Value of Life

Recently a dear friend of mine told me that she was considering having her pet dog “put down”.   I then recalled a time last year when a family dog had to die after she ate anti-freeze put out by a neighbor who dislikes animals.

These experiences elicited a series of questions within me about the value of life and the similarities and differences we have in our value systems toward people and animals.

My self-inquiry as to the reasoning for putting these dogs to death exhibited the physical and mental dysfunctions that the dogs had.  Pain was present and there seemed to be no way to ease it.  

One had bodily functions that were not working which caused problems for the dog and the humans around him.   Being able to hear had virtually disappeared.  He had behavior around the family with depression-like characteristics. The other was going to die soon due to poison and immediate death seemed kinder.

What are the values of letting these dogs die when their body and mind reach a high degree of dysfunctionality?   Do we have an obligation to release them from misery by administering a system of humane death?  Who makes the choice and what is the appropriate degree of dysfunctional characteristics necessary for a decision of life or death to be made?

Do we make every effort to keep the animal alive regardless of his condition?   Do we make financial investments in the animal health care system that place a strain on our own financial resources?   Do we keep the dogs alive out of our own love for them and our own unwillingness to let them leave our lives and being part of our family?  Many persons really do love and care about their pets equally, if not more, than they do their relatives and make their pets ‘human’.

These questions come to mind each time I see the choices being placed on human beings who have family members who are experiencing some of the same characteristics as the dogs described above.  Is there some point where it is best for all concerned to cease intervention in the degeneration of a person’s mind and body so that our loved ones can follow the natural progression of life that ends in death?  Are we kinder to our animal family than we are to our human family with all of the efforts made to keep humans alive?

While willing to discuss the pros and cons of taking an animal’s life, our society has a difficult time facing the issue of whether an individual has reached a point in their life journey where their body and/or mind indicates that being allowed to die is the most humane outcome for that person. And the discomfort may grow with the role of investing extensively our personal and societal financial resources in their care.

How each one of us feels about this different way we treat the severe illness of humans and animals usually depends on our personal value system.  There are those who see no need to discriminate between treatment of humans and animals regarding the death process.  We should/should not intervene in either.

There are people who believe we should encourage death in both animals and humans when certain illness characteristics are met.

Other see the value of humans as being totally different and much more important than how we treat animals when it comes to handling the decisions on either letting a human die without intervention or maybe helping the death process along due to humane concerns.

One of the cornerstones of personal growth is “Different Strokes for Different Folks”.  We all have our personal value systems on subjects such as the process of death at the end of one’s life journey.

As I get older, I find myself with more and more questions about such things and fewer answers.  I expect to die the same way.

Comments welcome.     Email: silverchatline@gmail.com

Emails for Private Blogging

Power for Positive Living is different from many blogs in that it offers access to the author by a special email address.  While one can still comment on each blog for all to read, the email address is offered for those who prefer to react to the blog’s content by communicating only with the author in a more private manner.

As always with so much of life, the choice of whether to communicate and how it will be done remains your choice.

Email:  silverchatline@gmail.com

No Freebies

There seem to be many people in our world who are frequently upset that the world is not full of ‘freebies’ -- thoughts, feelings and behaviors without some cost attached to them.  Their expectation is that there should be freebies in their lives and that they are entitled to have their fair share, if not more.

Most people who have reached a certain maturity level recognize that there are usually no freebies and that almost everything in life has some type of ‘price’ attached to it. 

The price may be obvious and carried out in our financial monetary system where almost everyone understands the value of a dollar, peso, pound, etc.  The price may be marked for all to see or it can be open to some form of barter and negotiation.  Characteristics are that the persons involved understand the system being used and the unit of measure being used for payment.

This type of system of purchase and payment for goods and services is the easy part of life.  The difficulty for most people comes when the system changes to situations where the type of currency is different such as emotionality.  It can be difficult to determine what type and degree of emotionality is being used to purchase and pay for exchanging feelings and behaviors.

Just because there is no monetary unit being exchanged, one can pay the price of frustration with the illusion that any exchange itself has become free.  For example, if we invest ourselves into the building and maintaining of a friendship with an individual, then we have paid a price to reach the status of having a friend. 

We usually tend to expect the friend to pay us with a returned friendship that includes payment of certain feelings and behaviors.  As with the use of currency, the amount can be openly marked or left unknown and/or hidden until there is a process of barter and/or negotiation.  Even our personal expectations of self and others have a price to be paid.

For example, if we give our love to someone.   For most of us we expect to be repaid by the other person returning their love.  The price of love paid can be as varied as there are types of people in the world and the individual methods each of us is willing to pay for our personal happiness.

Some sell their love at a low price where many people can accept the price and are able/willing to make the payments.   Others may offer their love at an emotional price so high that only a few are able or willing to feel and behave in a way to pay the price expected.

