A moral dilemma
Barry Peterson is a man facing a dilemma (the video can’t be embedded, so you’ll have to watch it at this link). His beloved wife Jan has early onset Alzheimer’s, and she now lives in an institution where he visits her—with his new girlfriend.
Before you judge him too harshly, please watch it. My mind says he promised “till death do us part” and that he is a traitor to those vows. But my heart cannot condemn him. There is no good answer to this human tragedy.
Jan Chorlton Peterson was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s at 55, only five years ago. Before that, she was a journalist and television news personality (as is her husband). From the clips of them as a couple you can see how much in love they were, and from the old videos you can tell she was an exceptionally beautiful, sunny, and charming woman.
Funny thing, she still is, although her memory is terrible and she doesn’t even know that Peterson is her husband when he comes to visit her, despite the fact that she seems to know he’s someone she loves (in the clip this segment begins at 5:00). Like Clive Wearing (whom I wrote about here), her personality, her “Jan-ness,” still seems intact despite the huge deficits—for now.
But that’s quite different from being able to share the life she and her husband used to live. He’s lonely, and now he’s found someone to fill the gap. He says Jan would want this, and I suppose he knows her best, although I wonder.
If Peterson were a conventionally religious man it would be simpler although not necessarily easier: what he’s doing is wrong, and he would know that, although it wouldn’t necessarily keep him from doing it. Perhaps he’d divorce her so he wouldn’t be committing adultery, but somehow that seems wrong, too.
As I said, there’s no good answer to this human tragedy.
I wish, though, that he was more like Jimmy Hales, featured in the following video. But not everyone is able to be so noble and so selfless. Of course, this couple is much older; that helps, too, although it’s never never easy. But as Hales, says, it’s a labor of love. Truer words were never spoken.
Notice, also, how towards the end of the video, Jimmy speaks of prayer; he seems to be a religious man. And note how the newscasters watching the story get all choked up.
I will not judge. I pray God spares me from such a decision this man has had to make. I wish him strength for the struggle he is going through.
This is my and my wife’s story exactly. She was diagnosed with early onset Alzeimer’s in 2005 when she was 58, although she had been ill for some time before that. She has been in a home now for nearly three years. Girlfriends may come and go but I still visit her every day. Most people accept the need to move on though I have fallen out with her family over my “adultery”; but is it adultery when my wife isn’t really here anymore? Don’t judge me till you have seen what I have seen and felt what I have felt.
I would want my wife to have comfort and love if I were gone. Maybe till death do us part is not limited to “physical” death. As long as he has not stopped loving and caring for her, I could not judge him.
We should keep in mind that the vow of death being a terminal factor was derived from cultures in which the standard life expectancy was about 45 years. We have artificially prolonged life and have, thus, become prey to a broader array of dibilitating diseases than our ancestors.
While it may be noble to keep such an ancient and traditional vow in such a traditional way, does it follow that failing to do that under these circumstances is ignoble?
I believe you make a vow to a person, not a body. It’s clear that Alzheimers changes the person. I wouldn’t hold anyone to those vows if I were the person with the disease. I would expect my partner to stand by me through illness.
It’s extremely easy to say “Oh, I would never do that.” when you’ve never faced a situation like that. It’s different when you are living THAT life.
With Alzheimer’s disease, we are not dealing with people who are temporarily gone. We, unfortunately, are dealing with people who are permanently gone, except for the need of support. According to their stories, neither Barry Peterson nor Peter Horne (commenter above) have abandoned their respective wives. Financially and emotionally Peterson and Horne are there. Assuming for the sake of argument that their stories are as represented, I would judge them favorably.
But my heart cannot condemn him. There is no good answer to this human tragedy.
And yet, he can not be fully committed to his new love. That reminds me:
A man may have two masters. He will love one, and hate the other.
Alzheimers used to be called senility, and it is instructful to recall Sirach (3-12:13):
My son, be steadfast in honoring your father; do not grieve him as long as he lives. Even if his mind fails, be considerate of him; do not revile him because you are in your prime.
My Mom at 81 with Alzhiemers is still my Mom even if she is at the stage where she loses ten years of memory at a time. Every visit she berates me and my brother for placing her in the assited living facilities. Every visit is meant to enjoy being with my Mom before the long goodbye but instead is a scenario where Mom throws a tantrum because she is there, she doesn’t have a checkbook or we did not take her to her sisters funeral when her sister died ten years ago and she did go.
