Hi Antonio,
Thank you for providing your definition of culture. Your perspective is one of
many approved by the dictionary. As you read from my last post on this thread,
our two definitions of "Culture" are very different. Your kind response to my
reply (see below) displays your sophistication which we could all emulate. I
would further suggest that the style / politness of your response should be the
standard we set for goanet.
The Goan "Way of Life" is changing, as reported in posts on Goanet. The GIC
(my definition) and the changes may be theoretical for some Goanetters - and
good for arugments. For a few Goans, GIC is practical and needed now. And for
many, GIC will be real - sooner than later. As many societies change, they are
loosing their culture / value system. Below is an article that I recently
wrote for our local newspaper in upstate New York, for a court case in our
county. As one reads the article, the facts and the issues will be
self-explanatory. I do pray and hope that Goan society does not deteriorate to
this level.
Regards, GL
In Defense of David Auchmoody
The purpose of this article is not to sway the verdict in this case, whose
outcome has been decided by David Auchmoody's guilty plea, purportedly entered
to avoid a jury trial and the possibility of a harsher sentence. I respect the
judge's opinion at the sentencing, who would have heard all the specifics of
this case. However, based on the newspaper report (OD 3/29/08), there is much
that our society can learn from this tragic case.
My analysis of the reported story has led me to conclude that there are not one
but two victims - the 89-year-old mother, Edith, and her 61-year-old son,
David. If the circumstances surrounding Edith Auchmoody's death represented an
isolated example, I would feel comfortable that justice has been served. Yet
from my experience as a physician dealing with seriously and terminally ill
patients, her's is far from being a rare occurance. Hence, the moral indictment
in this and many similar cases should be against:
1. The two victims' first degree relatives - children and siblings.
2. The victims' second degree relatives - cousins, uncles and aunts, nephews
and neices, and in-laws.
3. The neighbors and friends who have known the victims, likely for decades
during which they lived in this area. These include acquaintances from work,
social circles, and place of worship.
4. The moral fabric and the practical ethical mores of our society, which
reflect poorly on all our local religious leaders, be they ministers, priests,
pastors, rabbis and imams and other teachers of moral and social values.
This tragedy would not have happened if we as a community saw ourselves as "our
brothers' keepers." Rather, we have farmed out the responsibility of caring for
the indigent to a "system" backed by the government. As individuals, we have
taken the easy way out by connecting with our elderly relatives only
occasionally and from a distance, both physically and emotionally. If David had
family support and Edith had concerned friends and relatives, which is normal
in many old cultures, the mother's situation would have been detected early.
She would have received the appropriate care, and the tragedy would have been
prevented.
Many of us connect with our mothers or other close dependents on only a few
occasions - Mother's Day, birthday and Christmas - when a fancy card conveys
our long-distance greetings. Yet David performed better than many children, if
not most men and a lot of women. In his case, he took personal responsibility
for his mother, lived with her during the last years of her life and relieved
her from the pain of loneliness, not to mention providing other support. As it
happens in most cases, if sons or daughters choose to pursue their own
interests and in the process move away from their parents, our society rewards
the offspring and absolves them from their duty to take care of their elderly
relatives. Undoubtedly, David could have exercised better judgment in the last
couple of months of his mother's life.
Most individuals, including the educated and articulate, merely demand that the
government provide more funding to care for the indigent, to do the job that
we, with the help of other members of the family and friends, should be doing
on our own. We expect the healthcare professionals, including social workers,
to care for our indigent. Yet while the professionals do a good job, they are
not there to provide 24/7 TLC (tender loving care) that all frail, elderly and
sick need. David physically undertook his filial responsibility to the best of
his judgment and ability, including providing TLC, until his mother's last
days. Granted his judgment was probably clouded when he was faced with his
mother's inevitable death and what he perceived as her wishes regarding medical
intervention. This situation was an evolving one, which bordered on benign
neglect, but stemmed from helplessness on the part of the patient and the
care-giver. David was not mean to his
mother and there was no evidence of physical, mental or emotional abuse.
I salute David for physically standing by his mother for all the years of her
life and providing her the warmth of his companionship. I pray for many more
David Auchmoody amongst us. So I am in anguish that our Justice System
punishes him for a lapse of judgment, albeit which led to an unfortunate event.
I submit that if the son did the right thing, the final outcome would likely
not have changed. But I concede the circumstances of the inevitable end-stage
could have been humane. Edith passed away from a chronic debilitating illness
of bone infection, one that the best physicians would probably find difficult
to treat.
Putting the entire Auchmoody family situation in perspective, I submit that
David is a 'Fall Guy' for our societal failure to care for our elderly and
indigent. We as members of a family have forgotten our moral duty, physical and
social responsibility towards our close relatives and neighbors. As Mother
Teresa noted, "We think sometimes that poverty is only being hungry, naked and
homeless. The poverty of being unwanted, unloved and uncared for is the
greatest poverty." David, (like other care-givers) with his limited resources,
kept faith with Mother Teresa's exhortation to "start in our own homes to
remedy this kind of poverty." Yes, the Auchmoodys needed assistance. This case
(and others I see so often) could use the help of other family members and
friends, even against the clouded judgment of the patient and / or the
over-burdened care-giver. That is when the spontaneous and unsought concern
and encouragement of relatives and friends is needed
and essential.
The purpose of this article is not to be judgmental. Rather, it is an attempt
to raise our awareness that many of us fail miserably in caring for our needy
relatives and neighbors, and use every possible reason to justify our actions
or lack thereof. Sometimes, the family may "dump" the care of the patient on
the most vulnerable care-giver who is too timid to protest. If this provocative
article shakes some of us from our moral complacency, and moves us into the
social mores practiced by our forebears, it would have achieved its purpose.
We cannot do much about the tragedy that befell Edith in the last month of her
life. Yet we can do much to make sure that the next Edith is not our own flesh
and blood or acquaintance. The answer lies in extending a compassionate hand to
infirm family members; it does not lie in petitioning the government directly,
or through our local newspapers, to fund more programs for those who cannot
help themselves.
We could learn much (not all) from David Auchmoody. And in judging David (and
in what we do to our dependents), we should evaluate our actions by Mother
Teresa's yard stick: "It is not how much we do, but how much love we put in the
doing. It is not how much we give, but how much love we put in the giving." To
condemn David is to reinforce the message that one is better off not being
involved in the care and concern of one's dependent or neighbor, a practice for
which we as a society should be indicted.
--------- Antonio Menezes
Thank you Gilbert Lawrence for your comments on my above named post. I admire
your courage of conviction and wish there were more individuals like you on
the Goanet.
I understand culture as ''trained and refined state of the understanding and
manners and tastes.''I also believe that labouring classes and lower middle
classes ( not to be equated with castes ) are unable of having such manners and
tastes and therefore the culture of any society has of necessity to be in the
hands of the elite members of that society and not necessarily in the hands of
hierarchical elites.
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total
Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
