Is this morally justified in your opinion?

[afleitch]

Yes. But only because it's futile to try and fulfill the mothers wish when she clearly needs professional care. Fulfilling a promise to the eventual detriment of the person who made it invalidates any bond or any significance in the promise and serves only the needs of the person not bound by the implications of it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All right.

Why would you think [child]'d know what [mother]'d want if [mother] could decide for herself better than [mother when she asked child to promise] did?

Still not clear enough?

I'd like to know if you're actually arguing what I think you're arguing.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. But only because it's futile to try and fulfill the mothers wish when she clearly needs professional care. Fulfilling a promise to the eventual detriment of the person who made it invalidates any bond or any significance in the promise and serves only the needs of the person not bound by the implications of it.

Seems like you're making the same argument too.

Again, I'll ask, was the mother not capable of deciding for herself when she made him/her promise? Why wouldn't she know what's in her best interest?

[afleitch]

Yes. But only because it's futile to try and fulfill the mothers wish when she clearly needs professional care. Fulfilling a promise to the eventual detriment of the person who made it invalidates any bond or any significance in the promise and serves only the needs of the person not bound by the implications of it.

Seems like you're making the same argument too.

Again, I'll ask, was the mother not capable of deciding for herself when she made him/her promise? Why wouldn't she know what's in her best interest?

Because she made that request not knowing she would have 4 strokes and LBD. This was not the request of a terminally I'll person who knew their fate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. But only because it's futile to try and fulfill the mothers wish when she clearly needs professional care. Fulfilling a promise to the eventual detriment of the person who made it invalidates any bond or any significance in the promise and serves only the needs of the person not bound by the implications of it.

Seems like you're making the same argument too.

Again, I'll ask, was the mother not capable of deciding for herself when she made him/her promise? Why wouldn't she know what's in her best interest?

Because she made that request not knowing she would have 4 strokes and LBD. This was not the request of a terminally I'll person who knew their fate.

She knew that was something that could happen to her. If she'd wanted not to go to a nursing home UNLESS specific circumstances occurred, she would have said so. Presumably that was a possibility that came up in a discussion.

[dead0man]

I'm not saying you're wrong for keeping the promise, I'm saying I'm not a horrible person (like you and several others seem to be suggesting) because I'd literally do the best thing for everybody involved....which could be dozens of people.  Yes, making the lives of a whole bunch of people I love better is more important than keeping a promise I made 30 years ago to one of them.

Yeah, perhaps mom thought about all that and decided she'd still rather be a burden to her child and her child's loved ones, possibly her own grand children and risk her own health in the deal just to be cared for by her kid.  Or maybe she didn't think it all out.  I don't know, and it doesn't really matter because I'm not saying you'd be wrong (or a horrible person) for keeping your promise to mom....even if it literally is taking food out of your kid's mouth.  I'd assume you wouldn't go destitute to keep mom alive in the spare bedroom would you?  If you did that, you might be a horrible person, but only if you had a spouse or children (or any other minors that depend on you financially).

edit-it doesn't really matter which way you go if you're a single dude with nothing but a cat that depends on you, but if you have other humans that depend on you financially, it seems I'd have to do whatever made the greater good to everybody involved.  If I had made such a promise to mom (which I'd never have done and she'd never have asked, she's a nurse, she's smart enough to know that it would be a stupid promise to make or expect to be kept) I'd certainly weigh that in, but not a lot.

[afleitch]

Yes. But only because it's futile to try and fulfill the mothers wish when she clearly needs professional care. Fulfilling a promise to the eventual detriment of the person who made it invalidates any bond or any significance in the promise and serves only the needs of the person not bound by the implications of it.

Seems like you're making the same argument too.

Again, I'll ask, was the mother not capable of deciding for herself when she made him/her promise? Why wouldn't she know what's in her best interest?

Because she made that request not knowing she would have 4 strokes and LBD. This was not the request of a terminally I'll person who knew their fate.

She knew that was something that could happen to her. If she'd wanted not to go to a nursing home UNLESS specific circumstances occurred, she would have said so. Presumably that was a possibility that came up in a discussion.

She requested not to be put in a nursing home 'no matter how much she needs it'. To deny someone help they need now because they said this years ago when circumstances were different and you think upholding a generalised and unspecific promise is more important then helping somone who clearly needs third party medical and personal care is inhuman.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not saying you're wrong for keeping the promise, I'm saying I'm not a horrible person (like you and several others seem to be suggesting) because I'd literally do the best thing for everybody involved....which could be dozens of people.  Yes, making the lives of a whole bunch of people I love better is more important than keeping a promise I made 30 years ago to one of them.

