As a 77-year-old great grandmother who has managed to avoid Covid-19 so far, I found the comments of Tony Abbott disturbing (Tony Abbott: some elderly Covid patients could be left to die naturally, 1 September). While I’m generally sympathetic to the “right to die” in personal, individual cases with legal safeguards, the idea that decisions to end any life should be influenced by financial considerations or the general state of the economy is abhorrent.
This kind of logic could equally be applied to disabled people, those with mental illnesses and so on. If Mr Abbott is so keen to eliminate those who are a cost to society, what does he plan to do about the young people he accuses of having a “something-for-nothing mindset”?
I’ve spent my life arguing with people who say fascism couldn’t happen here. It can. It starts with defining people according to a warped perception of so-called usefulness and productivity. We know how it ends.
Karen Barratt
Winchester
• Tony Abbott’s idea that some old people could be left to die “naturally” is a bit out of date. Didn’t the government do this by decanting thousands of people into care homes to die anyway? Even so, I do have to wonder if Abbott’s brave new world had been fully in place in March, would I have been allowed on the ventilator that saved my life?
When Abbott’s plan catches the ear of the government, the issue will arise of who decides who should live and who should die. Is there a job description? What kind of CV would fit the bill? From what Abbott is suggesting, it doesn’t seem to be much different from an executioner.
Michael Rosen
London
• You report that our proposed trade envoy Tony Abbott says the cost to his own country, Australia, of giving an elderly person an extra year of life is £110,000. Apparently he suggests that families should be allowed to consider letting their elderly relatives die naturally from Covid.
Doctors have always had to consider both the cost and physical discomfort of interventions that may prolong life that would have no quality. We do have to consider how many other people could, for the same cost, have a good quality of life returned.
However, this can never be a decision by relatives. “It’s what Mum would have wanted” can’t be the deciding factor. Living wills, consultation with the patient wherever practical and clinical judgment are the only ways to ensure that there is no possibility that relatives, who might want to speed the arrival of an inheritance, have a deciding voice. And, for those readers who think such a dreadful motive could not occur, it is worth remembering that over 1 million older people are abused every year, mostly by family and “friends”.
Dr John Beer
Outgoing chair, Hourglass
• Putting two and two together – that is, the comments of Dominic Cummings early in the pandemic, and Tony Abbott on Monday – we reach a four that sounds to me like it was, and still is, covert policy to deprive care homes of protective equipment. Some 40% of adult deaths have been in care homes. They may believe that it is not cost-effective to save elderly lives, but I hope the Guardian will insist that elderly lives matter too.
Andrew Wilson
London
• Tony Abbott as trade envoy. Surely not? Les Patterson as cultural attache is far more suitable.
Watson Crawford
Newstead, Scottish Borders
• Join the conversation – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