One can choose to pay their price of not being perfect, not getting a job, being cheated by a dishonest family member, etc., with payments of depression and anxiety.  There really are few limits to the type and degree of currency we can use to pay for the positive or negative exchanges in our daily lives.

So, whenever there is a friendship or some other human exchange, it is much easier for us to realize that we are paying some type of price and that most of us are expecting to be paid as well.

Our society is based on these expectations of payment exchanges and we can be happier when we seek and understand the type and amount of payment we are offering and expecting. 

Otherwise, we open our selves to being frustrated with illusional expectations that anything of value in this world should not have a price and should be free to us.

Comments welcome.   Email:  silverchatline@gmail.com

Personal Secrets

Is a person being dishonest if they make the choice not to tell other people a piece of information that they consider personal and prefer to keep a secret?

An email addressed to the Silver Chat Line arrived asking if a person was being dishonest when they preferred not to openly discuss their sexual orientation with others.  While this blog site is not an advice column, this email raises an interesting question about what is healthiest for us and to others when we choose not to disclose information about ourselves which may make us uncomfortable or may make the other person experience a degree of discomfort.

Our cultures are really not comfortable having open, honest and direct discussions about human sexuality even though we flood ourselves with sex in printed materials, movies, music, etc.  We can laugh about it or we can intellectualize it, but seldom do we feel safe enough to be open with our dialogues, especially if we and/or society may tend to see our feelings and behaviors as “different”.

This individual was sharing that the gay sexual feelings were a natural part of life.  He/she liked the idea of having a world in which we each took each other as we were and did not have negative stereotypes of certain groups.  However, he/she realized that this is not our cultural behavioral norm.

People tend to like to be with people who are like them; we like to associate with individuals who we consider “normal”.  Are we being dishonest with them if we choose to avoid disclosing certain things about ourselves where others may have judgmental attitudes and behaviors? 

Even though it is obvious that our creator made people in all different and diverse types, there are many who believe that everyone should have the same sexual orientation.  One could ask why people who have been created with different physical traits, emotional characteristics, etc., should all have the same sexual orientation?

Part of the socialization process is the sharing and receiving of information with others.  Some have the belief that the more information they give/receive with others, the more real and strong is the relationship.  There are probably individuals who would place their sexual orientation on a highway billboard since they believe sharing personal information is always “good”.

Some like to give out personal information in measured amounts to people with varying degrees of closeness.  They see personal characteristics such as sexuality as secrets that are only shared with persons who have earned a degree of trust.

Another question that can be considered is how much personal information do others really want to know about us?   If they know some information they may need to do something about it.   Not knowing is sometimes easier and may avoid internal conflicts. 

For example, someone with a conservative religious background may find it much easier to not know about a person’s sexual orientation if that type of information conflicts with her/his personal and religious value system.  Ignorance can offer bliss. 

Like many other areas of personal growth, the answer to this question is within each individual.  It remains our personal choice to decide what honesty in sharing personal information entails – whether something is to be shared or kept as a personal secret.

Comments welcome.     Email: silverchatline@gmail.com

It's All About Me

Much of our life journey is spent learning about who we are as individuals and how we fit into the lives of the other people in our world.  Our parents begin this process of education of our self-concept and soon are joined by family, friends, schools, churches, employers, etc.

Our society wants us to fit into the structure that most people find comfortable and easy to understand.   Therefore, by the time we have become adults, we have plenty of information and training on how to be ‘normal’ and behave in ways that are acceptable to others and ourselves.

One of the most important lessons we learn is the acceptable reason for why we choose to do the things we do.  We learn that being liked by others is very important in American culture and we work to find behaviors that will give others strong encouragement to like us.  And, life is so much easier when we behave in a manner where we learn to like ourselves.

A friend of mine likes to tell others that her choices are all about meeting her needs:   “It’s all about me.”  Naturally, this carries some shock value to those who believe that much of their behavior is focused on caring about others in our society. 

However, from one perspective, my friend is one of the few who is being truthful about her self-concept while others are play-acting that the needs of others are more important than their own.

IF one accepts the belief that choosing behavior is all about meeting needs, then we usually choose to first meet the needs which are closest to us:  our own.

This view can have validity even when we choose to help others.

I can have a belief that I am a kind person who is willing to reach and provide assistance to others.  I can see myself as being generous and willing to give gifts, time and energy such as working in a soup kitchen for the homeless.   I volunteer to take care of a sick church member.  I help children learn their multiplication tables.  I care about the world and pray for world peace.  I can submit myself to danger to save a drowning person.

The list of assisting others is endless.  With all of this work done for others, we can ask ourselves how can anyone say that there is any truth in the phrase that my life behavior is all about me.

One response would be all of these ‘good’ behaviors are our personal choices to meet our self-concept; the one we have of ourselves as a good person.  Each time we reach out and help someone, we re-enforce our own view of ourselves as being kind and caring about others – and meet OUR needs.