To go see her is very depressing and is not joyful and it’s not Mom’s fault it’s simply the alzhiemers degrading her ability to be my Mom anymore.
It’s very sad.
My Mother and father’s wedding anniversary was November 22. Dad is gone now since 1999 and while mom remembers Dad she has forgotten what the date November 22 is.
I don’t judge the guy. Not my job. If I were in his place, though, it’s not a question, I’d stay faithful to my wife, no matter what. That’s the covenant I made.
I was watching the video tensely to see what the new girlfriend was like. I wouldn’t have forgiven him if she’d been young and cute. I was relieved to see that she was a comfortable-looking woman of a certain age. I absolutely forgive him.
There’s a wonderful short story by the writer Alice Munro that offers another paradoxical angle on this kind of sad story. It’s about a man who has to put his wife in an institution, where she strikes up a romantic friendship with another patient (she has forgotten her husband). The husband visits her faithfully and when the wife of the patient with whom the wife has gotten involved takes him out of the institution for money reasons, he works behind the scenes — this means deliberately cultivating a dating relationship with the wife of his wife’s boyfriend, if you’re still following this summary. It all makes emotional sense in the story. The story is called, for some inscrutable reason, “The Bear Came Over the Mountain.” It was made into a movie, which I haven’t seen, but I’ll bet it’s much more sentimental and that its ironies aren’t as complex as Munro’s.
Divorce isn’t an option either, if you’re a Bible believer:
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9
You said it best the first time: “what he’s doing is wrong.” (religiously speaking)
I’m surprised so many commenters here are willing to defend this kind of behavior. Perhaps, like this man, they aren’t conventionally religious. Isn’t putting others’ needs before yours a core tenant of Christianity?
Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.”
Yeah, yeah, I’m just prudish scold. And heartless, I suppose. Take the mote out of my own eye first, etc.
Just wanted to set the record straight on the divorce bit.
I meant that the husband works behind the scenes to get his wife’s boyfriend back into the institution.
Sometimes I wonder about my own mental clarity
Fundie,
I refer back to my earlier post about the circumstances changing around us. You insist that this is wrong, pure and simple and that no justification can make it correct. Yet, the sixth commandment prohibits killing. So to apply your standards, even self-defense is morally wrong, much less the concept of a “just war.” In fact the sixth commandment as most of us were taught is simply “Thou shalt not kill.” Would you argue that this means we must all be vegans to have a relationship with the creator?
And finally, Jesus, Himself, said to worry less about the mote of dust in our brother’s eye and pay more attention to the beam in our own.
Fundie,
Sorry, somehow I skimmed right over you own citation of that pesky mote. Apologies.
Besides, I don’t see you as a prudish scold. I do believe that your argument has merit. For myself, however, I believe that such decisions can’t be made in a vacuum; this discussion itself is an important one to have. For example. the Roman Catholic psoition on artifical birth control always bothered me. If it’s immoral to artificially interfere with the creation of life (a valid philosophical position), why does this position not hold it immoral to also artificially prolong life with wonder drugs and the artifice of medicine?
Please understand, I’m not trying to convert you to my position, just offering it as an alternative point of view based upon more than just rationalizing “bad” behavior.
As a devout Catholic, wretched sinner, and daily hypocrite, I (and any Christian) can most certainly judge his actions, although not his heart.
Such actions as sinful. They are adultery, which is a sin. However, there appears to be mental mitigating factors – the unbearable mental stress of extreme and prolonged grief must surely come into God’s judgment. This is why I did not refer to it as a mortal sin. God’s mercy is more powerful than His judgment, in my opinion (hope).
I’m sure he is torn up inside, and can see no other way. I will pray for him and all involved.
We are all called to be saints, and that certainly isn’t easy. I fail on a daily basis. Would I be able to do the right thing? I hope I never am in that situation.
~~
As far as the average life expectancy being 45, that is skewed due to infant mortality. So, I don’t think God made the laws based on us dropping at an early age.
~~
As far as artificial birth control, I would suggest reading Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, roundly ridiculed by dissident theologians and priests. However, it makes a lot of sense when you read the whole thing.
I wish someone had drowned me before I clicked on this. At least I didn’t stay for the feature attraction.
A difficult moral dilemma.
As Juli B. points out we are all sinners and hypocrites. Each of us have our beliefs and moral codes. If we consider ourselves devout Christians then we have a clear path to try to follow. If we don’t follow it we can expect criticism from fellow Christians, and unless we are without conscience, to suffer from guilt.
