Do we have a responsibility to our parents as they age?

The Princess Bride

Strange question,perhaps, but I have a reason for asking.

I have a friend who had a difficult childhood-emotional & physical abuse with significant neglect.
Fast forward a few decades & he is in 40s- both his parents are alive (72 & 86), with declining health but amazingly- still have the ability to emotionally cut him in two with their actions & words.

However,he finds it hard to step back from them, this decision is seriously affecting his personal life( has a wife & young children & demanding job).

I suppose I find it difficult to understand as I have a great relationship with my own parents,& cannot imagine what he has gone/is going through.

My question,again - do we have an automatic responsibility to our aging parents just because they brought us into the world?

Or should it depend on how they have parented us?

Manach

Yes we have a balanced responsiblity.
Taking the balanced and traditional view of family, as an inter-generational kinship relationship, there are minimum duties owned to even the worst of parents. It is good to set humane examples. This is especially so in the context of teaching the next generation. By according the grandparents some measure of social interaction, then at least will set the future foundation for other generations.

The Princess Bride

You see,the problem I have here,is that we do not choose our parents.
They bring us into the world, and have the chance to make or break us in the formative years-we don't get a say.

So why should my friend have anything to do with them if his parents make him feel so badly about himself- surely in the long run,this potentially toxic relationship will do more harm than good-not only to him but to his children also.

Let's be honest here-if you're friends with someone and over time (significant )problems arise,you can walk away.Why should it be any different with our parents?

Peregrinus

"Why should it be any differnt with our parents?"

Well, because they're your parents. You chose your friend, and that;s why you can unchoose them. You didn't choose your parents. As you point out, for better or worse, they brought you into the world. You can't say that about any of your friends. And it's never been an ethical principle that, if you don't like a fact (and a relationship is a fact) you can simply choose to pretend that it's not a fact.

We do have a responsibility to our parents; we owe them our existence, and that gives them a claim on us. But it's not an absolutely responsibility, overrding all others. As Manach says, your friend needs to balance his responsibility to his parents with his responsibility to his spouse, his children and himself, and striking that balance may require that he do less for his parents than he otherwise would. It could even require that he break off all contact, though that would be a very extreme case.

If he had no responsibility to his parents, he could drop them without a thought, for any reason or for none at all. The fact is that it requires a very weighty reason to drop them, and your friend is fully aware of this, which is why dropping them is such a difficult decision.

queenie1981

i often think of this and without a doubt i think we should always offer the same level of respect shown to us by our parents.

if my parents fulfill their role of nurturing, providing and educating me to the very best of their abilities then i will be very happy and honored to look after them as well as they looked after me and more. I would hope that my children will in turn offer both me and their dad the same level of respect that we show them....

its all about the Karma for me!

looksee

I think there is a difference here between responsibility and affection. He could do the 'right thing' by his parents as a self-imposed obligation, but he does not have to respect, like them or feel affection for them if they treat him badly.

I think there should come a point in everyone's life though where they look at their parents and realise they have 'outgrown' them. They are still parents, loved and respected (or not) but the need to obey them is gone. Parents for their part should allow this to happen. It is difficult for a person to fulfill him or herself if they are still looking to parents for permission to do things, even subconsciously.

It seems to me that it is at this stage that the balance changes and the child eventually and gradually becomes the carer. If the parents are dominant to the extent that this change does not happen then they could end up with a reluctant servant rather than a loving carer.

seamus

Manach wrote: »

Taking the balanced and traditional view of family, as an inter-generational kinship relationship, there are minimum duties owned to even the worst of parents.

I disagree tbh. I have the "make your bed and lie in it" point of view. If a parent consistently treats their child very poorly, I see no reason why the child has any obligation, moral or otherwise, to look after the parent as they age.

All relationships, even familial ones, are about give and take. If one person in the relationship treats the other very poorly, then I see no reason why the latter should stick around.

A parent who has not built a good relationship with their child is not deserving of that child's lifetime support. They are not deserving of any "minimum duties" tbh. If you live life as a horrible person, then you deserve to die as a horrible person, alone and with no-one who cares about you (assuming no attempt is made to change oneself or make amends).

