Is it right for a spuse whose mate has Alzheimer's to divorce?

" This question presents an ethical dilemma beyond my ability to answer", remarks Pat Robertson following the media firestorm created after he told a man that he should feel free to divorce his wife with Alzheimer's. The predictable response came from conservative leaders commenting that this action is sinful. Therapists and others in the medical field focused on the needs of the patient for companionship.

I have had two men friends whose wives had Alzheimer's; both sought to caregive until the end of life. Both are Christians; one organized a spouse network for caregivers like himself largely through his church. I was a constant friend with the other, visiting he and his wife several times a week. I witnessed growth in both mens' lives as they gave themselves 24/7 to serve their wives. I could not conceive of either one divorcing his wife. This is not to say that men should not have a social life or get out to see friends. But the fact is, that  if you are commited to caregiving the one you have loved  over many years then that love cannot stop at the edge of death. Yes, men have needs and one of our needs is to keep love alive between ourselves and the one who has loved us.

Do you agree?  Let me hear from you.

Can we legislate morality?

We would certainly agree that it is immoral for teachers to solicit students for sexual encounters via Facebook or other social media. But how do schools prevent this behavior? Missouri has passed a law that bars teachers from exchanging certain kinds of messages on social media sites.The bill also has provisions for reporting allegations of sexual misconduct by teachers and school employees.The law does, according to its sponsors, require teachers to make all messages public and visible to anyone when interacting with students.


Yet, here is the issue: The sponsor of this bill, Sen. Jane Cunningham, a St. Louis County Republican, maintains that "...Eventually this law is going to stop the whole problem." Somehow, this doesn't square with some politicians who eschew government intervention in our lives. In fact, some have urged a change in the law to allow local school boards to set policy regarding teachers' use of social media. Others have noted that teachers bent on reaching students for sexual liaisons will find other means of contact, making this law meaningless.


Now let's return, then, to the question of legislating morality. Is it effective? Not always and perhaps rarely. Should we, then,  never have laws to prohibit immoral acts? And if we do, should we smugly assume that the law will do the trick? The answer I prefer is that, yes, we need to prohibit specific behaviour with the knowledge that some will find a way around it. Yet, if we are in any sense a moral society, then we must uphold commonly agreed upon virtues. Do you agree? Please comment.

Would you buy a suicide kit?

Sharlotte Hydorn sells such kits for $60 on the open market largely through the internet. She firmly believes that there are many people who are very sick, terminally ill, or are in severe pain who want out of this life. But is such merchandising ethically justifiable? Her defenders point out that the components of the kit are readily available on the open market, such as medical tubing which the user can hook up to a helium tank. These people also say she is exercising her 1st Amendment rights and she is providing a service the medical establishment won't.

Opponents counter that she is indiscriminate in her sales with the danger, then, that the wrong people will use the kit  as an experiment to see if it works. Also, there are many of us who at times feel despondent or experience deep trouble financially or in relationships and get a fleeting thought that we feel like ending it all. These feelings are often situational and pass when the crisis is resolved. Yet, what if in the throes of the pain we had the kit and used it? If a loved one killed himself, what a tragedy it would be if the loved one died, never knowing that the issue has been resolved. Death is a sacred passage that should never be trivialized.

What is your view?

Personal note: I will be teaching an ethics course at an international graduate school in Seoul, Korea this fall. 

What happened to compassion?

Unlike most of us, politicians tend to speak in code, that is, they talk in voter-friendly words that belie their true intent. For example, they spout the shibboleth,"We must cut government spending and stop wasting taxpayers money."

Who can argue against that? Certainly, both parties repeat this phrase endlessly. The rub comes when we see where they intend to cut. Too often, it's the budgets for the poor, elderly, handicapped, unemployed, and uninsured. Meanwhile, some politicians refuse to modestly raise taxes on the wealthy who are the most able to pay them.

Did you notice that CEOs of several oil and communication companies received 140% increases in salary over the last year? How much increase did Social Security give to seniors last year? Zero. It seems that America's contract with itself, to care for the most vulnerable among us, has been turned on it's head. We now take care of those with the most! Have we lost our moral sense?  Has capitalism gone wild?

