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.

 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?

Yes

• Parents sacrificed most of their youth for the upbringing of their offspring and showered all their affection on their young ones, but some tend to ignore this fact and abandon their mothers and fathers in their twilight years, when they need it the most 

• The old people invested humongous amounts of savings on fulfilling the needs of their children and even used the money they could have saved for their autumn years; thus, to ensure that  youngsters do not leave them in misery and poverty, they making it a statutory requirement to look after the aging family members, so that sons and daughters do not leave their older 

• family members to fend for themselves ( to live on their own). 

No 

• Family relations are not dependent on legal norms, and installing such a provision will affect the relations - turning them into legal obligation rather than something that is forged with loved - and are bound to be misused

• Many families are not in a state to look after themselves due to their poor economic health: this could impose additional burden on them. 

• These old people paid taxes when they were young, so now when they are old government should be legally responsible for them and not family 

Of late, many have been proposing that those in their twilight years must be looked after by their wards, and this should be enforced as a statute. However, it is necessary to assess the relevance of this proposed arrangement. 

This recommendation finds its grounding in the fast transforming familial, social, and  personal aspirations, brought about by alterations in these structures, owing to which young individuals often walk away from their families, relinquishing their ethical and moral duties, and abandoning their helpless ,and hapless mothers, and fathers, to languish in misery, and poverty, when they are emotionally, physically, and mentally vulnerable. Such a move will force the self-centered young generation to fulfill their responsibility without questions. 

Similarly, when one sacrifices their prime youth, and desires to afford a quality upbringing to their progeny by going out of the way many times, it becomes a virtuous task for the latter to reciprocate for the love, and affection showered upon them, but a growing number are becoming apathetic towards this commitment, making it imperative to enlighten, and persuade them to answer their calls. To corroborate, several countries like India, China, New Zealand, and so forth have started installing such a framework to remind their young generation of the critical task they are neglecting

Nevertheless, there is some skepticism about this planned scheme: this might expose those hailing from poor financial backgrounds to further complications even though this view lacks substance when compared to self-restraint exercised by their elders.  Had the current generation remained attentive towards their obligations, such a law would not have been proposed 

Hence, disputes aside, any criticism leveled against this recommendation should be overlooked in the larger public interest, and to ensure that the aging population is not left to fend for themselves.

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?

 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. 

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?

 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?

Undeniably, young individuals in the family should be bound by the laws to take the onus to bolster their loved ones in their twilight years, whereas some dissent this view. I would analyze this perception profoundly and deliver a plausible verdict.

Those  in their golden years invested their whole life in earning humongous amounts to serve their wards with appropriate care, nourishments and state-of-the-art facilities: education, and even they invested their savings in the betterment of their offspring. It has been witnessed that individuals rarely look after their elders. Therefore, the law should be implemented on the populace and the younger generations should be responsible to reciprocate for all the care, and fulfill the basic requirements: medicine, food, clothes, and many more, of their elders. To corroborate, a survey carried out by Miss Ceilia proves that in India, seventy percent of the older populace are living a happy life with their family due to the law imposed by policy makers on the youngsters.

However, those skeptical of this view assert that legally binding youngsters to serve their parents in their advanced years is not a practical decision; most of the elderly individuals suffer from disparate health issues that need to be monitored by professionals: nurses, and many are burdened with such expenses because they are nor economically stable to bear the costs, and render appropriate services to their parents. Thus, the governments should take the responsibility of such individuals; they had paid colossal monetary resources in form of taxes.

In hindsight, even though both the opinions hold- true in their own virtue, the current generation should don the mantle to support their mothers and fathers in their twilight years; the latter has devoted their life to rendering services for the betterment of the former.