The parents' years of belittling and comparing the client to his brother have created deep wounds. Now, when they face financial hardship, they expect him to forget the past and bail them out. The client is not obligated to erase years of emotional neglect simply because they are in need. He has every right to prioritize his own well-being after a lifetime of being made to feel inadequate.
The defendant conveniently omits the fact that his parents provided for him throughout his childhood and education. While parental favoritism may have been present, it doesn't excuse abandoning one's parents in their time of need. His refusal to help is not about emotional scars; it's about petty revenge masked as self-preservation. He is holding their past actions hostage for financial gain.
The parents' past behavior undoubtedly contributed to the current situation. However, filial piety dictates a certain level of responsibility towards one's parents, especially when they are in dire straits. While the court acknowledges the emotional damage inflicted, a complete refusal to assist is unduly harsh. The son has a right to his feelings, but the parents deserve consideration, even if they were imperfect.