For several years I have taught a weekly Bible story to clients in an adult health day care facility. These friends are emotionally and mentally challenged and receive daily health check-ups and physical therapy.  Lately, the staff has been worried that government funds the center received for services will be cut off, forcing the center to shut down. I confess that this gets me angry.

Compassion isn't free.  What are your thoughts? 

Why do God-believers cheat?

I am surprised and a little disappointed when I hear about some believers in God behaving no different ethically than the society at large.So here comes another research study saying that certain views of God result in self-approved cheating. When I think of cheating, I see a range of behaviors including spousal unfaithfulness, cheating the I.R.S.,taking credit for someone else's work, and copying another's research paper or blog post.

The title of this study is "Mean Gods Make Good People: Different Views of God Predict Cheating Behavior." It was published recently in the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. The story was covered in the Los Angeles Times. The study found was that those who believe in a loving and forgiving God were more likely to cheat. On the other hand, those who see God as judging and punitive, who gets angry at cheating, will tend to toe the line.

A couple of observations may be on order. The first is that we tend to create the kind of God we need. While the biblical God has specific qualities, His followers have selected certain ones to honor and discarded the others. The second point is that the good news in all of this is that both views about cheating are attempts to work from God's character. In other words, they take God seriously even though their results are not the full picture of the biblical God.

Where are Romney's ethics?

Haven't we heard enough about Mitt Romney's flip-flopping? Perhaps so, but consider this. Journalist Michael Kinsley asserts that Romney, the former Republican Massachusetts governor, is "ethically unqualified to be entrusted with the presidency." Since this blog is about ethics in the news, Kinsley's verdict caught my eye.

What he was referring to was Romney's reversal/denial of his Massachusetts healthcare program. Many have said that his comprehensive "Romneycare" is very similar to President Obama's legislation, including the requirement that all must purchase a plan.  Romney is attempting to erase history, which is way beyond flip-flopping. He is denying the reality of his own story, which can't be good mental health.  Reinventing yourself can be taken to a psychologically dangerous extreme.

Am I exaggerating the effect on his own psyche? What do you think?

Homeowners who walk

Is there any moral justification for "underwater" homeowners to walk away from their mortgage obligation? For months we have been hearing of large numbers of homeowners whose home prices have plummeted choosing to default on their loans.

A Washington Post article mentions Brent White of the University of Arizona, who supports this "strategic defaulting." He describes these homeowners as in an emotional tailspin whose pride of ownership has been replaced with anger toward lenders, and the government for defaulting them. Ethically speaking, can we say that both sides are guilty of stealing in violation of the eighth commandment? Obviously, the owners who walk are stealing from their lenders by refusing to repay the loan.

On the other hand, have not some greedy lenders been stealing from the owners by putting unqualified buyers in homes they could not afford? Then they saddle them with escalating adjustable mortgages, thereby reaping huge profits. Is this not stealing as well?

What then is the moral conclusion? Both are stealing but is one more justified than the other? Perhaps both have lost their sense of responsibility toward the other. Honesty is such a valued virtue in business without which we have the collapse of commerce.

What do you think? Let me know.

What do you do with a child who kills?

An increasing challenge to our courts and indeed our society is the appearance of children who murder other children.This issue was dramatically portrayed in a recent repeat episode of Law and Order. The riveting fictitious story revolved around the murdered body of a 10-year-old-boy. He was stuffed in a pipe having had his head bashed against a rock many times.

As the story unfolds, it focuses on a 10-year-old girl who was seen near the murdered child.  Interrogation reveals she hates boys. Further, she portrays no remorse when answering questions about the killing.  The relevant facts are these:  A murder has occurred and the killer is identified. Typically, a long prison or even an execution is appropriate, some would say. But what if the killer is 10? Should the punishment change?

The TV prosecutor demanded incarceration in a state institution, with therapy hopefully provided. The prosecution maintained that she would kill again and that society must be protected. The defense countered that we should never predict anyone's behaviour; this child could outgrow her dislike of boys. Besides, the defense attorney said, she needs help from family and therapists.  In the story, the judge releases the girl to her mother with instructions to check in with the court monthly. If you were the judge, how would you rule? Should this sociopath be put away, or should we risk therapy and support for behaviour change?