Return to 1997 AUTUMN Index
by Boswell - 1997/08/24
Almost every day we hear politicians mouthing on about rights, we hear the word bandied about by unionists, liberalists, champions of the oppressed all scrambling for the moral high ground in some debate. The phrase 'It's my right' has become a modern credo that none dare question. It is a fundamental part of modern life, enshrined in constitution and perceived as the cornerstone of any humane and civilised society.
There are, of course, inalienable human rights that I for one would not take issue with. The right to free thought, free worship, life without fear, the right to live (and I would like to add as a logical corollary to the latter, the right to die). I daresay there are others but these are not what concerns me. I am becoming increasingly aware of the universal cure all that the phrase, 'It's my right' has become and I can't help wondering that, if someone doesn't put a stop to it we are going to hear this phrase in justification for a violation of rights. The serial killer may one day defend his crimes as self expression and it's his right to be able to express himself freely in a free society.
So, I whisper in your ear dear reader that the answer to the phrase, 'It's my right' is very possible, 'No it isn't.'
Listening to a talk show on the radio the other day I was irresistibly reminded of a scene from Monty Pythons' Life of Brian when Stan (Eric Idle) announces that he wants to be a woman and have children "It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.' But you can't have babies' 'Don't you oppress me', 'But I'm not oppressing you, Stan - you haven't got a womb. Where's the foetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?'
The topic under discussion on the radio was surrogacy and specifically whether or not surrogate mothers should be, so to speak, paid for their labour. The sum of £10,000 seemed the going rate. The vast majority of callers to the station were appalled at the thought of paying for a baby and claiming that this would mean that only rich people could afford a surrogate whereas… and here we have it…
Poor people have the right to have children too. I say again dear reader, no they don't. If you can't afford the £10,000, you can't afford the child and you can't afford the next 20 years of expense. Some may say that the state should pay so that people unable to conceive their own child and not sufficiently well off to keep one if they had one can add another delinquent to the streets. A child who in 20 years time can say that he had a deprived upbringing and only mugged the old woman for her pension book because it's his right to have a new pair of Nike trainers even if he can't afford them. It's a poisonous mindset. Everyone is entitled to everything, it breeds envy and resentment.
Over the last few weeks I have been fostering a litter of kittens and this has made me increasingly aware of how confused this issue has become as I look for model parents to adopt them. Working in a veterinary practice I am daily confronted by the consequences of inadequate ownership and the offence that is caused when an animal starts to cost an owner money. It is not simply a matter of the rich versus the poor, although this is undeniably a major factor, but rather those who have understood the responsibility they have towards their pet and those who don't. Every year people pay out thousands of pounds on clothes, beer , cars, TV and video stuff and yet they will not pay to keep their cat or dog vaccinated and look aghast when you tell them the cost of flea treatment.
Several times a day I deal with the real cheapskates, people who are too mean to pay the vet for his advice at all. The routine goes something like this...
Telephone rings:
"Hello this is …veterinary clinic, how may I help you?"
"Is that the vets?" (Never a good start).
"Yes, how may I help?"
"I wonder if you can help?"
"Yes?" (aaarrrggghhh!)
"I need some advice, I think my son has broken the hamster's leg, he was playing and didn't mean to do it. The hamster is not running about as usual and he's sort of, well, limping on it. I'm not sure what to do. What do you think?"
"You think the hamster's broken his leg?"
"Can you do anything?"
(ON the telephone.. what is this, psychic veterinary counselling? Mystic Vets? A new concept in 0898 numbers???)
"I think you should see the vet."
(Disappointed. "Oh how much is that then?")
"£8.81 for a consultation"
"Will there be anything on top of that?"
"Well (sigh) the cost of any treatment he recommends."
"Can't you tell me about how much?"
(I don't bloody know) "I can't say exactly, it depends on what he feels he can do to help."
"Can't you tell me about how much?"
(Repeat as before).
"So you don't know"
(Repeat as before)
"Well, I'll have to talk to my husband."
"Fine."
Never heard from her again. Mind boggling. Now, if your child had broken its leg would you phone your GP and have a conversation with the receptionist in lieu of the doctor??? I don't think so.
This might all seem like a digression but it's symptomatic of the same thing. Rights. People who are unable or unwilling to support the animals they own, complaining about the cost. After all this is why we have charities like the PDSA and the RSPCA who subsidise veterinary treatment so that the animals welfare is not compromised by owners who are unable to afford them. Wouldn't it be simpler if they didn't have the animal in the first place??? No animal, no cost, no cost, no problem. A colleague of mine who has worked for the PDSA for several years finally left them because of the clients who, in his words, were taking the piss. In they come with their Staffies of German Shepherds or whatever, demanding treatment because they are on the dole. While the hard working and underpaid vet looks after their animal they glance down at the Rolex on their wrist and wonder if they will make it to the pub on time. We all know that this is at least part of the truth of the situation. There are owners who are responsible but unable to meet the cost of caring for an animal due to a change in situation, or pensioners who need the company of a dog or cat. They should have the right, but the abuse of charitable animal welfare organisations stretches their meagre resources unreasonably and unfairly.
We do have rights but one of the most important has to be the right to chose not to have something we cannot afford without feeling that this makes us lesser human beings. Superfluity is in our nature but it is fired by consumerism and a confusion over status and status symbols…it's a kind of 'monkey see, monkey do, reaction only more accurately, monkey see, monkey want, monkey have.
We should reason the need and accept that whilst without some trappings of existence we are a bare forked animal, with all the possessions in the world we are nothing more. The improvement of the human condition is not to do with numbers of cars or makes of shoes or breeds of status dogs but rather in striving to shake off the perceived need for these things. In those that can afford to subsidise their need this is called 'minimalism,' in those that can't is it what I would call essential.