind of terrible ass-Sumptions is this toxic evil man spreading around?
 
2021-01-17 11:35:45 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: House of lords is the senate of British government.


With one big difference - its members are not elected.
 
2021-01-18 12:03:49 AM  
He and everyone in this thread who agrees with him should be given cancer andCovid, then locked in isolation with just enough medicine to save one of them, to give them the "sinking lifeboat" scenario they so desperately wish to beat off to.
 
2021-01-18 12:05:33 AM  

pup.socket: roc6783: pup.socket: roc6783: They aren't talking about a triage situation.

And I'm not talking about your need to engage in an outrage outburst every now and then.

Life is too short to spend it on screaming at assholes on a distant third-world island somewhere.

Sorry.

Nice deflection, Coriolus.

It is Coriolis, smartypants.


Autocorrect abandons me in my time of need. Typical.
 
2021-01-18 12:25:57 AM  
Sounds like WWI forgot to prune a crucial family tree branch.
 
2021-01-18 1:00:14 AM  

Ragin' Asian: Will their heir be inheriting the seat? If so, they'd be well within their rights to take a running kick into their balls. They could challenge a joust. I'd watch either way.


He's called "lord" because he sat on the SCotUK. He is neither a life peer nor a hereditary peer, he is not a member of the House of Lords and TFA does not say he is a member of the House of Lords.
 
2021-01-18 1:15:24 AM  

roc6783: pup.socket: These kinds of calls are made all the time.

I was nearly killed last summer because a trivial medical procedure went wrong due to lack of post-op care due to the moronic "covid" restrictions, so I sympathize with the needs of the cancer patients.

But if the question is put, as in TFA, in its abstract form "isn't all human life equal", what do you think, subby, should they have let the women and children to get off Titanic first, or should they have fought for a place on those boats?

There is an echo in here, I swear to goodness.  They aren't talking about a triage situation. There isn't a shortage of anything in this scenario. He is just ok with people he deems lesser dying so his family doesn't have to be inconvenienced.


This.

He's pretending to be on the side of the young vs the old when actually he'd kill both so he isn't slightly inconvenienced.
 
2021-01-18 6:21:45 AM  

Stile4aly: What a (word which is acceptable in the UK but not so much across the pond).


Lollygagger?
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.