Yeah, perhaps mom thought about all that and decided she'd still rather be a burden to her child and her child's loved ones, possibly her own grand children and risk her own health in the deal just to be cared for by her kid.  Or maybe she didn't think it all out.  I don't know, and it doesn't really matter because I'm not saying you'd be wrong (or a horrible person) for keeping your promise to mom....even if it literally is taking food out of your kid's mouth.  I'd assume you wouldn't go destitute to keep mom alive in the spare bedroom would you?  If you did that, you might be a horrible person, but only if you had a spouse or children (or any other minors that depend on you financially).

edit-it doesn't really matter which way you go if you're a single dude with nothing but a cat that depends on you, but if you have other humans that depend on you financially, it seems I'd have to do whatever made the greater good to everybody involved.  If I had made such a promise to mom (which I'd never have done and she'd never have asked, she's a nurse, she's smart enough to know that it would be a stupid promise to make or expect to be kept) I'd certainly weigh that in, but not a lot.

I never said it was simple. I made that point in my very first post.

You're conveniently shifting the goalpoasts. You started by stating "spouse > parent" as some sort of general moral rule that would provide an answer to this situation. You've then quietly backed away from that dumb and repulsive rationale after I pointed out how dumb and repulsive it was. Then you argued there's nothing wrong with breaking a promise you made to someone when it's for their own good. You now seem acknowledge that there's no right answer, which, again, is roughly what I said from the beginning.

She requested not to be put in a nursing home 'no matter how much she needs it'. To deny someone help they need now because they said this years ago when circumstances were different and you think upholding a generalised and unspecific promise is more important then helping somone who clearly needs third party medical and personal care is inhuman.

"No matter how much she needs it" is a formulation that was pretty clearly intended to include situations like this, don't you think? Unless you're arguing that the mother never thought she could find herself in this situation, but nothing of what Wolverine said suggests that. People's wills and wishes don't suddenly become irrelevant just because they're not conscious anymore. I happen to believe that, in most circumstances, people should be able to choose what they think is best for them. Of course there are exceptions - in fact I'm probably one of the posters who has the broadest conception of legitimate exceptions - but I don't see how they apply to this situation.

[dead0man]

I fully stand by my opinion that spouse>parent, and I don't care if people that have a different opinion are offended by it


I also never said it was easy, or even judged someone else's opinion on the matter.

[afleitch]

"No matter how much she needs it" is a formulation that was pretty clearly intended to include situations like this, don't you think? Unless you're arguing that the mother never thought she could find herself in this situation, but nothing of what Wolverine said suggests that. People's wills and wishes don't suddenly become irrelevant just because they're not conscious anymore. I happen to believe that, in most circumstances, people should be able to choose what they think is best for them. Of course there are exceptions - in fact I'm probably one of the posters who has the broadest conception of legitimate exceptions - but I don't see how they apply to this situation.

Again, do you think that a person should receive potentially less appropriate and less effective personal care because of a remark made to a member of the family (and that's all it is, unless any request was stipulated legally) prior to them being in a position where that personal care was ever on the horizon and in being looked after outside the home, you could alleviate the care giving responsibilities of her family, lessen the pressure on her daughters marriage and her daughters finances?

All on the basis of what a woman said to her daughter. One time. What right does the daughter have to interpret this and push for this in a specific or exclusive manner (which is all this is) that satisfies her wishes ? Why on earth is it appropriate upholding this interpretation, possibly leading to divorce and to financial ruin all for the sake of a 'promise is a promise'? And even if she takes this on, why should the mother's care suffer as a result of this? What happens if they run out of money? Still provide now completely ineffective care, rather than place her with care givers? It's bordering on the selfish.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"No matter how much she needs it" is a formulation that was pretty clearly intended to include situations like this, don't you think? Unless you're arguing that the mother never thought she could find herself in this situation, but nothing of what Wolverine said suggests that. People's wills and wishes don't suddenly become irrelevant just because they're not conscious anymore. I happen to believe that, in most circumstances, people should be able to choose what they think is best for them. Of course there are exceptions - in fact I'm probably one of the posters who has the broadest conception of legitimate exceptions - but I don't see how they apply to this situation.

Again, do you think that a person should receive potentially less appropriate and less effective personal care because of a remark made to a member of the family (and that's all it is, unless any request was stipulated legally) prior to them being in a position where that personal care was ever on the horizon and in being looked after outside the home, you could alleviate the care giving responsibilities of her family, lessen the pressure on her daughters marriage and her daughters finances?

All on the basis of what a woman said to her daughter. One time. What right does the daughter have to interpret this and push for this in a specific or exclusive manner (which is all this is) that satisfies her wishes ? Why on earth is it appropriate upholding this interpretation, possibly leading to divorce and to financial ruin all for the sake of a 'promise is a promise'? And even if she takes this on, why should the mother's care suffer as a result of this? What happens if they run out of money? Still provide now completely ineffective care, rather than place her with care givers? It's bordering on the selfish.

Where in this remark do you see any room for "interpretation"? It seems pretty straightforward to me. You can claim that the mother made a wrongheaded decision, that's fair, but you can't deny it was HER decision. A decision that as far as we know was informed and given all the thought necessary.

In general you're assuming a lot of detail that isn't in Wolverine's story. Of course sometimes promises have to be broken to avoid greater harm, but it's not clear to me that this is the case. And even if it was, that wouldn't make it right. Sometimes there aren't any right choices - which is what I've been saying from the beginning.

[Human]

No