Vaccination: The future of the young Nation, but have Mercy on the Old

Recently a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court ruled that the younger generation should be vaccinated first, as they are the future of the nation. But the elderly were given priority in vaccination. However, this does not mean that the lives of the elderly are not important.

By law, we should save everyone, but when it comes to choosing, the youth should choose. You are right. Parents, grandparents also save their children first than their lives.

But it is an emotional issue. How can the courts decide whose life is valuable in the family and whose is not? Anyway, Lord, what is the condition of old people in this country, you must have known. If you want to know more, then read the help page report only.

Till now, he has always been happy with the progressive and social reform decisions of the courts. Keep writing continuously. Your own courts spread across the country have ruled from time to time that children are not owners of the property of the parents until the parents give it to them.

Nor can they make arbitrary claims on their acquired property. Apart from this, those judgments have also been given by your own courts that if the children do not take proper care of the parents, then they cannot live with them.

Governments give old-age pension to helpless old people. Then even this money should be given to the unemployed youth by the governments.

The truth is, when governments decided that the first vaccine should be given to the elderly because they have low immunity, it was right. Many Western countries have also done so. But that decision was met with a variety of politics.

We saw the plight of old people in Italy in the first wave of Corona. Similar reports had also come from New York. Now in our country, the courts are stamping on such decisions that first give the vaccine to the youth. Old people have lived their lives.

It was also said that if a person in the house is eighty years old and one is young, who will be saved first. That is, in the homes where there are old people, it is the moral duty of the family and also of the governments to leave them to die.

After all, using all the resources of these old men, the youth could grow, study, get jobs. Suppose in their youth they also become so selfish and do not take care of the children, then where would the youth of today be?

And will the youth of today not be old tomorrow?

Has anyone tied the age?

What example will this decision set in the practice of life?

Many children leave their family members helpless, not caring for them. Leave aside treatment, many old people are deprived of even enough food or are pushed and sent to old age homes.

I know many elders who take shelter in a temple on a hot summer afternoon or in a street corner or park because the women of the family tell them not to stay at home in the afternoon.

You must have read the stories of Japan, where old people were left on high mountains to die. In any case, governments often express the great idea that old people are a burden on the economy. Japan and China openly say that they are worried about the ageing population and their longevity.

Maybe we are on the same path. In our country, it is said that 23 per cent are elderly. When they need votes, resources, then they are respected and later home, family, society deserves the most. But why?

Courts are known for their humane decisions, but it seems that the prescribed Vanaprastha system for old age is still sitting in the minds of many people.