Each must follow a path dictated by their ethical boundaries. In this case there appears to be no outward harm. But it is the path of least resistance. Maybe not a path to be condemned but not a path to be celebrated either.
At my age this could lie in the near future. Something to ponder and pray over.
There is nothing about this story for anyone to judge; He still cares for her, visits her, and has not divorced her. There’s nothing to “wonder” about, people divorce, and abandon, for significantly less…
Actually Julie, if you were as devout as you claimed, you would be hesitant to judge someone else especially w/out knowing all of the particulars in the case. I recall Christ doing a lot of forgiving, not so much haranguing about other people’s sins. See Matt. 9:13.
“Actually Julie, if you were as devout as you claimed, you would be hesitant to judge someone else especially w/out knowing all of the particulars in the case.”
Ironic. It is wrong to judge other people, except not really. It is alright to judge the people who we think are judging others.
Dennis,
Not even close.
We all make judgements, you, I, Julie. I am not crticising her for the judgement she makes. I have no doubt that there is absolute good. Neither am I bothered by the fact that Julie seems to see that in this situation. If that is how she sees it through her moral code, then so be it. If that moral code helps her live a good and successful life, then good for her.
The difference, however, is that I do not sanctimoniously presume that I and my ilk have some superior knowledge of the metaphysiscal laws of the universe to allow me to say “my judgement represents how it is and how it should be for all. Period. End of discussion.” That sounds suspiciously like Al Gore claiming that the science of global warming is settled.
My criticism is not to the judgement call, but to the fact that anyone would impose that particular judgement on me and yet cite as an impetus the most tolerant and non-judgemental person who ever walked this earth
Perhaps Julie wasn’t doing this; perhaps she was just staking out her own turf. If so, I submit that my criticism was premature, not necessarily incorrect. In his/her post above, by contrast, Fundie gets it.
Regardless of the disagreement, my best wishes go out to our blogress and all of the commenters on this site for a most wonderful and meaningful Thanksgiving.
You are right, it is a moral dilemma and terribly sad. I am not a religious person so sin doesn’t exactly come into the picture. However, living with his girlfriend in the house he shared with his wife is hard for me to take. What do his children think about this? Their opinion should have been uppermost in his mind when he made his decision. We humans muddle through life in a state of darkness and confusion. Do we have the right to throw stones at people who made very hard choices that differ from the ones that we would have made in the similar circumstances? Barry Peterson has not rejected his duty to take care of Jan. He cherishes the memory of of the marriage that they had. He has not divorced her. He respects her dignity as a human being. He visits her daily. My criticisms are irevelant quibbles.
“The difference, however, is that I do not sanctimoniously presume that I and my ilk have some superior knowledge of the metaphysiscal laws of the universe to allow me to say “my judgement represents how it is and how it should be for all. Period. End of discussion.” That sounds suspiciously like Al Gore claiming that the science of global warming is settled.”
I don’t mean to pick a quarrel, but, I do wish to make a point. Jesus did judge; sometimes, harshly. He called certain people of his day “whited sepulchres” and “serpents” (Matt 23:27,33).
As I understand Jesus’ theology, his fundamental moral principle is love (Matt. 12:29-31). He was very willing to judge people who hurting others for their own selfish purposes.
Although I am not a Catholic, I deeply respect Catholics who are willing to stand up for what they believe, even when it is unpopular.
Dennis,
No quarrel, just contrasting views. Are you sure you have the correct citation here (12:29-31) or are you reinforcing the following sentence? He that is not with me is against me seems to be a non-sequitur to your preceding sentence.
“Are you sure you have the correct citation here (12:29-31) ”
Sorry, my mistake. I meant MARK 12:29-31.
I believe my take on this video than most. The moral delima Barry faces is indeed difficult. As presented, it appears that he has not injured Jan, so I am hesitant to judge him, although I do believe his behavior is wrong.
What bothers me most is that he has flaunted his behavior to the public. As a celebrity, he is a role model to many people. Most other people, do not have his resources to carry out a double life. His example will probably encourage other people to abandon their sick spouse, to start a new life. Nursing homes are full of elderly and sick people who rarely receive a visit from their loved ones.
Dennis,
“The moral delima Barry faces is indeed difficult. . . . although I do believe his behavior is wrong.”
I agree it is a difficult dilemma and I also cede that you, I and anyone else out their is entitled to his/her own decision as it fits within each of our mor compasses.
