9/11, Guilt, And Pseudoscience

Today (at least the day this was written) is 9/11. It is a day that all of us who lived through it, especially the families of those directly affected, will always remember. It will be noted in future history books, and as part of the American heritage; it is be part of what our children will be taught as they learn of the travails through which we have gone.

Our resolve has stiffened. We will not succumb to the fear that those who attacked us sought. We will pay the price necessary, whatever it is, to shore up our defenses against future attacks. And we will remember those who perished in the attack, and those who risked, and often gave, their lives to protect us (and that includes those who fight to protect us) – the police, firefighters, private citizens, the military, and anyone who participated. They have made us stronger and more determined, and our gratitude is without bounds.

And that's the problem.

I don't mean it that way, but this will sound heretical. It's likely to be considered insensitive, blasphemous, and unappreciative. But we sometimes don't know how to react to tragedy so we try to pay our way out. We try to assuage our guilt with ceremony, and money. I can't fault the ceremony: it's good for the families of survivors, for politicians, and as a public penance for our remorse. It serves many purposes the most important of which – for the country at least – is the show of unity and determination, lest those who oppose us would be tempted to repeat their act.

I understand the grief felt by the survivors and by the families of those who perished. They're entitled to the recognition they have received, and there is no way we can fully express our gratitude to them. But we try. Indeed, as I noted above, “our gratitude is without bounds.”

So we try to payoff those who have suffered. We do that by designating the sickness and death of participants, whatever the cause, as “9/11 related.” Perhaps sometimes it is. But simply because something happened to those we revere – to people who selflessly struggled to save strangers and to protect us all – doesn't mean that the cause was that act. People get diseases, people die all the time. They suffer from processes that afflict those who were never involved in the courageous acts of these heroes, people who are often afflicted with the same ailments. Which means that some of the first-responders probably would have suffered from them and, perhaps, died even if they had stayed home. But we'll never know which ones.

We have adopted a post hoc propter hoc mentality. Out of sympathy, gratitude, and guilt we have chosen to set up funds for those involved to show that we care. It's unscientific, but it's probably necessary and appropriate. Whether there is any relationship between the initial incident and the current suffering cannot be ascertained, so we assume that one exists and, out of taxpayer money, we pay for it. We owe it to them. The politicians who support legislation to do so are recognized as caring; those who might prefer better scientific evidence of a relationship remain quiet. Scientific caution would be seen as unpatriotic, and they would suffer in the next election.

If this were an isolated incident it would be tolerable. If we simply honored those who had acted bravely and on our behalf we could justify our generosity. Rewarding those whose concern was for others – for us – seems a matter of virtue.

Unfortunately the linking of events and responsibilities has become an industry. It may be a chronic systemic autoimmune disease which follows breast enhancement, or bleeding following the use of a (necessary) anticoagulant; it may be the presence of ovarian cancer in a woman who has used talcum powder, or a heart attack in a policeman. Whether any of these events represents cause and effect is not known. In some case the answer is unequivocally “no” since, despite newspaper articles and public suspicions, there is no scientific evidence of a relationship, but there is always some “scientist” willing to testify to cause based on anecdotal evidence, or to testify at least to the possibility of a relationship. And a sympathetic jury is willing to draw from the deepest pockets around to pay off the victim of some horrible disease or other event.

There are many to blame for the phenomenon. It's not simply a matter of public guilt and solicitude, though these play a large part. After all, who – what jury member – in the position of the plaintiff, wouldn't want a large windfall. But there are other contributors. These include less than candid corporations that withhold information, law firms that will benefit from the payout (you hear their ads on the radio all the time advising us that we may be entitled to compensation from some company), and “experts” who testify to the possibility of a relationship even when there is no proof. But the plaintiff is suffering whether or not there is unequivocal proof, so let's just pay.

Like the sympathy for 9/11 victims, we show our concern for all who suffer – as long as we don't have to pay for it ourselves. We feel virtuous and it doesn't cost us. And the litigators make out like bandits, through law suits or the threat of such suits. Meanwhile we have no need to feel any guilt. Society has done its part to correct the situation. And if someone has to pay the price, that's all right. Even if there was no responsibility in this particular instance, it existed elsewhere and wasn't punished. We'll help even the score.