HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 29, 2005 As I sit back and witness the preparations of what will very likely be an ugly battle over the estate of my dear, close friend, I got to wondering…. where did it all start? You know, the idea that money could possibly make up for the loss of a brother, mother, friend, husband, child? Who decided the almighty dollar was appropriate consolation? And who’s giant ego decided they have the wherewithal to determine the value of a human being in dollars and cents? When there is no last will and testament, which is the case in this particular example, what constitutes a family? The family you were born into, not by choice (will leave the esoteric philosophies for another time) or the family you created after you left home and set off to become an independent human being? And, how come the courts can define this based on a piece of paper from a particular State? For example, if you live in California, which is one of the States that does not recognize common law marriage, is it right that some judge gets to decide that the 15 years you spent as husband and wife does not count - whereas, if you lived two States over, you’d have all the legal rights of a married couple? Does that not sound patently absurd? I mean if we are going to accept money as acceptable consolation for the loss of a loved one, should the State in which you reside make the difference between a wife having any claim to the estate over a brother or two who happen to have the same mother? Another thing that baffles me is the sense of entitlement. Why does a brother think that because he is related by blood, he is entitled to cash in on his brother’s hard work? He did not contribute to his brother’s career; he just had the same mother. I am watching vultures circling the carcass of an estate that will continue to reap annuities in the form of royalties, for years to come. I am watching brothers pitting themselves against a “common law wife” with whom they had no qualms prior to the death of the beloved – until money entered the picture. All of a sudden they get the rights, you know, from the aforementioned Judge who has the power to make such decisions without any intimate knowledge of the relationships – and they freeze out the wife, why? Why? Does money have the ability to heal? I guess it must to some, the way they covet it, with such intensity, as if their very life depended on it. In this case, the couple had amassed bills jointly, is it on her now to pay? She can share the debts but not the means with which to pay them off? Is the memory of the loved one to be forever marred by the fight over money? Is that what will be remembered in the end? When she thinks back upon the life she shared with this person, will it be colored by the fight over his money? What about his life? What about their life together? What about the difference his absence makes in her life on an emotional and spiritual level every single day? Doesn’t that matter? Doesn’t that count? How much is that worth? Can you sue for that? Then, there is this thing called “wrongful death.” The phrase is mind-boggling. Wrongful death! Again, whose massive ego decided he could deem someone’s death wrongful? Is there such a thing as Rightful death? When did we accept the idea that a mere mortal could determine whether or not someone died wrongfully? Did God not play a role? Perhaps we should sue God! Or did we give the courts the power to declare that either God was absent, or that God made a mistake when the death occurred? He was busy elsewhere and had nothing whatsoever to do with the life leaving the physical body? Talk about ego! When the judge decides a death is wrongful, he then gets to assign a price to the deceased’s life? Based on what calculations? Does he take what a person makes at the time of their death and multiply that by how long he thinks he or she would have lived? What about ambition? What about trends they may have created or followed that would have provided a windfall? What if they would have won the lottery? What if they were but a young child with endless potential – how is this figure determined? Can it be disputed? Are the courts psychic? I just want to know: When did we decide that money was an appropriate means to compensate for the loss of a loved one? And when did we decide that the power to make such a decision was best left in the hands of a court? Moreover, does money make you miss your loved one less? In the end, it seems like that’s what’s being said. How depressing! ------------ About the author Susan Daley: I live in Ontario and love to write. I have a website www.loveyourjob.ca that, despite it's name, has nothing whatsoever to do with your job or whether or not you love it. Email: susan@mail.loveyourjob.ca Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
