Some believe that younger family members should be legally responsible for supporting older family members when they become physically, mentally and financially unable to look after themselves.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, a perception seems to be emerging that young people should be bound by law to take care of their aging family members. However, there are some voices of dissent on this issue.
To start with, most of the aging members of the family spend their entire life making sure that their younger ones get proper education, eventually affording the latter successful careers. Moreover, it is seen that the older people spend the most important time of their life saving money for their wards, relinquishing their own dreams, for the sake of the better future of their offspring. Thus, it becomes imperative for them to be reciprocated by their children in the same way, but that is rarely happening so today, making it quite plausible to suggest creating a law that binds the young members to this task. It is only the fear of punishment that will push children to fulfill their moral and ethical duties in the world dominated by consumerism.
However, others, although quite few in numbers, are up in arms against this proposal, for this section considers such a move as an encroachment of private lives of citizens. The state can only act as a medium of spreading awareness among citizens about their obligations, rather than acting as a tool to guide people about how to deal with their family members. Similarly, as these critics suggest, many households may not be in a condition to support their elderly family members due to poor economic conditions, and making a statute in this regard could exacerbate their conditions and woes.
Overall, I vehemently support this move: young people should be legally bound to support their aging parents. This seems to be the only way to coax them into honoring their moral and ethical responsibilities.
