Preferential Treatment

The CBC ran a story last week about the fact that Canadian veterans who served after 1953 are no longer eligible to be cared for in a specialized long term care facility. I did not know that such facilities existed. I knew that after WWl special hospitals needed to be created to assist the men who had been injured, some of whom required life-long care. My father was taken care of in such a hospital after WWll. I did not know however, that those individuals who were involved in either the Second World War or the Korean conflict had the option, as they aged, to go to a veteran's nursing home. The argument is that those individuals risked their lives for Canada and therefore deserve special treatment.  I am not sure I agree. I see no reason why a veteran, especially one who served in peace time, should get preferential treatment. My comments have nothing to do with disrespecting those who served, but rather being aware of how unfair it is for one group to get better/easier access to services.

The issue seems to hang upon such questions as whose service to the country was more important or who suffered more for their country?  I think that those are the wrong questions to ask. There is a great documentary called The Story Telling Class. It is about a group of Winnipeg high school students who, after reading Ismael Beah's book A long Way Gone; Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, decide to listen some of their classmates' stories of what their life had been like before they came to Canada. At some point the Canadian born students start to want to tell their stories too. Beah meets with them and talks about the fact that sadness or sorrow is not competitive. That if one feels profoundly sad for whatever reason, we need to accept that person's sadness. We should not say "my sorrow is greater than yours (and therefore more meaningful) because my life experiences are worse than yours". Sadness or anguish or any other emotion is relative. What may appear to some as a relative minor reason to feel sorrow (e.g. the death of pet) can profoundly affect people. One sorrow is not greater or more important than another.

I think it could be useful to think of Beah's comments to the students when considering how we decide who gets special treatment. How do we decide whose service to the country is worth more than someone else's? Should a fire person or a police person get preferential treatment over someone who got up early every Saturday morning, in the  winter, for twenty-five years to coach minor league hockey? Can we compare each of those services and say which one is more important, which is better? If I feel as if I have provided a service to my community - is not that a valid perception?

If emotions are relative and have equal validity - should not all service to one's country/community also have equal validity. If we all are doing the best that we can - then surely none deserve a higher level of support as we age.

Just asking.....