[roenxi]

There is haggling to be done on the specific words though; I'm going to dispute that care of the elderly is tied to the Western conception of rights. The Western concept, particularly in places like France and the Anglosphere, is tied freedom of action and from interference that came about when the monarchies were de-toothed. A good classic benchmark of what rights look like, the US Bill of Rights, only guaranteed a level of protection from government and law enforcement as opposed to saying that people deserved some standard of comfort or whatever.

Care of the elderly is a recognition of the fundamental importance of individual dignity and the value of character. This is an inherent quality of individuality, as opposed to a right which is somewhat granted by an external entity [^]. Claiming people have a 'right' to someone else taking a positive action on their behalf isn't a universal Western value, or if it is it is reasonably modern. The idea is old, but historically it probably had a different name (likely tied in with religious community, for example).

[^] You can be denied your rights, but you can't be denied the fact that you are in individual with dignity and importance.

[rlpb]

> ...the US Bill of Rights, only guaranteed a level of protection from government and law enforcement as opposed to saying that people deserved some standard of comfort or whatever.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights for more on this.