New Ethicist (me)

It has been a long time since my last post. Mostly, this is because I have not been sufficiently motivated to write about anything, and when I am, I am not sufficiently happy with what I have written. Well, that is all about to change. I have been growing increasingly unsatisfied with the new New York Times Ethicist Ariel Kaminer. The column has been one of my favorites for years because, but I have reached a point where I have decided to start a campaign to replace her. From this point until the point I am hired as the new Ethicist, I will link to each Sunday's Ethicist column and write my very own response here (be sure to save some of your free articles for the Ethicist every week). From that point on, you will be required to purchase a Sunday Times subscription; however, I will do my best to reward my loyal readers with a free copy . Incentives are important. I learned that during rehab.

This week's question asks about the responsibility of one person in a relationship to care for the other person in a time of crisis: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/magazine/the-topic-of-cancer.html?ref=magazine. Specifically, a girlfriend of one year has become her boyfriend's caretaker ever since he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. In short, the Ethicist answers that she has an ethical obligation to take care of him.


When I saw this question, I immediately thought, "Wow! That is a tough one." I was split between two lines of thought. There is the level of commitment in the relationship to consider, but there is also the gut-reaction that it just feels wrong to leave someone when they are in need. So which is the ethical choice?

First, I think a gut reactions should be taken seriously. This is something I picked up from Professor Potter in my into philosophy classes. He encouraged us to disagree with something even if we could not articulate the reason behind our feeling. Then we would discuss the cause of unease in greater detail to usually find out that there was a good reason for it. In this case it just feels wrong to leave someone in need. If someone has a heart attack in front of us, I think most of us would agree that we have a responsibility to call an ambulance instead of walking away because we don't know them. Most of us would like someone to help us if we were in a similar situation. It is the Golden Rule applied to an extreme circumstance, and I think there are few of us who would disagree with its basic premise. In this situation, though, it is not as if the girlfriend has simply walked away. In fact, she has already served as his caregiver for some amount of time. Is that enough, or is she required to see it through to the end?

I think the level of commitment the girlfriend must ethically provide is defined by the level of commitment both people agreed to before finding out about the cancer. The girlfriend says that the relationship was one year old, but we do not have a good idea about how committed it was. I do not think the length of the relationship is a good factor on which to make this ethical decision. Some couples are still fairly casual after one year, while others have already decided to get married. If you decide one year requires her to see this out to the end, then what would she be required to do if they had only been together 10 months? 6 months? 1 month? Basing the decision on time is arbitrary, which is not a good basis for making ethical decisions. The level of commitment both people signed on for seems to be the only good way to determine what more she owes to the relationship, if anything.

From her letter, we have some information. She says that they "had" a wonderful relationship but did not make long-term plans. I take that to mean that neither party expected a life-long commitment, which is literally what this situation requires. It is important for the girlfriend to use the pre-crisis understanding of the relationship to inform her decision. After finding out about the cancer, her boyfriend may have assumed that she should take care of him, but he cannot change the boundaries of the relationship alone. If before the cancer neither of them expected an absolute commitment from the other, I think she is ethically permitted to end her role as caretaker with one caveat: she must talk to him and make an attempt to find an alternative means of care. This goes back to the first point about the Golden Rule. I think that even though she can leave, she should not do so suddenly or without making an effort to help set up something to take her place. I do not think this has to be a drawn out process. I can envision a situation where the boyfriend wanted to draw out the process so she would remain the de facto caretaker. She certainly must be wary of such an outcome, but that is not what she is required to do. I think she should explain as gently as possible that agreed to a life long commitment and she has done all she feels she can do. She should explain that she is leaving but would like to help him get someone else in her place. If he says he has no one, she can suggest a professional service. After she has suggested another option, I think she has fulfilled her ethical responsibility.

I hope these posts stimulate some conversation. I know I will not always hit the mark, and I would like to hear other perspectives.