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

This got me thinking, in France when people marry there' s a ceremony at the city hall. They can also have a ceremony in a church but that' s optional. The mayor does not make the couple swear to stay with each other "in sickness or in health". Only priests do that, so technically you can marry someone without making any particular oath. Is it the same in the United States or is the religious ceremony required ?

 

When I was taking about marriage, I was referring to the commitment made by two people. Marriage is a contract between two people in the states, a legal transaction. A ceremony or oath is up to each individual couple. So, people's definition of marriage might not be the same. For some it might just be a piece of paper.

 

Is that all marrage is to you? A contract? A business deal where you can back out the moment a stipulation of the contract is violated? Its a commitment. A pledge, to yourself and your partner. Such a commitment is not to be taken lightly. Its an oath.

Also, why divorce them if you still love and care for them? Its not asking I you should love them, but if you should divrce them. Its silly to "Be there for them" oh by the way I'm divorcing you.

What does that tell your family? Your children? Your spouses family? Think, years down the road. Someon divorces your sister, because she had alzheimers. What do you think of her husbnd? Is he a loving man? Or did he just take the first boat out when the situation got tough.

Although it may not be a public declaration, couples swear loyalty to eachothr all the time. I doubt anyone would marry anyone without reassurancethat their partner would always be there for them. It is possible, but if that was the case, where they could not make such an oath to eachothr even in private, why even bother getting married?

 

To say it again, you are not divorcing them, you're already divorced. You can't have a marriage with an unwilling partner.

Is it more important for couples to remain married than to love each other? I think it's much better to be there for someone cause you want to, not because of commitment. And couples can be together without commitment, to take it on faith that the other will always be there for you. To have no need for insurance.

 

Good point.

My parents did make such a promise, I' d say they deeply love each other. However my father made us all swear that if he ever was turned into a vegetable, or something along those lines, we would just dump him in a hospital or a care center rather than take care of him ourselves. He was dead serious, he really made us SWEAR. The mere thought that he could become what he views as a huge burden to us is literally unbearable to him. My mother didn' t make us swear anything to her that day, she just said she thought the same way.

 

Ok, this is getting frustrating.

Thats what entire discussion is about. Nothing else.

Not whether you are technically already divorced.

If your partner never told you "I will be there for you," or much more so, even implied it, you have no reason to assume they will be there. And therefore, you have no reason to marry them.

Its not a matter of whats better. its a matter of what HAS TO BE DONE! Leaving them, is the same as killing them. If anything, pulling out a weapon, and murdering them yourself is more merciful than divorcing them publically, and acting accordingly. Taking the step towards divorce, is a public declaration that you no longer have a commitment to them. If you intend to stay commited and support them, then why take the time to go out of your way to file for divorce. Why anyone would do that makes no sense, unless they intended on abandoning them.

 

People who build relationships based on emotions instead of promises have no need to get married.

Your marriage ends when your partner no longer loves you. I would think you would have a legal and moral obligation to file for divorce since I don't think you would have the right to call yourselves married. You can still keep your commitments to your partner, but the marriage has ended because your partner no longer can keep his/her commitments to you.

People do not have to act in a certain way after divorce. There are no rules somewhere that say what to do. Divorce does not mean leave to never be seen again.

 

Because they need love ? Love is an interaction, it isn' t just about sex (physical interaction), it' s also about intellectual and emotional interactions (an exchange of moral support, advices, tenderness, deeply personal confidences ... ), something that neither whores, family nor friends can fully give you. If your wife has a severe Alzheimer you' ll never be able to give nor receive most of those things to/from her anymore. If you miss those interactions (that' s a rhetorical "if", of course you' d miss them) and happen to fall in love with someone else then you' d better divorce to entertain this newfound relationship without feeling like you' re cheating, which doesn' t prevent you to often check on your ex-wife and make sure she' s is in good hands. I see how this may rise eyebrows, but morally it looks like grey area to me.