My concern is with people who judge on the basis of their own moral compass and then impose their decision as an absolute on others (again, back to the Al Gore parallel; he seems to believe that since he reached a certain conclusion everyone who doesn’t reach that same conclusion is daft). Even in the law there are such things as mitigating factors. If it is a difficult dilemma it means that it is not simply “cut and dried.” That implies that one could make arguments suppporting several alternate outcomes, and those arguments, in turn, do not necessarily negate your view, Judith’s or Fundie’s views above.
“My concern is with people who judge on the basis of their own moral compass and then impose their decision as an absolute on others ”
My mother is 92 and in a nursing home, so I get to interact with the staff and the occupants quite a bit. Many of the elderly and mentally disabled are dumped in nursing homes and left. The standard technique is for the family to transfer all the assets from the elderly to themselves over time, and then turning them over to the government to care for through medicaide.
I have had my mother to the dentist to fix some cavities. The dentist thinked me for caring about my mother’s teeth. Many of the elderly have almost dental work done, since that would cost money. They allow the teeth to decay until time to pull them out.
As private behavior, the man in the video is skating on the edge of morality. His own provate behavior doesn’t bother me too much. However, because he is a celebrity who has gone public, his example will probably encourage other people to go a step farther, and abandon their kin. After all if the person is already dead (mentally), what responsibility does the family have for the living dead?
I have trouble believing you really don’t believe in imposing your “moral compass on other people”. Perhaps not in this case, but what about rape? Are you really willing to say that rape is absolutely wrong?
Jesus told us that divorce and remarriage is wrong. All mainline Christians believed this up until the early-mid 1900s, when liberalism and modernism infected Christian thought. Adultery is wrong, etc. When I reverted to Christianity after 25 years of atheism, and was wondering with whom I would worship and look for guidance, the above confirmed that the Catholic Church was most likely to be correct. Truth is, and it doesn’t flip on its tail.
Regardless of other details in this man’s situation, it doesn’t change this fact.
If I was the insulting type, I would say that you, T, sound like a moral relativist. I didn’t make up this law, nor did I make up the Law of Gravity. However, I am bound by both laws, regardless of my opinions of them.
It is a sign of a lack of familiarity with the Bible in a holistic fashion to say that Jesus said we couldn’t judge the actions of others, or that he didn’t condemn sins. Implicit in his forgiveness is repentance – a turning away from sin and a turning to God. (Which is the basic message of the OT as well.) He warned that repentance and change was required for salvation.
Hey – I feel for the guy on a deep emotional level. But from a faith/religion/reason perspective, I can only call it like I see it, regardless of the outcome.
“Even in the law there are such things as mitigating factors.” Yes, and I believe I said that very thing from the perspective of the gravity of sin.
JuliB: all mainline Christian churches up to the mid-1900’s did not believe divorce and remarriage were wrong. See this:
Bucer, by the way, lived from 1491-1551.
Dennis,
IMO you compare apples with oranges. As I noted above, this particular situation is frought with gray areas over which many valid points of view could be presented (yours and mine among them). Rape is not. Thus, I suggest that your comparison to rape is spurious.
Rape is a vicious attack. In this case above no one is being violated (assuming that the bills are being paid and the resident is being properly cared for); we are discussing the function of and a person’s response to a moral code. It would be more fitting to compare rape with an attendant burning an elderly resident by forcing them to sit in a bath of scalding water. I would classify both of those at the very least east as vicious attacks and neither applies in this case.
I do , however, have some empathy with your point that this is a public figure and as such this can be seen as an enabler of a certain behavior. I do believe, as you imply, that public figures need to beheld to a higher standard than just “the norm.”
JulieB,
You evince your positon by pointing out that you would INSULT me by calling me a moral relativist. You do not know me, but I assure you that I am not. I do, however, see this from a vastly different (not better) perspective than you because I arrive at it from experiences probably vastly different than your own.
Perhaps a more fitting analogy than the law of gravity would be to compare the more strident moral view to some 13th century peasant who believed that the earth was flat because it appeared to be so (I say peasant because they were uneducated. Educated people, although few in number, knew that the earth was round since Erasthothenes, c. 500 BC).
All I am saying is that there seems to be more here than meets the eye. You, by contrast, seem to be saying that this is the way it is because this is as I know it to be, and, thus, there can be no other valid discussion about it.
BTW, in Einsteinian terms, gravity does not exist as a force in it’s own right. What we call “gravity” is, according to Einstein, a warping of space by the large body (e.g., a planet) which occupies it. So it seems that we can have a multiple points of view even about the immutable “law of gravity.”
