Well, as inhumane as it seems I can promise you no one wishes Alzheimer's on anyone and when the person gets it they are no longer the person you knew. In a sense, the disease has killed off their mind and the person you knew. Spiritual death. But the body lives on. The other thing with this disease is the rate at which it can come on. Early on set Alzheimer's can come on so quickly that everyone is caught off guard. If you were in your 40's married to someone in their 50's who suddenly needed full time care, as harsh as it sounds I would not judge that person for leaving the marriage. In my personal opinion the person with advanced Alzheimer's would have little insight to what exactly is going on around them, like their spouse is no longer with them, and divorcing them would not even register. I more picture these divorces happening after the person is well on their way and really lack the mental capacity to understand or worry about it. It would be a little harsher if the machine could tell you 6 years before you got the disease and your partner left you but again I would not judge.
Well maybe.. forcing someone to stay married may also be considered inhumane. It also probably means the spouse with Alzheimer legally cannot consent to a divorce as well.
I feel the opposite. If I was unhappy in my marriage and found out my spouse now also has Alzheimer's, granting a quick exit from a situation that can only get worse seems humane to me. Why force somebody who is suffering to suffer even more?
Maybe because you took a vow to care for each other in sickness and in health....
Marriage is a social contract. Some of the benefits (lower income taxes, preferential inheritance, etc) are in recognition that you are taking on some of the responsibilities that would otherwise fall to society.
That's a very culturally specific view. In the culture where I was married (Japan) one person (either one) is removed from their existing family registry and inserted in another one. You do it at the city hall and it is entirely composed of paperwork. They even give you a free pen :-) You don't vow anything.
What you are responsible for and what benefits you enjoy from being married is very much a product of that culture. In my case, if my wife is ill, I do have to provide for her (Fun fact: in Japan you require your spouse's written permission to get a divorce except in certain circumstances). However, it would not surprise me that some other cultures (perhaps Norway) have different responsibilities. The world is large and "marriage" means different things to different people.
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).
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Since a marriage is a legal binding there are procedures for a divorce.
You need to live separated for one year to have it approved for one thing.
And if you have children under guardianship you are required to attend family counseling or such.
I assume that what is refereed to in the upper comment is the waiting period and other requirements.
Personally I did not know this was the case with altzheimer even though I am Norwegian.