Personal ethics may come into it of course, and many people will feel a personal obligation to look after even the most horrible parents.

But I would never judge someone for cutting off an emotionally or physically abusive parent, in much the same way that I wouldn't judge a parent who cuts off an abusive or reckless (adult) child.

seenitall

No, we don't.

If I doled out the same treatment to my mother, now that she is in her old age, that she doled out to me when I was a child and teenager unable to defend myself from her abuse, she would be far worse off than she is now. So, all in all, she can consider herself lucky that I live 2000 miles away - and she knows it.

She can find someone who she didn't terrorise the hell out of when they were a child, to help with the garden or take her to the doctor's.

MagicMarker

Yes we do have a responsibility to our parents, if they are worth it.

paddyandy

Yes..I wish i had my parents to be anxious about sometimes . I still miss mine though they were'nt easy and parents are not meant to be toys later on to take out occasionally and reminisce with . How do we evaluate parents ...feelgood over the years that we got from them...is that all? .......some childhoods were horrendous though....i don't know there .

OS119

no, we do not.

parents, like all adults, are responsible for themselves. the child has no obligations towards the parent as its consent was not asked when the parents decided to create this inter-generational support arrangement, and so it is not liable to meet the conditions inherant within that arrangement.

if people wish to reciprocate, they can - but no, people have no responsibilities towards an agreement they were not party to.

seenitall

I feel that creating a human being is one thing, but giving someone all the love, support and parenting that they need in order to become a happy and well-adjusted adult is another thing altogether, and well worth reciprocating that love and care when the person needs it.

If my parent behaved differently toward me, I would behave differently toward them. But there is no contract/agreement there to make me do so IMO, I'd want to give a lot back because they would have taught me what love and happiness are.

seamus

OS119 wrote: »

parents, like all adults, are responsible for themselves. the child has no obligations towards the parent as its consent was not asked when the parents decided to create this inter-generational support arrangement, and so it is not liable to meet the conditions inherant within that arrangement.

Even though your post actually agrees with mine, I've never liked the "I never asked to be born, so fnck you" argument. Unless you actually dislike being alive, then even at the most basic level you should be thankful to your parents that you were born.

But just being born doesn't bestow any magical responsibility on you to stay loyal to them no matter what. Parents always talk of unconditional love, but I don't think it truely exists. There is always some line which can be crossed to make a parent or a child disconnect themselves from eachother. It's just completely off most peoples' radars.

If your parents are good people and treat you as any parent should treat a child, then only a despicable human being would abandon them in later years. Not having been asked to be born doesn't excuse a person from acting like a decent human being.

You could use the "I didn't ask to be here" excuse to justify any kind of behaviour, from thievery to rape.

johnayo

A poll would be very interesting on this thread.

OS119

seamus wrote: »

...You could use the "I didn't ask to be here" excuse to justify any kind of behaviour, from thievery to rape.

no, you could not. the behaviour of the the individual is the responsibility of the individual, end of story: its me who commands my hand to pick up a rock and throw it through a window, not the bloke down the post office.

The Princess Bride

OP here- interesting opinions so far-thank you all.

seenitall wrote: »

No, we don't.

If I doled out the same treatment to my mother, now that she is in her old age, that she doled out to me when I was a child and teenager unable to defend myself from her abuse, she would be far worse off than she is now.

Exactly- just because they brought us into the world does not mean they have a right to mistreat us then expect the opposite in return.

seamus wrote: »

But just being born doesn't bestow any magical responsibility on you to stay loyal to them no matter what.

If your parents are good people and treat you as any parent should treat a child, then only a despicable human being would abandon them in later years.

I agree.

keithob wrote: »

Of course we do.

Just because....is that it?

seenitall wrote: »

I feel that creating a human being is one thing, but giving someone all the love, support and parenting that they need in order to become a happy and well-adjusted adult is another thing altogether, and well worth reciprocating that love and care when the person needs it.

If my parent behaved differently toward me, I would behave differently toward them. But there is no contract/agreement there to make me do so IMO, I'd want to give a lot back because they would have taught me what love and happiness are.

