Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Desertion in time of need


The first is a brief response to Steve Hays of Triablogue. I feel obliged to respond to Hays, however briefly, because the poor fellow seems desperate for some attention. He keeps saying outrageous things about me. And even though I ignore him, he keeps prattling on like that persistent rattle in an aging Chrysler van.

Oh dear. The poor boy is suffering from hyperthermia. Can’t stand the heat.

Am I saying outrageous things about Rauser? Or is Rauser saying outrageous things?

Steve Hays summarized my position under the heading “Dump your ailing spouse.” I never said “dump your ailing spouse.” But I do advise dumping Mr. Hays’s moral commentary.  And I also think that a three year chaplaincy internship at a busy hospital would do Mr. Hays a world of good. Unfortunately I cannot say the same thing for all the poor patients that would be subjected to his “care” during those three years as he slowly worked through all his personal demons.

It’s very funny to see Rauser try to seize the moral high ground when he’s the one defending divorce in case your spouse becomes senile. Imagine the kind of counseling he’d dish out as a hospital chaplain.

First the background. I wrote a sympathetic commentary on Pat Robertson’s commentary on Alzheimer’s Disease which focused on Grant’s dilemma (from the film “Away from Her”). In the scenario the Alzheimer’s of Grant’s wife Fiona has progressed to such a degree that she no longer knows her husband. To make matters worse, she is now in a romantic relationship with a new beau at the extended care facility. I asked whether Grant was morally obliged to maintain his matrimonial ties to Fiona under these conditions and I suggested that he need not be.

Randal already admitted that in her state of diminished responsibility, Fiona didn’t really commit adultery–since she lacks the intellectual capacity to form adulterous intent. As such, there’d be no grounds to divorce her for infidelity.

What about the fact that a senile wife no longer recognizes her husband? Does that dissolve the husband’s obligations to his ailing wife?

It’s easy to dream up far-fetched hypotheticals. Suppose my wife has an identical twin sister. Suppose my sister-in-law is mad at my wife for whatever reason. Suppose, to get back at my wife, my sister-in-law impersonates my wife. She deceives me into sleeping with her. Does that dissolve the marriage? Does that nullify my spousal duties to my wife?

What if our marriage was already on the rocks, and I use this incident as a pretext to divorce my wife. Is Rauser okay with that scenario?

Let’s take a more realistic hypothetical. This all got started with Robertson. He’s been married to the same woman for over 50 years. She stood by him all these years. What if she becomes senile? Is it okay for him to abandon her in her time of greatest need? When she needs him more than ever?

And we could apply this more broadly. What about the obligation of grown children to care (as best they can) for senile parents. What if they no longer recognize their children? Is it permissible to disown your senile parents?

What about the obligation of a grown brother to care for his kid brother with Down Syndrome. His parents cared for him until they died. Is it now his big brother’s duty to assume that demanding responsibility?

What if your best friend comes down with brain cancer. He no longer knows who you are. He says and does things to you which, if he were in his right mind, would betray the friendship. Is it okay to stop being a friend to him now that he can no longer be a friend to you?

This raises general questions about sacrificial love. What if caring for a helpless friend or family member means that we must deny ourselves something that gives us personal fulfillment? What gives? Rauser has already indicated his own priorities. But hey, he’d make a swell hospital chaplain. 

11 comments:

  1. What if your best friend comes down with brain cancer. He no longer knows who you are. He says and does things to you which, if he were in his right mind, would betray the friendship. Is it okay to stop being a friend to him now that he can no longer be a friend to you?

    Once your best friend loses his mental faculties (just like a spouse with advanced dementia), nobody remains to befriend. You can dote on the peson by their bedside or not, it doesn't matter. If a friend or spouse in incapable of knowing whether you are there or not, why does it matter whether you are there or not?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for illustrating the bond of friendship in atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve, just because you don't like the implications of something, doesn't mean it's untrue.

    All things fade and quickly turn to myth.” Marcus Aurelius, Meditations.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Once your best friend loses his mental faculties (just like a spouse with advanced dementia), nobody remains to befriend. You can dote on the peson by their bedside or not, it doesn't matter. If a friend or spouse in incapable of knowing whether you are there or not, why does it matter whether you are there or not?"

    Among other things, this assumes a person is no more than his mental faculties.

    What if we discover a cure for a dementia like Alzheimer's? Would this person then come back from a "nobody" to a "somebody"?

