"My dear parents," said his sister, slapping her hands on the table by way of introduction, "things can't go on like this. Perhaps you don't realize that, but I do. I won't utter my brother's name in the presence of this creature, and so all I say is: we must try to get rid of it. We've tried to look after it and to put up with it as far as is humanly possible, and I don't think anyone could reproach us in the slightest." (p.133)
- from 'The Metamorphosis' by F. Kafka
My interpretation of the given quote above can be naive and may not bear relevance to the context behind the narrative, but here's what I think every time I come back to this novel.
To give you a brief background, this quote is what Grete, Gregor Samsa's sister, had to say after all the familial matters ensuing the 'metamorphosis' of his brother from human being to a mere creature. Overall, I construe the quote cited above as symbolization of a nowadays relationship between people with some disability and their caretakers.
As an 'inevitable option' or 'the last benevolent treatment' she, as a member of Gregor's family, could offer him in this quagmire, 'removal' of the disabled person is justified due to limits of caretakers' capacity to look after the suffering of the beloved one, and at worst culminating in the tragic outcome we'd see in the news reports in today's society.
By extension, it is perhaps possible to reconfigure the theme of this short novel into the following one: Will caretakers be excused for 'giving up' their duty to nursing the disabled person (including the extreme case of a murderous outcome, for example) even when s/he has an autonomous will to live and hence never wishes for euthanasia?
This moral dilemma will deserve a great deal of attention, given the locus of responsibility to support the lives of disabled people is still contentious even today and the concept of responsibility in itself is highly debatable. Without a doubt, sufferers have been affected by their unexplainable agonies against their will. Whether it be intellectual, mental or physical, the dysfunctional state of human health damages their identity as an independent-minded individual, let alone their self-esteem.
Caretakers also share with them the same burden, yet still an objective perspective. Seen from a realistic viewpoint, they have to occasionally aide suffers lifestyles, or, in the most serious cases, attend to their activity all day. To do them justice, there is a number of strenuous aspects in re-establishing and maintaining a closer relationship with their invaluable member of family.
As a matter of fact, this endeavor often turns into the irksome pangs of conscience. For every person has their own lives, and caretakers are indubitably no exceptions here. Nobody is indefatigable, too. In times, they could opt out to relinquish all the responsibilities to take care of the suffering member of their family at home, and relocate him/her to another place, i.g. medical institutions, cottages, and so forth. At worst, however, they may end up dehumanizing sufferers, as in the case of the Samsa's, and subsequently mistreat them with malignant intentions or even appeal to the ultimate resort with a tragic outcome.
To conclude, when we talk of including the disabled people as a respectable citizen of society and entitled with human dignity, we need to be reminded that it's not only sufferers alone who are excluded and often become the object of a pejorative gaze from society overall, but also their family who is responsible for attending to them all the time.
This is even more so when society is reluctant to ameliorate welfare services for their sake and the general public linger on their often uncorroborated sense of normality which encourages itself to constantly stigmatize any individuals with abnormal traits and their supporters. I think we have plenty of rooms for discussing how we can restructure our society in the hope of tolerating manifold ways of human existence.
