Is Alzheimer's a legitimate excuse to divorce your spouse?

Discussion in 'Debate Corner' started by Boy Wonder, Sep 15, 2011.

  1. Boy Wonder Dark Phoenix in Training

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2008
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Genosha
    2,239
    [video=youtube;_qt_JCnRdCQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qt_JCnRdCQ&feature=player_embedded[/video]
    When I first saw the title, I was instantly thought "That's messed up."
    But I don't know, now I'm kind of torn. Better divorce than cheat, but is Alzheimer's actually a good reason to do that?
     
  2. Llave Superless Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Gender:
    Tired Dad
    4,107
    Well in the marrage vows, "For better or for worse" would imply that sort of deal. Alzheimer's is a really sad condition in that it affects not just the person who has it, but everyone who knows that person. I'd say no, because even if they can't remember, they are still your significant other. (Guess i'm a conservative when it comes to things like this)
     
  3. Boy Wonder Dark Phoenix in Training

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2008
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Genosha
    2,239
    Politically speaking, so is Pat Robertson.

    And yes, marriage vows even have the whole "in sickness and in health," but what happens when your spouse doesn't even remember you? Is the stress and heartache worth it? Not everyone gets The Notebook ending in this case.
     
  4. Iskandar King of Conquerors

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    1,090
    I think that he should stay with his wife. While she may not remember him, he can always help her get to know him again, can't he? I mean, this is litereally the whole "Sickness and in health" thing. Should he at least try to help his wife? Instead of just going to another person?
     
  5. Llave Superless Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Gender:
    Tired Dad
    4,107
    Well i think it comes down to your moral standpoint and how dedicated you are to your loved one. I personally am weary of the whole ideology of divorce as a whole, and i know stuff happens, but if i where in this situation, i would try to be as faithful to that person as i can be.

    Even if they don't have the memories of the children growing up, or all the birthdays and the family get togethers, i would, and preserving that is an honor. Sure it would be hard, but if you loved that person enough to dedicate the rest of your life with them, what's to say this doesn't apply?
     
  6. Daydreamer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    137
    Of course, according to marriage vows, no reason would be a legitimate reason to leave your spouse.

    I'm not one to marry, but I believe you should stay with a person cause you want to, not out of obligation. You should only stay with your partner if you still love him/her.

    Would you call a vegetable your significant other?
     
  7. ♥♦♣♠Luxord♥♦♣♠ Chaser

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    1,773

    I sure as hell would. Honestly seeing something like this is just sickening. Being that "sick" should only be more of a reason to stay with someone. Honestly if you are going to make those vows than be a man and stick with her. Plus its not like you can just throw someone away just because they have a problem or in this case are sick.

    Just the fact that the thought of a divorce went through his head makes me sick.
     
  8. Llave Superless Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Gender:
    Tired Dad
    4,107
    Yes, again, it is another hard thing to go through, but indeed i would. Thinking about that now, especially since i am not married, it seems far off and something to be quite honest, I hope won't happen to me or my loved ones. But it indeed would be hard, but the best answer is to stick with them, for their sake. They are the one you love afterall.

    I think people have a natrual tendency to give up when things get tough, that's why people want divorces, because they can't take the time to work things through. Of course there are some things that are different from others, but I truly think that sticking with them as long an as lovingly as possible is the best solution.

    Ultimately, it's your choice, i have no say what you can or cannot do. But if it where me, i think i would be with them till either one of us passes on...
     
  9. KeybladeSpirit [ENvTuber] [pngTuber]

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Gender:
    Girl ️‍⚧️
    Location:
    College
    2,178
    I'm not entirely sure on this either. On one hand, the vows say "And till death do us part," and that is very important, but on the other hand, what is the definition of death in that context? Does it necessarily have to refer to a physical death? Take, for example, these several interpretations of the Death Arcana in Tarot cards.
    All three interpretations that I've bolded are effects of Alzheimer syndrome. As a result, development of Alzheimers could, in this way, be considered a death and thus grounds for divorce. However, seeing as how I am not married and do not consider myself mature enough for marriage quite yet, I don't have an opinion on the matter.
     
  10. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    If you dedicate to stay with them till death do you part, then do.
    I don't know what I'd do personally, I may cheat on them, I may not. It would be tough, and heart aching, but I don't think I'd give in on them. Whether I cheat or not, I would stay with them.

    Would you really call a person with a mental illness a vegetable?
    A person with Alzehmiers is still a person. Would you treat them lesser for having something that they never wanted?
     
  11. Daydreamer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    137
    I don't really see a reason to say with a vegetable the rest of your life. "Be a man" as you call it is the exact type of obligation I was talking about, the only thing you are doing is denying yourself to be happy and find another. If a person changed into some I no longer loved, I would leave. Of course, I would only stay with a partner that would do the same with me if I ever changed.