Therefore, it can be seen that whatever I choose to do is a way to implement my own view of myself and that all of my choices start with my view of how I see myself.  Others are present to help me implement my own self-concept.

Is this true for you?  How would YOU choose to respond to someone conveying this viewpoint?  Can you convey your honest perceptions of self from another perspective?

Comments welcome.   Email:  silverchatline@gmail.com

Touch

Each of us comes into this world with a high need to be touched and comforted by those who love and support us.  When an individual’s life journey has comes to an end, we find ourselves with the same dependency of being touched and comforted while we prepare to exit this life.

It can be assumed that the period of life between birth and death does not remove our need to touch and be touched by other human beings.  There are many of us who believe that most people do not give or receive enough touch to have healthy self-esteem as adults.

Many studies of children have shown that the ones who receive an abundant amount of touching by being held tend to grow into healthier adults.  These same studies show that children who are not touched in their younger years tend to demonstrate more physical limitations and emotional difficulties as they grow into adolescence and adulthood.

When an individual is dependent on us for some reason, many adults find it much easier to touch and be touched by that person.

The odd part of our society is the mass of limitations we impose on touch during that part of life when we are basically independent adults.

A great deal of effort in our culture is placed on setting guidelines so that any touch will be socially correct and appropriate.   We may shake hands, but we are encouraged to do it correctly by not touching hands for “too long” or with too much strength.  We may hug, but often the same limitations are in place for others to be comfortable with us.

Our society has many pets, mostly cats and dogs.  These animals allow us to touch and be touched by them and to do so in a manner so that our human touch needs can be met in acceptable ways.  Pets tend not to be as demanding as are many humans and are ready for the joys of touch at almost any time of the day and night.

In many ways, our society is not comfortable with the role of human sexuality and human touch.  Many people tend to equate one with the other.  There are few counselors, who have not seen the case where a person chose to participate in sexual behavior, even when not desiring to do so, just so that they can hug and be physically close to another human being.  

One can observe that many marriages fail since they were built primarily on this human need of touch (sex).  For some persons with certain value systems, getting married with the accompaniment of sex is the only way to have socially acceptable and extensive adult touch.

Society attempts to regulate acceptable ways of touch like massage and unacceptable ways like prostitution.  As usual with attempts to regulate what we humans all need to have healthy lives, most of these efforts to impose limitations have mixed outcomes.

So, like so many areas of our lives, we all strive to find ways to meet this natural human need.   Touch was needed at birth and will benefit us at death. 

Each of us must find our own unique path to meet this personal need while striving to live in a society where there are many different views on how this need should be met.

Comments welcome.   Email:  silverchatline@gmail.com

Communication Channels

While recently attending a holiday party, one of the questions that provoked a great of interaction dealt with the subject of communication and why we have so much difficulty having others understand us and why others can be so difficult to understand.

There probably as many different reasons for these difficulties as there are people.  Some are as basic as facing the reality that some individuals do not want to understand others.  Some have their own needs met by not being understandable by others.

If we accept the complexity of humans, then it is easy to see that there can be many complex and diverse reasons for humans to struggle to communicate effectively with each other.    After all, this continual struggle is one reason why Dr. Phil is popular and many psychologists have employment.

One idea that I often used in some of my classes was the comparison of human communication channels with those of radio and television. 

For example, at any time of the day and night the air is full of radio and television waves carrying all types of sound.   Unless we find a successful way to “tune in” to these waves, all we hear is silence. Broadcasting is a 24-hour operation.  Just because we cannot hear the sounds being broadcast, it does not mean that nothing is available.

As a human being, we must decide that we want to hear from another.  Many do not hear because they individually make the choice not to talk or listen.

If we decide we want to communicate, then we are faced with finding the correct tools/receivers for communicating.  Just having a tool does not guarantee that we will be successful in our efforts to communicate.  We may have a radio, but it will not bring in television signals.  A person may know how to listen, but there is no guarantee that they will chose to do so.

Even after we find the same tool as the other person, we then struggle to find the same channel.   As was happening at the aforementioned party, there were plenty of people talking, but few were on the same channel as the other person, so few were being heard. 

We each have our own favorite channels in communicating, so we automatically use them and not bother to find what channel another is using.  There is lots of noise in our world, but, just like the silent radio/television waves, we do not understand this noise until we use the correct channel.

If one wants to hear classical music, they would not select a channel that broadcasts political talk.  If we want to learn, we could choose a give-and-talk channel versus a channel where there is argument and only one point of view offered.

We get to choose the channel(s) on which we want to send out our thoughts and feelings to others.   If we are wise, we give them plenty of cues on where this channel can be found and we broadcast what we commit to offer. 

If we want to listen, we can go to specific channel or ‘spin the dial’ until we find something of interest.  The key remains the same:  each of us needs to be on the same channel if we are to effectively communicate.

Comments welcome.  Email:  silverchatline@gmail.com