Is cheating ever ok? No 2 - a moral dilemma.

[Arieswoman]

Following on from this thread by Neoteric Jack

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/romantic/dating/cheating-flirting-jealousy/592578-cheating-ever-ok

 

to prevent "thread-jacking", I'm throwing this true situation out for discussion.

 

When I was divorced and dating I met a guy via OLD. He described himself as "separated" - which was being rather "economical with the truth", it transpires.

 

The true situation was that his wife of 20 years ( they had no children) was in a specialist nursing home in another area with an incurable neurological disease. She was bed-bound, partially paralysed, doubly incontinent and facing an uncertain future as the speed of the progession of the disease couldn't be determined. She could die the next day or live another 2/3 years. However, her mental faculties had remained intact so far.

 

He was looking for a female companion to go on holiday with etc.

 

I asked him why he didn't either divorce his wife or get an anulment. The later would have been easier as, through no fault of anyone's, there was no longer a marriage in existence.

 

He said that "he didn't want to hurt her".

 

I called him out on that.

 

I'd worked in healthcare all my life and knew that what he said was a crock.

 

His wife was having free care because she had no assets.

I knew that if he divorced her, she would be given a financial settlement, probably 50% of the value of their property.

This would then have counted as assets and would be used in part to fund her care.

 

So the real reason for the non-divorce was that he didn't want to downsize from his fancy house to pay her off.

He would sooner cheat in the interim while he waited for her to die so he could be the sole beneficiary of her share of the property.

 

His excuse was that "he was a normal man and deserved a life". I said that his wife deserved a life as well, and maybe he should think about that.

 

I then told him that he was beneath contempt and walked out.

 

Comments ?

[lolablue17]

I 100% agree with you.

 

The only thing is, that I think people has the right to have money\assets reasons as for their decisions.

 

When people cheat, we always ask - "If you don't love enough your spouse, why don't you first end it, instead of cheating". But this man has a house on his name, and might lose half of his property, while his wife is going to die, if he files for divorce. It wouldn't be fair to judge him on that.

[NeotericJack]

... His wife was having free care because she had no assets.

 

I knew that if he divorced her, she would be given a financial settlement, probably 50% of the value of their property.

 

This would then have counted as assets and would be used in part to fund her care.

 

So the real reason for the non-divorce was that he didn't want to downsize from his fancy house to pay her off.

 

He would sooner cheat in the interim while he waited for her to die so he could be the sole beneficiary of her share of the property.

 

His excuse was that "he was a normal man and deserved a life". I said that his wife deserved a life as well, and maybe he should think about that.

 

I then told him that he was beneath contempt and walked out.

 

Comments ?

 

I don't see how his wife's care would be affected. Is she getting less or inferior care because she has no assets? If she had assets because of a divorce, would she get more or better care?

 

Presumably he's not doing anything unlawful. That is, the law allows him to remain married and hold the assets. So, while he's doing which might be offensive to some, he's got a right to do it.

Edited August 29, 2016 by NeotericJack

[Arieswoman]

NJ,

 

Just to clarify.

 

The quality of the wife's healthcare would not be affected. The cost would.

 

In UK, we have a healthcare system that uses a means test to see if people qualify for free treatment in certain circumstances.

 

If someone has no assets they get free healthcare in nursing homes. If they have assets, then they have to make a contribution.

 

The wife in this case had no sole assets, only joint assets with her husband.

If they divorced and she then had assets in her own right, they would be used, in part or even wholey, to fund her care.

[Arieswoman]

lolablue17,

 

while his wife is going to die, if he files for divorce.

 

No, I think you misunderstand.

 

Sadly, his wife was going to die anyway, and her healthcare per se would not be affected by any divorce, only the way it was funded.

[central]

lolablue17,

 

 

 

No, I think you misunderstand.

 

Sadly, his wife was going to die anyway, and her healthcare per se would not be affected by any divorce, only the way it was funded.

 

I don't see a problem with what he was doing, other than his wife perhaps not being aware of what he's doing.