 

You are saying they need to be watched 24/7.
That means that you would have to quit your job.
How is it possible to make it work out?
Do you mean that you should go to work while having your spouse taken care of in some sort of facility? Because that's the only way I can imagine you'd be able to take care of someone with alzheimers. Because they need to be watched, 24/7/365. It doesn't matter if you stay with them when you come back from work, because they will have no pleasure of seeing you. You mean nothing more than a nurse do to her.

On another note;
I think what Patman's father said pretty much nails what love really is. It is selflessness, and I believe this. You might not think I do, but the thing your partner would want you to do, is to leave her and be as happy as you can. Anything else would be selfish. I'm not saying that leaving them isn't selfish, not at all, but when your partner was mentally healthy, that's what they would've wanted you to do.

 

The primary definition is the one were discussing.

You are declaring yourself free of all obligations, one of which to look after the wellbeing of your spouse.

The spouse needs people looking after his/her wellbeing more than ever.

I dont see how you are so deliberatly blind to the injustice in that.

 

I think that in no way is Alzheimer's is a legit reason to get a divorce with the person you married. There's no good reason for it, only pissass excuses and failing at life. If one married another person, they married them for better or for worse, I think Alzheimer's falls under the category of worse.

"Oh hey, I'm gonna start forgetting everything when I get older, do you still wanna marry me?"
"Well . . ."

No, that's just ridiculous and shallow. You married the person because you loved them right? Well, that's usually the case. What I'm saying is anyone who does divorce their spouse for something that can't be helped is a sorry excuse for a human.

 

I take back what I said about being obligated to get a divorce. If your spouse can't take care of him/herself, you should have a legal say on what happens to them, like what medical procedures will be allowed to have done to them.

 

I was in psychology the other day and we were researching a guy by the name "Clive Wearing" and he doesn't have Alzheimers but he had amnesia meaning he could not make new memories and his past was very unclear to him but he could still recall some things. His wife got very depressed about it because everytime she came in he would have a slight recognition about her and act like he hadn't seen her in years ever time she came in yet would say he had no idea who she was. She would try having conversations with him but he would usually forget what she said before he could answer or they would get into a fight because he would yell about having no recollection of anything. To him he was only unconsious for all this time. Anyway, his wife became very upset and filed divorce saying "He won't be affected, he won't even know he is married". However, she tried having a normal life and found herself not being able to live without him so went back.

It's sort of the same just a different disease.

 

My great grandmother developed Alzheimers disease, and forgot everything and everyone she ever knew. She went from an intelligent loving woman into a practically lifeless doll. My great grandfather had a very hard decision to make. All his friends told him that he should divorce her, that it wouldn't matter anyway, because she wouldn't know the difference. And they were right, she never would have known. But he made the decision to stick with her, for better or for worse, in sickness or in health. He took care of her every day for several years. He would feed her by hand, three times a day. He changed her bed pan (A job I must say I don't envy him), and he would change her bedsheets everyday, and roll her to alternate sides so she wouldn't be on one side for too long. Every time he came in, he would look at her, smile, and say "Daddy loves ya!" And she would look at him with her blank eyes, and not recognize him in the slightest. That was very hard for my great grandfather, but he never gave in. He lived like that for several years, and he lived to a full old age before he died, triumphant in his trial. My great grandmother died shortly after. He could have divorced her, and left her in the somewhat adequate hands of the nursing home. He could have moved on, and been considered "free" to live his life. But he chose to love until Death did them part, and his story has become a standard in my family as the ideal for marraige. If you don't mean the vows, if you don't intend to live by them, then you shouldn't say them at all.

 

Ah AS Psychology...

Ienzo makes a very good point.
Clive Wearing is a very good example of someone who is unable to identify himself or his spouse. He is unable to live past the moment, and also unable to access his past.
I did admire how even through all of it, he was able to remember his wife, and attentively love her when he saw her. Even losing who her husband was she stayed with him after so long. Love conquers all.

 

So you're basically saying that because you don't have to, that means you won't? Also note that it dissolves all matrimonial obligations. Are you saying that if I am not married to someone, I do not have any obligation to help her when she desperately needs my help?