Every man for himself. Each for the other. With these little phrases, Michel-Marc Bouchard has well imagined, in his libretto of the new opera The beauty of the world, the characters that spread out when the human is confronted with adversity. Like the plot of this work, each citizen had the opportunity to answer for themselves or for the other during the pandemic. This dichotomy, which may seem primary, remains vivid. From the mask to the vaccine, from requests for privileges at work to self-sacrifice by continuing to serve citizens in the grip of physical, psychological and social disorders. It is an allegory that shows us that the so-called social objectives are decided by a ruling pack, demanded as a right by a majority and ensured by a minority.
Our society includes young and less young people who ” game or surf long hours, unaware of non-virtual life. They are legion to extract themselves from the reality of life, which is sometimes dark, occasionally radiant, but necessarily imbued with humanity and feelings, sometimes truthful, sometimes feigned, often repressed, rarely left in full expression.
It is an important observation that the veracity of feelings and emotions is in decline in our society, more influenced by social media, the metaverse and the plasticity of the Web than by proven human interactions. Every man for himself is an easy, privileged option, offered without consequence. Despite this strong tangent, a portion of the population continues to choose the other, to take as a schedule and a source of income a job that offers direct help to the other.
I’m not talking here about customer service, which is a corporate obligation. I am talking about people who invest time in acquiring training, in creating links, in spending most of their life in a helping relationship. Social work, orderly, nursing, medicine. Every day, trying to help by risking professional complaint and personal integrity. Why ?
Confuse will and right
Quebec likes to compare its social programs by qualifying them as collective wills. But the meaning of collectivism generally comes down to paying taxes, not investing personally, professionally or voluntarily in these social missions. Word will disappears when the time comes to include themselves in the solution.
The health network is, everyone agrees, called upon more than it should be to serve our “collective desires”. It’s a misnomer. Citizens confuse will and right. Demanding services and care can be legitimate, but is rarely followed by gestures to participate: donate to a foundation, serve as a volunteer, participate in discussions, propose and implement compensatory measures for a network at risk of rupture.
Health remains, despite the breaches that are the payment of drugs and the emergence of private care, the most important government program, I dare not say society, which is based on free. The outcome of the right to health then seems to impose a public feeling of ownership. This leads to forgetting the fact that this right is exercised thanks to the expertise and dedication of people who are unduly reminded of their duty to “each for the other” more than the intention to compensate and adequately support. Each for the other is a personal call. The sense of vocation should not be invoked by leaders who use it to demand the gift of self beyond reason.
Many psychologists, who more than others should know how to curb feelings and expectations, leave the network out of spite, denigration and disrespect. If this is their daily life, imagine that of nurses and doctors who have to explain on a daily basis not being able to offer what they consider necessary, in quantity and quality, acting without adequate support from organizations torn apart, without resources and who operate under constant political constraint.
So why choose the other? The human spirit fits like this, for some. But the experience of recent civil society demonstrates that little is done to support this human activity which nevertheless defines the essence of our social interactions.
The best and the worst of humanity
As the holidays approach, the majority of citizens will have time off. Many, by choice of the other, will work. And few will think of the negotiations that will take place to recognize them and compensate them adequately. When it comes to negotiating recognition of their contribution, surprisingly, verbal empathy will fade. Nurses, laboratory technicians, doctors will be renewing their conditions in a few months. It’s a safe bet that the government will ignore all their input during the pandemic.
As family reunions take place and you come across healthcare workers, ask them if they would choose another career or profession if it were to be done over again. Ask yourself why psychologists are leaving the public network, why nurses are joining agencies that promote flexible hours, why 400 more doctors than expected are retiring in 2022.
Ask yourself who will be there to choose the other, to care for a person, even you or a loved one, if nothing is done to help those who choose the other. The right to health must be combined with daily respect for those who provide care. Adequately compensate, support, value, recognize.
Life is a series of choices. Ours and those of others that affect us. The pandemic has, in my opinion, brought out the best and the worst in humanity. By prioritizing resources to develop a vaccine quickly and develop new treatments, but also by leaving room for the basest instincts of selfishness and individualism. What will prevail after the current social changes? Will our collective will translate into acts of collective solidarity or primary invective? This type of choice will be reflected in our individual and collective ability to choose the other.