On Positive Rights -How to Lose Friends and Anger People

      Rachel decided early in life that her purpose was to serve others. This purpose came naturally to her; she liked helping people. By the time she entered med school at the age of twenty-one, she had already volunteered more hours in clinics and hospitals than were needed for graduation.

      Rachel’s approach extended to her social circle. She did not seek to have a lot of friends or be the center of attention, but she often was. She was gifted at picking up on the struggles and needs of people around her. Rachel thoughtfully listened to, empathized with, and counseled many, from closest confidant to newest acquaintance.

      As Rachel’s medical career took off, various friends and patients encouraged her to seek public office. She was elected to a local position and began spending many hours advocating for her constituents. Her steady compassion and reasoned arguments earned her the admiration of supporters and the respect of opponents.

      It was an exciting time for Rachel. Yet there were changes occurring on the national level that were beyond her control. Both political parties were agitating for what they called a more just system. “Why should people go without healthcare?” they asked. “Healthcare is a human right!” “Why should people have to live alone and in despair? Compassion is a human right!” “Why should we tolerate bad politicians? Representation is a human right!”

      Rachel was uncomfortable with these seemingly innocuous ideas that could be taken to extremes. But her constituents supported them, and she was just a local politician. What was she to do?

      Rachel met a young man, and the two fell in love. As her wedding day drew near, new laws were being deliberated in Congress. One law, declaring healthcare a human right, passed just a few days before the wedding.

      Rachel had secured time off and enlisted other doctors to care for her patients. The day before her wedding, however, several doctors did not show up for work. As Rachel prepared for her rehearsal dinner, the hospital administrator called, ordering her to come to work because several critical cases needed her immediate attention. Rachel countered that other doctors were prepared to handle these, but the administrator insisted that she come in. Rachel was the best medical provider for these patients, he reasoned. He threatened to prosecute her if she violated the patients’ right to healthcare.

      Rachel relented, leaving her matron of honor to take her part in the wedding rehearsal. Thus began her new life with her husband, a life that continued to be more stressful than they had anticipated.

      But the young couple was very happy. They soon announced that they would be having a child and started preparations for their parental responsibilities. They arranged their work and social schedules so that everything would be in order for the child’s arrival. Rachel spent extra time with many of her friends and acquaintances, to make sure that they were well and happy so they would not need her counsel while she cared for her child.

      The child was born, and the couple entered into their duties of love and care for this new little person, only to find those duties interrupted. Rachel, still in the maternity ward, received a call from a friend who had been rudely dumped by her long-term boyfriend. She pleaded for Rachel’s listening ear and advice.

      Rachel kindly explained that she could not help; she had to care for her new child! But a new law had passed, identifying compassion as a basic human right. A police officer at the hospital, overhearing Rachel’s response to her friend, reminded her of the requirement to show compassion to anyone in need of it. Despite the young couple’s protests and the baby’s cries, the officer seized Rachel and took her to her distraught friend. Rachel narrowly escaped jail time.

      Demands for medical and emotional care increased, yet the young family persevered, embodying the value of service that they had chosen and that society had enshrined in law. Rachel’s political star continued to rise. Despite her protests that she already had too many responsibilities, her party nominated her for regional governor.

      The race was close, and tensions ran high. Rachel’s opponent was credibly accused of rigging the election. Many of her supporters insisted that the opponent be eliminated for violation of another new law, which declared that effective political representation was a human right.

      The day of the election came, and Rachel lost by a narrow margin. The next morning she called her opponent to concede. It was Easter Sunday, and she went to church with her family as news of the election results spread.

      Rachel and her family were observant Christians. They always attended church on Sundays, and Easter was especially important to them. Their belief in Christ and the innate dignity of the human person was the foundation for their dedicated service to others. But midway through the Easter service, a mob of angry supporters marched into the church. They demanded that Rachel contest the election immediately, as election rules required that this be done within the hour.

      Rachel flatly refused, then begged the fuming crowd to leave the service peacefully. Ignoring her pleas, they lifted her up, her infant in her arms, and started to carry her out of the church. Her husband tried to stop them but was quickly subdued. Rachel and her baby cried.

      As the crowd exited the church with their prize held aloft, they started to chant, “Representation is a human right!” They raised clenched fists as they yelled, “Representation!” Then clapping quickly, once for each syllable, they declared, “Is a human right.” Even the people carrying Rachel and her child joined in the chant. Many let go of her to raise their fists and clap, and the few still holding her lost their balance. Rachel clutched her child tightly as she and the baby fell from their grasp. Rachel’s head hit hard on the floor.

      The demonstrators tried to revive their champion, crowding in close around her. In Rachel’s last moments of consciousness, she wrapped her body around her child as protection from the clumsy hands and feet that surrounded them.

      Rachel suffered brain injuries from which she would never fully recover. Medical experts with the skills to rehabilitate her had left the country due to its stringent demands on healthcare providers. Rachel’s patients suffered without her care, many passing away prematurely. Her friends and confidants were left to manage their personal struggles on their own. The political situation devolved into bickering, rhetoric, and street-level violence.

      Those for whom Rachel had cared mourned the loss of her abilities. Few were able or willing to care for her now that she was in need. “The government should care for her,” they declared with conviction. “Healthcare is a human right.”