3 ms·

Making it easier to divorce your spouse if they get Alzheimer's is more humane for spouses of Alzheimer's victims (who get to escape that unpleasant situation m

by gjm11 8y ago

Making it easier to divorce your spouse if they get Alzheimer's is more humane for spouses of Alzheimer's victims (who get to escape that unpleasant situation more easily) and more inhumane for Alzheimer's victims themselves (who are more likely to find themselves abandoned at a time when they are increasingly unable to cope on their own).

barrow-rider 8y ago
> who are more likely to find themselves abandoned at a time when they are increasingly unable to cope on their own That often happens rapidly, and in many cases putting the Alzheimer's patient in full-time care is the only option -- even with a caring, involved spouse. I watched my grandfather go from a slightly forgetful goof to confused, violent, and impossible to manage in <3 years. My grandmother, not doing so well herself, struggled to keep up but after a couple years putting grandpa in a facility was the only real tenable option.
- max76 8y ago
  Yes, Alzheimer's patients will eventually need to be placed in a facility.
  - criddell 8y ago
    If I were diagnosed, I would make plans to ensure that doesn't happen with me.
  - bloak 8y ago
    Not necessarily. They might die of other causes first. There are several things in this discussion that make not much sense to me (a non-Norwegian): * How would a divorce court refer to a (confidential) medical diagnosis? In some countries, at least, even a criminal court cannot easily access such things. * Why would the law refer to a diagnosis of a particular disease (when the patient might still be healthy) rather than refer to actual cognitive impairment? * What's the hurry? Can't you get a divorce fairly quickly just by moving out and filling in some forms? * One of the major legal implications of divorce is that you don't automatically inherit or get insurance pay-outs. Not the most obvious thing to want when your spouse has a terminal illness, though in some cases you know there's no money involved. Even if you're named in the will there may be bad tax implications if you're not married to the person you're inheriting from. * Someone mentioned children, but divorce doesn't have to relate directly to children: courts have to deal with the children of unmarried couples, and they have to deal with the children of couples that are separated but still married, so I'd expect a court to worry about the relationships and the welfare of the children and not to care very much whether the parents/guardians are officially married or not. I would guess that these are all areas of law in which there are a lot of differences between jurisdictions.
bsenftner 8y ago
It also forms a legal separation for new debts: both debt associated with treatment (in the US, treatment is extremely expensive) and debt acquired due to them being exploited by less ethical forces in our society.
criddell 8y ago
> more inhumane for Alzheimer's victims themselves I think you are making the assumption that the unhappy and trapped spouse is going to provide loving care. The Alzheimer patient may be better off with other family or in state care than being dependent on somebody who may be hostile to them.

by gjm11 8y ago

barrow-rider 8y ago

> who are more likely to find themselves abandoned at a time when they are increasingly unable to cope on their own That often happens rapidly, and in many cases putting the Alzheimer's patient in full-time care is the only option -- even with a caring, involved spouse. I watched my grandfather go from a slightly forgetful goof to confused, violent, and impossible to manage in <3 years. My grandmother, not doing so well herself, struggled to keep up but after a couple years putting grandpa in a facility was the only real tenable option.

max76 8y ago
Yes, Alzheimer's patients will eventually need to be placed in a facility.
- criddell 8y ago
  If I were diagnosed, I would make plans to ensure that doesn't happen with me.
- bloak 8y ago
  Not necessarily. They might die of other causes first. There are several things in this discussion that make not much sense to me (a non-Norwegian): * How would a divorce court refer to a (confidential) medical diagnosis? In some countries, at least, even a criminal court cannot easily access such things. * Why would the law refer to a diagnosis of a particular disease (when the patient might still be healthy) rather than refer to actual cognitive impairment? * What's the hurry? Can't you get a divorce fairly quickly just by moving out and filling in some forms? * One of the major legal implications of divorce is that you don't automatically inherit or get insurance pay-outs. Not the most obvious thing to want when your spouse has a terminal illness, though in some cases you know there's no money involved. Even if you're named in the will there may be bad tax implications if you're not married to the person you're inheriting from. * Someone mentioned children, but divorce doesn't have to relate directly to children: courts have to deal with the children of unmarried couples, and they have to deal with the children of couples that are separated but still married, so I'd expect a court to worry about the relationships and the welfare of the children and not to care very much whether the parents/guardians are officially married or not. I would guess that these are all areas of law in which there are a lot of differences between jurisdictions.

bsenftner 8y ago

It also forms a legal separation for new debts: both debt associated with treatment (in the US, treatment is extremely expensive) and debt acquired due to them being exploited by less ethical forces in our society.

criddell 8y ago

> more inhumane for Alzheimer's victims themselves I think you are making the assumption that the unhappy and trapped spouse is going to provide loving care. The Alzheimer patient may be better off with other family or in state care than being dependent on somebody who may be hostile to them.