    I was only comparing Alzheimer's with a person who's a vegetable. I was not calling a person with Alzheimer's a vegetable.
     
  12. Llave Superless Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Gender:
    Tired Dad
    4,107
    When i think of death, i assume the literal physical death.

    Marriage has gone on for centuries, and people's life expectancy wasn't as long as it is today. Most only would live to about 40 and be lucky to see 60. So death meant physical death, and i believe that vow still applies to today in that sense of death only.
     
  13. Daydreamer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    137
    I believe a a person is a person as soon as they have brain activity (my argument on abortion), and so I believe a person is dead when they cease to have any brain activity. Alzheimer's is a gray line for me.
     
  14. ♥♦♣♠Luxord♥♦♣♠ Chaser

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    1,773
    So all of the times you spent with them would then mean nothing. That is a very selfish way to live and I am pretty sure you wouldn't want someone that "loved" you to walk away when you need them most.
     
  15. Daydreamer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    137
    No, it does not mean nothing. I still loved that person in the time we presumably spent together, I just no longer love. I would want my partner to leave me if that person no longer loved me.

    EDIT: Just to elaborate on this post, would you want your partner to stay with you if you knew that he/she was no longer happy being with you?
     
  16. KeybladeSpirit [ENvTuber] [pngTuber]

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Gender:
    Girl ️‍⚧️
    Location:
    College
    2,178
    As I said, I have yet to develop an opinion on the matter. I'm only stating facts. However, I still feel the need to defend myself and the side that I suppose I've chosen to represent here. Would you say that everything means the same thing that it did when it was first written?
     
  17. Llave Superless Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Gender:
    Tired Dad
    4,107
    Indeed, when they meant "unto death do us part", they meant that. I fail to see why people would consider a brain dead patient not living, if the essence of living iself is breathing, and the heart is still functioning.

    The fact that someone would claim a person is dead if they no longer act and think (or have the ability thereof) as their "original" self, i find it repulsive. I believe it gets right down to one word that many loathe: Sacrifice.

    The fact of the matter is, people are selfish. Allow me to put it this way:

    Let's say I marry a woman whom i love, and we are faithful towards one another and we experience many things together like raising our children. There are the good times, there are the hard times, but through and through we make it safely to the end. However, she has an accident at the age of 53, and is brain dead. Since she can't function and knows not that i am her husband, it's completly ok for me to be with another woman.

    Your logic: because i want love, and i'm not getting it anymore from her, she was just a fountain of love for me. My feelings, my pleasures, and all i want was the only reason i was truly with her. But once that's gone, then i just go to the next fountain and bathe in more "love" till i die.

    That's not love guys, love is caring for a person so much that you would sacrifice anything for them. Love is not all about me, but all about you. That's why i would stick to her side till the end, not because she mentally dead, but because i love her. You cant' just throw all that away just because she can't remember or because she can't even function mentally.

    I understand some of you will feel strongly against this, but this is how i feel towards such a situation.
     
  18. KeybladeSpirit [ENvTuber] [pngTuber]

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Gender:
    Girl ️‍⚧️
    Location:
    College
    2,178
    And again, death has new meanings now. If you were to marry someone who twenty to thirty years later, for whatever reason, completely forgot that (s)he was ever married to you and even who you are with no chance of getting those memories back, that human would no longer be the same human mind that you married. Indeed, not being aware of the marriage, (s)he would be more likely to leave you than to continue living with a human who (s)he doesn't recognize in the slightest. In that case, divorce would not only be justified, but necessary for you to have any chance of having ANY kind of relationship with him/her. And after all, love, in marriage, must be mutual. You can continue to love the human even after divorce. Such a divorce would go under the pretense of "I'll always love you, but you clearly can't love me and so I have no right to say that we're married." According to the classes I've taken on the subject, the key to a marriage is not love, but mutual love. If the love is not shared by both parties, neither has the right to be married to the other. If they did, then all arranged marriages throughout history in which the bride or groom (or both, on occasion) was not okay with it are justified.
     
  19. Llave Superless Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Gender:
    Tired Dad
    4,107
    Well now the tide is turning to; not remembering in the slightest as who you once were, and still functioning as a normal person, almost like having amnesia.

    I was refering to someone that wasn't capable of that, much like on their "death bed" and can't remember who you are.

    I guess it just depends on how you react to the situation and what you decide for yourself...
     
  20. Daydreamer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    137
    I agree, mutual love was the phrase I was looking for. To continue to "be married" after a party falls out of love or to completely forgets they were in love is not a marriage at all. For example, if I stop loving my spouse for whatever reason, that spouse no longer has the right to call me his/her significant other.

    EDIT: Although, there could be periods of lucidness...

    It's never a black or white answer.