|
Turning our backs on Grandpa By Michael C. Guilmette Jr. Originally published on July 30, 2009, in the Connersville News-Examiner. I lost my grandfather in 1993.
He lived a long life, having been born in the early years of the 20th century, and he watched five generations of progeny grow before his eyes, sharing in the triumphs and tragedies that come with a large family. My grandfather saw a great deal during his many years, persevering through the Great Depression in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, serving in the U.S. Army in World War II and facing the Japanese Imperial Army in the Aleutian Islands before returning home and becoming a well-known and respected member of his community. Grandpa was a proud veteran, and I can clearly remember him sitting in his chair at the kitchen table, wearing his fatigues and smoking his pipe. I also remember the pride in his eyes the day I walked in wearing my U.S. Air Force uniform. Having lived through most of the 20th century, it’s fair to say many of the events of that transformative era touched his life in one way or another. Only recently did I realize just how much a witness to history he was. Given when he was born, he came of age in a time when there were people still alive who remembered the Civil War first hand. I now regret not realizing this earlier, because I am curious to know if he was ever told stories of Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican president and the man most credited with ending the scourge of slavery. The historian in me marvels at the thought of looking into the eyes of a man who likely looked into the eyes of someone who saw that tumultuous time through their own eyes. Of greater importance is the context that kind of remembrance brings to today. Even though we have history books recounting the events of the past, much is lost in the translation. Even the newspapers of those times were written to a different era using techniques and terminology not familiar to the modern era — much like how the meaning of the phrase ‘24 hour news cycle’ may be lost on generations born 50 years from now. My parents are now grandparents, and they will have the opportunity to tell my young niece about the times of their lives. Being baby boomers, they saw much of the Cold War, Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, the chaotic ‘60s and the Vietnam War. Likewise, I will be able to tell my coming grandchildren of the ‘80s and President Ronald Reagan, the ‘90s, the millennium and the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001. But instead of simply regurgitating the facts found in any coming history book — such as the deaths of 3,000 fellow Americans in the 9/11 attacks — I will be able to tell my grandchildren that 9/11 started as an ordinary Tuesday — a day far more beautiful than it deserved to be. This is what is so important about the experienced generations passing along what they have seen and learned. Our recollections provide the context that will help our youth understand the events of the past are more than printed words in a dusty volume or the special effects of a Hollywood movie. Unfortunately, our experienced generations are facing troubling prospects as a result of the hastily crafted health care legislation bounding through Congress. The sweeping health care reform package, the cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s campaign platform, takes special notice of senior citizens in the United States. On Tuesday, appearing at the AARP headquarters in Washington, Obama was asked if senior citizens would be visited by government bureaucrats who will counsel them on “how they wish to die.” The president glossed over the concern posed to him, instead saying his reform bill aims to increase the use of living wills so senior citizens may make their final wishes known. Excuse me if I am wrong, but that in essence sounds like the same thing. It seems clear that Obama looks at the elderly — who eat up 25 percent of Medicare spending in their final year of life — not as a fount of knowledge, but as a source of health care savings. When asked if a 100-year-old grandmother deserves a pacemaker, the Los Angeles Times reported Obama’s philosophy on June 25: “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.” The massive health care bill sitting restlessly in the House — the one which President Obama is growing further out of touch — does include provisions for government “counselors” to visit the elderly once every five years — more often if they are ill — to discuss end-of-life options. Frankly, this is chilling. These decisions should be the sole domain of the individual and their family, and the government should not be involved at all — especially a government that is crusading to take on the costs of health care. Putting aside the Orwellian notions of the government deciding who lives and dies, creating a bureaucracy to address this issue with individuals, no matter how altruistic the intentions, could turn end-of-life matters into a coldly mechanical process, much like the DMV. I can see it now: “Sorry Mr. Smith,” says some future life counselor clinically and with feigned sympathy, “but federal guidelines say you are past the useful age and are no longer entitled to health care. Sorry for your luck. NEXT!” In a nation with a steadily growing life expectancy and retiring baby boomers, we can expect our senior citizens to live longer, and that there will be more living into the golden years. Instead of trying to push the most experienced of us out the door before their time, we must celebrate what our greatest generations have learned. In the combined centuries of accumulated wisdom and knowledge, there may well be the answer to the health care problem. Some time back, I wrote that President Obama appears to be kicking the Social Security problem down the road like many of his predecessors. However, he may have a plan for it after all. • Guilmette is managing editor of the News-Examiner. He may be contacted at mguilmette@newsexaminer.com. |
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2009, Michael C. Guilmette Jr. |
That loss was very difficult for me, since he was not only my last grandparent, but because he had always been such a prominent figure in my family.