    But apparently The Atheist Missionary doesn't believe it's possible to find a cure for Alzheimer's because otherwise he wouldn't assume such things. After all what value is there in finding a cure for a "nobody," for someone who is no longer present in mind? In this way The Atheist Missionary's atheism undercuts medical science.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Once your best friend loses his mental faculties (just like a spouse with advanced dementia), nobody remains to befriend. You can dote on the peson by their bedside or not, it doesn't matter. If a friend or spouse in incapable of knowing whether you are there or not, why does it matter whether you are there or not?"

    I take it The Atheist Missionary would be perfectly fine with harvesting the organs from a person with advanced dementia. Or to use their body for human experimentation. Or whatever. After all "nobody remains."

    ReplyDelete
  6. When we lay hold of the biblical premise that we are called to trust and obey and in doing so not seek what we might believe will make us happy, remaining in such circumstances not only makes sense - it will bring true peace.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I take it The Atheist Missionary would be perfectly fine with harvesting the organs from a person with advanced dementia. Or to use their body for human experimentation.

    Agreed. I'm in complete agreement with Peter Singer on these issues. I realize that he's not a popular fellow in these parts.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I'm in complete agreement with Peter Singer on these issues."

    Great. And I'm "ahead of Singer"; I consider people who disagree with me to be "nobodies". Stay right where you are, I'll be right over...

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Atheist Missionary said:
    I take it The Atheist Missionary would be perfectly fine with harvesting the organs from a person with advanced dementia. Or to use their body for human experimentation.

    Agreed. I'm in complete agreement with Peter Singer on these issues. I realize that he's not a popular fellow in these parts.


    The honesty is refreshing, but I prefer the inconsistent, irrational anti-theists to the consistent, rational ones like TAM and Singer.

    The former tend to be much less lethal in practice.

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  10. T.A.M.

    This I know in response to that you know:

    You know: "...Steve, just because you don't like the implications of something, doesn't mean it's untrue."

    When the Holy Spirit opens our understanding up to this process of the soul, we learn the lesson about our lot in this life.

    The process of laying down our life for others is found succinctly here:

    1Jn 3:12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous.
    1Jn 3:13 Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you.
    1Jn 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.
    1Jn 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
    1Jn 3:16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.
    1Jn 3:17 But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?


    One need only look at the Greek words in verse 16 to understand what is going on here? Both words, life and lives, are the same Greek word: "psuche".

    Our Psuche/life deals with what is going on in our minds, wills and emotions when we face or do anything in this life.

    Christ put down His own mind, will and emotion, for us, for those He was sent to die for, so that those of us He died for would do the same for one another; and, really, for all men?

    We indeed are called to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength and we are to love one another as our self; and even so far as too love our enemies!

    This anointing is only on the Elect. I don't waste my breath expecting everyone I meet to do as I have been anointed to do.

    Anyway, this matter under discussion, is like oil and water trying to be synergistic, again! Ain't going to happen! :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. I said: "I take it The Atheist Missionary would be perfectly fine with harvesting the organs from a person with advanced dementia. Or to use their body for human experimentation. Or whatever. After all 'nobody remains.'"

    The Atheist Missionary replied: "Agreed. I'm in complete agreement with Peter Singer on these issues."

    By this line of reasoning, there's a spectrum ranging from someone with no mental faculties to someone with "normal" mental faculties. There are several gray areas in between.

    By this line of reasoning, it would appear the mentally deficient would have diminished value and worth as a human being in proportion to the degree of their mental deficiency. (And how this metric might be derived is a separate question.)

    Thus, by his lights, The Atheist Missionary should arguably be fine with the following:

    * Locking mentally deficient patients in refrigerated units at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or less for 120 hours.

    * Feeding mentally deficient students cereal containing radioactive tracers each morning.

    * Infecting mentally deficient children with viral hepatitis by feeding them an extract derived from the feces of hepatitis positive patients.

    * Infecting mentally deficient children with gonorrhea by applying it to their eyes.

    * Sterilizing mentally deficient persons.

    * Lobotomizing mentally deficient patients.

    All these are to better help understand the human body, disease, and related processes.

    Sure, we might quibble here or there. We might quibble about how far gone some of these mentally deficient patients are and whether their degree of loss in their mental faculties adequately correlates with the proposed experiment conducted. Nevertheless the principle that some form of human experimentation proportionate to the loss of mental faculties in the mentally deficient is possible given The Atheist Missionary's ethics.

    ReplyDelete