|
That they
choose, and it is a choice, to worry about something over which they have no
control, is a classic "victim's" response. Their concept of a "cure" is to
change something external to themselves, which by definition makes them
incurable; therefore, they feel that they're "entitled" to compensation.
However, my understanding of our tort system, and Barbara et al. can correct me
if I'm mistaken, is to restore someone to his or her previous state, essentially
to where they would have been had the offense or injury not occurred.
Since this "injury" is self-inflicted, I see no basis for compensation,
notwithstanding Barbara's point about suing their parents, which would only be
valid if the individual were mentally incompetent to make independent decisions.
I still don't accept the non-accountability, no-fault culture encouraged in
recent years, which also by definition would make me "insane" to some degree if
it became the norm and I refused to adapt accordingly.
Jack Earley
Radiological
Engineer
Let me try to tie together two
strings; radiological stress and "victims". I have a friend who is both an
anti-nuke and a psychiatrist. A major reason for his attitude toward anything
radioactive is that, in his practice, he has seen several patients who
harbor morbid fears of atom bombs and all things that might be
related. They continually worry about how they and their loved ones are
being affected by radioactivity. They often manifest their deep-seated
concerns by strongly opposing nuclear arms, nuclear power, food irradiation,
or anything that might involve radioactivity. For some unexplained reason,
neither medical applications of radiation, nor natural background
radiation seem to fall within this
category.
When I tried to explain, from a
scientific standpoint, that such fears were largely irrational and
unfounded, his response was interesting. He claims that the scientific
realities are irrelevant when dealing with psychological conditions, and that
we need to understand that the lives of radiophobic people have been seriously
degraded, many to the point of mental illness by the mere existence of nuclear
programs of any sort. His solution would be to eliminate such
programs.
I tried to counter his argument by
pointing out that racial and religious prejudice and fears have a similar
irrational basis, and that people often have deep-seated fears of others who
may be different from them even though such fears may have no rational basis.
He said this was ridiculous and that racial/religious biases are something
altogether different. We agreed to disagree.
In any case, radiological stress is
apparently quite real, and affects many people who have never been anywhere
near Hiroshima. Shouldn't all these "victims" be compensated for their
lives having been degraded?
|