T says:
“…I suggest that your comparison to rape is spurious.
Rape is a vicious attack. In this case above no one is being violated…. ”
I didn’t intend to compare what our man did with rape. I was trying to clarify, in my own mind, a statement you made:
“My concern is with people who judge on the basis of their own moral compass and then impose their decision as an absolute on others…”
Apparently, we both agree that it is perfectly appropriate for us to judge other people on the basis of our own moral compass, in the case of rape. I mentioned rape because I thought it is probably an example, on which we can both agree. We have every right to judge other prople who rape. The only remaining issue is not whether we will judge other people’s behavior, based on our moral compass, but which moral lapses should we judge.
Incidentally, at one time, I probably would have agreed with you. After 9-11, I engaged in intense discussions with Muslims about morality. In their culture, many men believe that rape is OK, if a kaffur woman is captured in jihad. To you, rape under any circumstance is an obvious crime, but to them, in war, rape is just fine. So are you willing to “judge on the basis of” your ” own moral compass and then impose” your” decision as an absolute on others…”? I’ll bet the answer is YES.
My question to you, which I had to confront myself, is upon what basis can we make those absolute moral judgements? If we reject traditional morality as an absolute standard, if we reject the Bible as an absolute standard, or if we reject the church and cannon law as absolutes, where do we go to refute the Muslims’ alternative morality?
Dennis,
This is the first opportunity I’ve had to respond to your post.
First, I do believe that there is an absolute good and that such an absolute good is an important component of our being a good steward of the life with which each of us is blessed. I would also agree with you that murder, rape and such serious crimes are a violation of that absolute good.
I believe, however, that much of our disagreement comes from where one draws the line. The Catholic church makes the distinction between venial and mortal sins; venial sins being somewhat like misdemeanors with mortal sins being felonies. Both of them interfere in our relationship with the Creator and both of them interfere with our ability to be a good steward of our life, but to different degrees.
An approach like JulieB’s above seems to me to be willing to judge a situational misdemeanor (with mitigating factors no less) with the same strident judgement as a more serious felony. IOW, stealing is stealing period. It makes no difference that someone stole for the express purpose of feeding a starving family vs someone who stole simply to enrich themselves. I, OTH, would argue that those mitigating factors are crucially important in assessing the situation. In such a situation I would be hesitant to declare a simple right or wrong judgement. For example, a more strident approach requires citing a 10 year old running a lemonade stand for operating a business without the necessary business licenses and county health permits; I would say, be serious, this is a 10 year old’s lemonade stand.
Now, turning to your example of Muslim rape. Let’s put right/wrong aside for a moment and recognize that there is also a cultural norm at work here. In our culture, rape is not just wrong it is abhorrent because we see our western society founded on a universal freedom and dignity of mankind. I recognize that other cultures do not necessarily proceed from that point of origin. From that perspective, I have no problem imposing my moral code on a judgement, but I do so with the understanding that it is MY moral code and that it is conditioned by my Western cultural belief in the fundamental dignity of all mankind. Likewise, I believe this to be a more evolved and advanced moral code that the code of almost any other society since the dawn of mankind. JulieB’s approach seems to be not that it is HER moral code, but that it is THE moral code.
Why do I make that distinction even in the face of claiming a belief in an absolute good? Because in my world I’m willing to admit that I may not know what that “absolute” actually is. In trying to understand it, I am constantly searching and refining my understanding while sometimes being forced to make judgements based upon the limited understanding that I have at any given time. JuliB has accepted a preconcieved code as defined by others as THE absolute.
I neither condemn nor denigrate her or others for doing that. I think some people are intent on searching for that absolute good, while others want it given to them in a neat package. I condemn neither approach, but I take exception when someone essentially says to me “this is the way it is because this is the way I understand it to be.” Thus my analogy to a flat earth in my response to JuliB above; oftentimes such pronouncements are tacit admissions of the fact that the pronouncer doesn’t know what s/he doesn’t know (see my Einsteinian reference also above).
T, thankyou for the explanation. I think we probably agree to a large degree.
Since I’m not Catholic, I don’t necessarily draw the line where Julie B does. Since I studied the Muslims, my approach is much closer to Julie B’s than it was originally. I admire her for her stand for traditional morality, even if my own belief system is not exactly the same. Julie B can speak for herself, so I’ll quit here.
Once again, thank-you for the discussion.