It has always been a point of conflict between what I wanted to believe and what actually played out before my eyes. At this point in my life, I sometimes do conclude that after a read of the facts. It's a matter of thinking about what "failed by the system" implies rather than just stopping at the initial empathetic feelings and being threatened by anything that questions them. Does it mean that the person couldn't have made it without the system? Did they objectively not have what it takes to survive without a civilized outer source to fill it in? Did they have the ability to make it, but were blocked from accessing it by something beyond or within their control? What is the real duty of this assumed support system that failed a person, and how flexible is that duty in response to people's situations and the causes of them?
I'm glad to think that someone else asks those questions, I also add the list of questions whether or not, because "failed by the system" is often deployed as a judgement upon the individuals who operate as "the system" and also a resource question, ie "more money/spending needed".
There are some situations or legacies which I think more spending or more resources per se will not change or ameliorate, these are the social equivalent of health problems which are of an order for which palliative care can be the only response, the ways in which increases in spending are managed can be part of another unacknowledged "system fail" too for people working within the system and people receiving services from it.
The other point about judging those individuals who constitute "the system", I think this is often a kind of "magical" thinking, expectations can be wildly inaccurate and impractical of anyone who is considered complicit in someone being "failed by the system", people are only human and despite great efforts to correct it often the service anyone receives has more to do with "the individual and not the office".
Does suffering, on merit of being painful and above all other considerations, morally obligate the alleviation of it as soon as possible, by whatever means necessary? It's not just a question for innocent little girls to bump into. It's also a question we deal with on a great scale, that cultures vacillate over and mediate.
I do think that there is a moral imperative to eliminate avoidable suffering, although whether any sort of suffering is avoidable or unavoidable is a question for discussion and even disputation, some sorts of suffering are simply natural consequences, seeking to eliminate those is a dead end, doing so can cause some sorts of suffering to persist, perhaps not in the individual but as a social phenomenon.
I'm just feeling really lucky that I get paid to do what I do. So excited to translate for parents today! Is this real life?! Hopefully none of them are from the Caribbean though, or I'll be kinda screwed. I have a really hard time with Spanish from that region.
You hem me in -- behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.
YES! I'm not ecstatic that our AC crapped out during the hottest spell of the summer, but I am pretty thrilled that I get to work from home in the afternoon to wait for the repair man!! (Luckily we have a window unit in our bedroom, and the basement stays pretty cool, so I won't have to swelter while I wait!)
Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.