 

There is nothing wrong with the asset/funding aspect. There is a financial tactic known as a Medicaid Divorce, to protect the future of the well spouse, who could be otherwise impoverished to pay for a spouse's medical care. My wife and I have discussed this, and would divorce to protect the other's retirement and financial well-being, while staying together to the extent possible under the particular circumstances. It's legal, and as long as it is, I will argue that it's moral. When it comes to government, they won't leave money on the table if they can pass a law to take it from you, and government hasn't done so for this strategy.

 

We have also discussed how we'd handle one of us being too incapacitated to have a social and/or sexual relationship. We decided that we'd have an open relationship with no need for discussion at the time. We could meet those needs however we want, because it isn't fair to the well spouse to sacrifice that aspect of their life when they can have it and want it.

 

We care enough about each other to want their happiness and well-bring in all ways. We also care enough to have decided not to burden the other with further discussion if they aren't well, while being there to support each other as best we can.

Edited August 29, 2016 by central

[NeotericJack]

NJ,

 

Just to clarify.

 

The quality of the wife's healthcare would not be affected. The cost would.

 

In UK, we have a healthcare system that uses a means test to see if people qualify for free treatment in certain circumstances.

 

If someone has no assets they get free healthcare in nursing homes. If they have assets, then they have to make a contribution.

 

The wife in this case had no sole assets, only joint assets with her husband.

If they divorced and she then had assets in her own right, they would be used, in part or even wholey, to fund her care.

 

The it looks like he's "cheating" the taxpayers, in a manner of speaking. For all practical purposes, he's "single" but by being technically married the assets are protected from liquidation. It looks like a loophole to me.

[CarrieT]

I have a very good friend - nah, let me back up, they were a couple... We used to do a lot of fancy dining together. They would listen to my woes about dating and helped me out when I totaled a car. I really liked them both.

 

They were both in their late 50s and she got early Alzheimers. But it was worse than that, it turned into a full-on dementia. In her last, cognizant year, he took her on an around-the-world trip as a sort of "farewell."

 

She is now completely institutionalized as mostly non-functioning. I'm not sure she even knows who he is. So he has found a "Lady Friend." And now, a decade later, my friend's wife doesn't recognize anybody, they are still married, and he and his Lady Friend plan to grow old together, but she knows he will never marry her.

 

It is very much like this story that aired on television (I remember sending this to him when his wife first got sick and, at the time, he didn't believe he would ever love again).

[Arieswoman]

CarrieT,

With all due respect the example you quote isn't the same.

 

In the sitch I found myself in, the wife was fully cognizant and well aware of the fact that she was going to die at an unspecified time. She was in fact suffering a "living death" with a fully functioning brain trapped inside a body she had no control over.

 

She was quite capable of making rational decisions and deciding about anything that impacted her life.

 

If she had been Sectioned under a Mental Health Order because of early onset Alzheimers/other Mental Health issue and deemed unfit to arrange her own affairs, and the husband had Power of Attornrney, that would be different.

(I still wouldn't have wanted to get involved, though.)

 

Central - Medicaid Divorce does not exist in uk.

 

I did ask this chap if his wife was OK with him having a "ladyfriend" and he said that she had given "tacit approval". I said OK, let's go and see your wife and you can introduce me and you can say who I am. Suddenly he started backpeddling. Hmmmmm.

[NeotericJack]

I have a very good friend - nah, let me back up, they were a couple... We used to do a lot of fancy dining together. They would listen to my woes about dating and helped me out when I totaled a car. I really liked them both.

 

They were both in their late 50s and she got early Alzheimers. But it was worse than that, it turned into a full-on dementia. In her last, cognizant year, he took her on an around-the-world trip as a sort of "farewell."

 

She is now completely institutionalized as mostly non-functioning. I'm not sure she even knows who he is. So he has found a "Lady Friend." And now, a decade later, my friend's wife doesn't recognize anybody, they are still married, and he and his Lady Friend plan to grow old together, but she knows he will never marry her.

 

It is very much like this story that aired on television (I remember sending this to him when his wife first got sick and, at the time, he didn't believe he would ever love again).

 

My mother had Alzheimers and was institutionalized in her last days. My father was devoted to her until the end. However, he remarried about two years after she died. It was OK with my brothers and me but I don't know that I would have been any less accepting if he had started the relationship before my mother died. She was gone before she died and my dad was doing everything he could for her. There really was no reason to add to his suffering by remaining alone.

