Tagore, from Stray Birds, CCXIX Society's Contributions to Defensiveness Until now we have looked at the individual human reaction to death and dying. If we now take a look at our society, we may want to ask ourselves what happens to man in a society bent on ignoring or avoiding death. What factors, if any, contribute to an increasing anxiety in relation to death? What happens in a changing field of medicine, where we have to ask ourselves whether medicine is to remain a humanitarian and respected profession or a new but depersonalized science n the service of prolonging life rather than diminishing human suffering? Where the medical students have a choice of dozens of lectures on RNA and dna but less experience in the simple doctor-patient relationship that used to be the alphabet for every successful family physician? What happens in a society that puts more emphasis on IQ and class-standing than on simple matters of tact, sensitivity, perceptiveness, and good taste in the management of the suffering? In a professional society where the young medical student is admired for his research and laboratory work during the first years of medical school while he is at a loss for words when a patient asks him a simple question? If we could combine the teaching of the new scientific and technical achievements with equal emphasis on interpersonal human relationships we would indeed make progress, but not if the new knowledge is conveyed to the student at the price of less and less interpersonal contact. What is going to become of a society which puts the emphasis on numbers and masses, rather than on the individual-where medical schools hope to enlarge their classes, where the trend is away from the teacher-student contact, which is replaced by closed-circuit television teaching, recordings, and movies, all of which can teach a greater number of students in a snore depersonalized manner This change of focus from the individual to the masses has been more dramatic in other areas of human interaction. If we take a look at the changes that have taken place in the last decades, we can notice it everywhere. In the old days a man was able to face his enemy eye to eye. He had a fair chance in a personal encounter with a visible enemy. Now the soldier as well as the civilian has to anticipate weapons of mass destruction which offer no one a reasonable chance, often not even awareness of their approach. Destruction can strike out of the blue skies and destroy thousands like the bomb at Hiroshima; it may come in the form of gases or other means of chemical warfare invisible crippling, killing. It is no longer the man who fights for his rights, his convictions, or the safety or honor of his family, it is the nation including its women and children who are in the war affected directly or indirectly without a chance of survival. This is how science and technology have contributed to an ever increasing fear of destruction and therefore fear of death Is it surprising, then, that man has to defend himself more? If his ability to defend himself physically is getting smaller and smaller, his psychological defenses have to increase manifoldly He cannot maintain denial forever. He cannot continuously and successfully pretend that he is safe If we cannot deny death we may attempt to master it. We may join the race on the highways, we may read the death toll over national holidays and shudder, but also rejoice -"It was the other guy not me. I made itTagore, from Stray Birds, CCXIX Society's Contributions to Defensiveness Until now we have looked at the individual human reaction to death and dying. If we now take a look at our society, we may want to ask ourselves what happens to man in a society bent on ignoring or avoiding death. What factors, if any, contribute to an increasing anxiety in relation to death? What happens in a changing field of medicine, where we have to ask ourselves whether medicine is to remain a humanitarian and respected profession or a new but depersonalized science in the service of prolonging life rather than diminishing human suffering? Where the medical students have a choice of dozens of lectures on RNA and DNA but less experience in the simple doctor-patient relationship that used to be the alphabet for every successful family physician? What happens in a society that puts more emphasis on IQ and class-standing than on simple matters of tact, sensitivity, perceptiveness, and good taste in the management of the suffering? In a professional society where the young medical student is admired for his research and laboratory work during the first years of medical school while he is at a loss for words when a patient asks him a simple question? If we could combine the teaching of the new scientific and technical achievements with equal emphasis on interpersonal human relationships 10 we would indeed make progress, but not if the new knowledge is conveyed to the student at the price of less and less interpersonal contact. What is going to become of a society which puts the emphasis on numbers and masses, rather than on the individual-where medical schools hope to enlarge their classes, where the trend is away from the teacher-student contact, which is replaced by closed-circuit television teaching, recordings, and movies, all of which can teach a greater number of students in a snore depersonalized manner? This change of focus from the individual to the masses has been more dramatic in other areas of human interaction. If we take a look at the changes that have taken place in the last decades, we can notice it everywhere. In the old days a man was able to face his enemy eye to eye. He had a fair chance in a personal encounter with a visible enemy. Now the soldier as well as the civilian has to anticipate weapons of mass destruction which offer no one a reasonable chance, often not even an awareness of their approach. Destruction can strike out of the blue skies and destroy thousands like the bomb at Hiroshima; it may come in the form of gases or other means of chemical warfare￾invisible crippling, killing. It is no longer the man who fights for his rights, his convictions, or the safety or honor of his family, it is the nation including its women and children who are in the war affected directly or indirectly without a chance of survival. This is how science and technology have contributed to an ever increasing fear of destruction and therefore fear of death. Is it surprising, then, that man has to defend himself more? If his ability to defend himself physically is getting smaller and smaller, his psychological defenses have to increase manifoldly. He cannot maintain denial forever. He cannot continuously and successfully pretend that he is safe. If we cannot deny death we may attempt to master it. We may join the race on the highways, we may read the death toll over national holidays and shudder, but also rejoice - "It was the other guy, not me, I made it