Precisely who is better off and why?

By Joseph Walther

 

At the end of last week’s column, I mentioned that I was working on a “doozy” of a topic for this week. Well, I still am; but it’s not ready yet. However, two things happened this past week that scream for attention. The first deals with the incredible response to last week’s column. The second deals with the death of a 76-year-old Alzheimer’s patient. So, I’ll get to the “doozy” next week.

 

            Last week, I wrote a column dealing with Florida’s Department of Corrections placing five convicted sex offenders underneath a major overpass in Miami-Dade County. I’m not going to rewrite it this week. You can click here to read the column if you wish. I received an incredibly large response to that column. While over 80% of the respondents understood my point, the rest of the respondents missed it altogether. So, let me clarify.

 

            One of the primary points surrounding the development of sex offenders’ databases—particular emphasis on child molesters—is location control. A high recidivism rate (75% by reliable federal statistics) demands that we monitor the whereabouts of such people. I have no problems with this. It’s just that I think passing unthinking ordinances that only address where convicted offenders CAN’T live, without addressing where they CAN live, is self-defeating.

 

            It sounds like a great idea to prevent convicted offenders from living within 2,500 feet of anywhere that children may congregate. But, the fact remains that, once legally released into supervised custody, these people have to live somewhere. They’re not going to do society a favor and just die. If they can’t come up with people willing to take them in under supervised custody rules, the State must find transitional housing for them.

 

            I addressed some alternative methods of dealing with this sort of convicted offender last week. Making it virtually impossible for the various state Departments of Corrections to house them, however, only compounds the problem. Eventually, we’ll lose control of the very people we want to keep an eye on. Placing them outdoors, under bridges and overpasses speeds this along quite well.

 

            I don’t like the idea of our courts releasing convicted child molesters into my neighborhood anymore than any of you do. However, as long as I have a legal right to know about it, the prospect scares me a lot less than the thought of such people going underground where I have no idea where they are. It’s very difficult to protect children from a danger if we don’t know where the danger is.

 

            I don’t question the sincerity of all politicians who pass these restrictive lodging ordinances. In fact, I have no problems with them as long as there are provisions that permit the State to house the released offenders somewhere else where we can watch them. However, as we currently pass them, such ordinances amount to the same level of useless, smoke screen security measures as our alleged airport security screenings do.

 

            Now, I want to address another issue that came up this past Friday. It involves the death of a 76-year-old Alzheimer’s patient. She had wondered away from her home and drowned in a small stream close by. It wasn’t so much the death itself that spurred me on to write about it, as much as some of the responses to the death. You can click here to read the police account.

 

            I was in a bookstore Friday evening. A woman in her, I’d guess, 50s, made a statement to her companions that she thought “this poor soul” was better off now. Her companions, two other women and a man, seemed to nod in agreement. These people meant it in the most concerned, respectful of ways. What I’m not sure of, however, is who, precisely, is better off.

 

            Six months ago, an old friend of mine died from pancreatic cancer. He worked the last 30-years of his life as a mailroom employee for a large multinational company. Even though his mental handicap was obvious, he was a well-liked, productive employee. After his funeral, I overhead some who said that he was better off dead. In this case, however, I agree with them. I can only imagine the pain he had gone through. Back in 1976, some others said the same thing about him; however, I disagreed then.

 

            In 1976, Thomas… that was his name and he insisted on it, was a research chemist for the duPont Company. He had received his PhD in early 1975. He was single, earning a good salary in a challenging and responsible position. He was looking ahead to a bright future. In June of 1976, he suffered a devastating nervous breakdown. The resultant brain damage in both the memory and cognitive areas was permanent. With rehabilitation, he’d become self-supporting and productive, but at nowhere near his former capacity.

 

            I spent considerable time with Thomas. He knew that something had happened to him, but he didn’t know what. He also knew that people were trying to help him and that he’d get better at some point. It took some time, but he relearned some of the basic skills he lost as the result of the breakdown. He never returned to duPont. He moved on to another company, the one he stayed with for the rest of his working life. Once again, he was hopeful for his future.

 

            The people who thought he’d be better off dead were just as sincere as those folks lamenting the outcome for the Alzheimer’s patient above. You see, we who remain of whole mind and body often compare the infirm to those of whole mind and body. We can’t imagine living like “that.” What many of us fail to consider, though, is that we’re the ones stressed out over the infirmities.

 

            In Thomas’s case, he had no recollection of his past after he suffered the nervous breakdown. He remembered his name and he recognized his family members. But, he had no idea what had been. All he knew was that he had suffered a brain problem and he had to learn many things all over again. It was the love of his family and friends that made him want to do it. He was hopeful for his future. He would not have been better off dead because, as see saw it, he had no reason for wanting to be dead.

            Likewise, middle and later-stage Alzheimer’s disease is not stressful for those directly afflicted. They have no idea that they suffer from it. In their minds, they have no reason to want to die. They live and hope within the mental confines of their infirmities. As is usually the case, we, the well, compare them to what they once were and conclude that they are “better off dead.”

 

            Comparisons always require perspective. Before we healthy ones declare that someone who is in poor health would be “better off dead,” we should carefully examine which perspective we’re using. If we do it honestly, we’ll have a much more honest appraisal of which side is “better off.”

 

            In turn, this will force us to examine the “why” part. If the sick party would truly be better off dead, why tends to become self-evident. A cancer patient in the throes of unspeakable and irreversible pain is a prime example. On the other hand, if it is “we” who are “better off”, why is still self-evident. It’s just that we may have a hard time admitting it. It doesn’t, necessarily, make us awful. It does make us human though.

 

            That’s it for this week. As soon as I finish the rest of the particulars concerning that “doozy” I told you about last week, I’ll get it written and online. In the meantime, have a safe and happy week ahead.

 

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.