 

I should also mention my dad's second wife had been married before and both are buried by their previous spouses. Neither expected the other to be a life partner. Their marriage was convenience more than anything else.

Edited August 29, 2016 by NeotericJack

[central]

Central - Medicaid Divorce does not exist in uk.

 

I did ask this chap if his wife was OK with him having a "ladyfriend" and he said that she had given "tacit approval". I said OK, let's go and see your wife and you can introduce me and you can say who I am. Suddenly he started backpeddling. Hmmmmm.

 

You have a much better health system in the UK than here in the US. We have to resort to such tactics as Medicaid divorce at times.

 

 

I think you made the right choice - for you. There is no good choice for him in this situation, but I can't condemn him for trying to have some quality of life for himself.

[Osmium13]

I think what he's doing with the house is fair enough - but screwing around while his wife is dying, without her knowledge, is just beyond contempt.

[elaine567]

CarrieT,

With all due respect the example you quote isn't the same.

 

In the sitch I found myself in, the wife was fully cognizant

 

...I did ask this chap if his wife was OK with him having a "ladyfriend" and he said that she had given "tacit approval". I said OK, let's go and see your wife and you can introduce me and you can say who I am. Suddenly he started backpeddling. Hmmmmm.

 

The wife being fully cognizant and fully aware, makes this situation not OK and it is not really comparable with situations where the spouse has Alzheimer's or related conditions. The afflicted person there is NOT compos mentis, whereas here she will know everything that is going on, it is her body that does not work, not her mind.

He is obviously not doing this with her approval, so he is lying and being deceitful.

He even lied about being "separated" right at the start to you too.

 

I am sorry for his situation but maybe he should just wait the 2/3 years for her to die and he can then date women with a clear conscience.

[NeotericJack]

... I am sorry for his situation but maybe he should just wait the 2/3 years for her to die and he can then date women with a clear conscience.

 

I think he had a clear conscience and, frankly, I don't see why he shouldn't. The dating wasn't hurting his wife; not even to the extent emotional affairs hurt spouses. Emotional affairs can divert attention and affection from the spouse who doesn't know about the affair but, in this case, even though the wife retained her faculties, she must have been beyond caring about anything but her prognosis.

[aileD]

Unless BOTH spouses agree to the arrangement, then it's cheating ...

 

And cheating is not ok.

[SammySammy]

be

I have a very good friend - nah, let me back up, they were a couple... We used to do a lot of fancy dining together. They would listen to my woes about dating and helped me out when I totaled a car. I really liked them both.

 

They were both in their late 50s and she got early Alzheimers. But it was worse than that, it turned into a full-on dementia. In her last, cognizant year, he took her on an around-the-world trip as a sort of "farewell."

 

She is now completely institutionalized as mostly non-functioning. I'm not sure she even knows who he is. So he has found a "Lady Friend." And now, a decade later, my friend's wife doesn't recognize anybody, they are still married, and he and his Lady Friend plan to grow old together, but she knows he will never marry her.

 

It is very much like this story that aired on television (I remember sending this to him when his wife first got sick and, at the time, he didn't believe he would ever love again).

 

Senator Thad Cochran went through something similar. His wife suffered from dementia and was in a nursing home for ten years before she died. At some point, he began a relationship with his secretary who he married after his wife's death. While he was pilloried in the media, he still won reelection.

 

As we know, health care and nursing home care in America is far from free. I'm sure Cochran's wife was well taken care of because he was a Senator.

 

Divorcing his wife would have been easy, but may not have been best for all involved. Not to mention some people would have still criticized him for divorcing her.

[Arieswoman]

Hmmmm,

 

Some interesting responses here - thanks to all who responded

[callierichey]

Arieswoman, sounds like you were put in a difficult situation. I can understand that you would feel angry and betrayed by this man.

 

Marriage is to be honored above all else and with this in mind, I think you did the right thing. You showed good judgement and compassion for his wife.

 

Don't question yourself on this one. You clearly know what it means to do the right thing!

 

Thank you for sharing this with us.