"People will sooner aid a sick dog lying on the sidewalk than to try to find shelter for a sick person. It's too much to deal with"

Michael Zaslow’s observation sharply critiques social attitudes toward empathy and responsibility. When confronted with suffering, whether of an animal or a fellow human, people respond in markedly different ways. Seeing a sick dog on the sidewalk often stirs spontaneous compassion; passersby are likely to stop, comfort the animal, or call for help. There's a perceived innocence and helplessness in animals, making their distress evoke a more immediate, uncomplicated urge to intervene. The situation is straightforward, the action required is clear, and society offers communal approval for showing such kindness.

Confronting a sick person, however, is a far more complicated encounter. The roots of their suffering can appear more tangled, perhaps rooted in homelessness, addiction, mental health, or poverty. Each of these complexities may evoke discomfort, fear, and even judgment, all of which act as emotional barriers. Whereas helping an animal seems simple and safe, helping a sick person might require far more: time, emotional investment, and exposure to risk. One might have to navigate systems of bureaucracy or confront the failures of social safety nets. People may worry about being overwhelmed, about not knowing how to help, or even about being held responsible if things go wrong.

Perhaps most revealing is the underlying evasion: “It’s too much to deal with.” This phrase speaks to the burden individuals feel when faced with the enormity of human suffering. The tendency is to detach or justify inaction as a form of self-preservation, preferring the manageable compassion offered to animals over the daunting responsibility of caring for vulnerable humans. Society may also subtly reinforce these behaviors by providing more visible acknowledgments and support for helping animals, while failing to sufficiently address systemic issues that trap people in cycles of hardship.

Zaslow’s reflection is ultimately a mirror of collective conscience, questioning not only our priorities but the limits we place on our own humanity and the expectations of kindness. The choice to help a dog, and hesitate for a human, reveals uncomfortable truths about societal values and the challenge of recognizing and acting upon shared responsibility for one another.