Again- having had a happy childhood,I find it difficult to understand other family dilemmas- but absolutely wouldn't expect anybody to care for somebody who'd mistreated them- especially during childhood.

seamus wrote: »

I disagree tbh. I have the "make your bed and lie in it" point of view. If a parent consistently treats their child very poorly, I see no reason why the child has any obligation, moral or otherwise, to look after the parent as they age.

All relationships, even familial ones, are about give and take. If one person in the relationship treats the other very poorly, then I see no reason why the latter should stick around.

A parent who has not built a good relationship with their child is not deserving of that child's lifetime support. They are not deserving of any "minimum duties" tbh. If you live life as a horrible person, then you deserve to die as a horrible person, alone and with no-one who cares about you (assuming no attempt is made to change oneself or make amends).

Personal ethics may come into it of course, and many people will feel a personal obligation to look after even the most horrible parents.

But I would never judge someone for cutting off an emotionally or physically abusive parent, in much the same way that I wouldn't judge a parent who cuts off an abusive or reckless (adult) child.

Thank you Seamus- couldn't have put it better myself.

The Corinthian

seamus wrote: »

I disagree tbh. I have the "make your bed and lie in it" point of view. If a parent consistently treats their child very poorly, I see no reason why the child has any obligation, moral or otherwise, to look after the parent as they age.

It's probably my Italian upbringing, but I'd disagree. We ultimately have duties and obligations both to the generations before us and those that follow.

Also washing your hands of your parents sets a dangerous example to your children; if you can rationalize turning your back on them, it makes it much easier for your own children to find a different rational to do the same to you when the time comes.

Given this, this does not mean we should go beyond the call of said duty. If a parent, for example, has been a very poor one, then one is obligated to do the minimum in their care, but only the minimum.

The Princess Bride

The Corinthian wrote: »

Also washing your hands of your parents sets a dangerous example to your children; if you can rationalize turning your back on them, it makes it much easier for your own children to find a different rational to do the same to you when the time comes.

Given this, this does not mean we should go beyond the call of said duty. If a parent, for example, has been a very poor one, then one is obligated to do the minimum in their care, but only the minimum.

OP here.
Define " a very poor one" and " minimum" then ,please.

What if even doing the minimum,drains you of your energy,your self esteem- and brings back every bad memory from your childhood that you'd spent years forgetting.

Which in turn causes your own children to see you differently- thus potentially doing more long term damage to everyone.
Surely then,it would be easier if you just stepped aside in the first place, and lived your own life.

I'm talking serious emotional abuse here- only a few of us know,and we're all astounded that he has become the great man he is, in spite of everything.

The Corinthian

msthe80s wrote: »

Define " a very poor one" and " minimum" then ,please.

A very poor one would be anything short of murder or sexual abuse, on the negative end of the scale.

Minimum could simply be paying towards their upkeep, not necessarily a large amount, even one or two hundred Euro per month. Or organizing care for them, via the state rather than private, but ultimately leaving the direct contact to others.

As I said, this is largely my own opinion and simply how I was raised. However, I do believe that throwing them to the wolves creates a dangerous precedent that could come to bite you in the ass some day; and not because you may be a bad parent - there's a lot of good parents forgotten in care homes, under one rationale or other.

seenitall

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, I do believe that throwing them to the wolves creates a dangerous precedent that could come to bite you in the ass some day; and not because you may be a bad parent - there's a lot of good parents forgotten in care homes, under one rationale or other.

Pffft... once you have been through an abusive childhood, NOTHING is ever as horrific or hurts as much. That's something that many, many people I've met through the years don't seem to be able to grasp. It looks to me almost as if there is a taboo surrounding the fact of the existance of parental abuse, especially in the more traditional societies. Feck that, I say. No one has lived my life so no one's dangerous precedents can make me question my choices; only I can do that, and I am more than at peace with mine.

If my daughter ever "throws me to the wolves", so be it; whatever her reasons, it won't be because I didn't love her unreservedly or hounoured her life more than my own. Because I do and I always will, and that will do me on my death bed just fine.

The Corinthian

seenitall wrote: »

It looks to me almost as if there is a taboo surrounding the fact of the existance of parental abuse, especially in the more traditional societies.

Watch what you're suggesting there. I gave an opinion, clearly marked as subjective and based upon a non-Irish influence, because ultimately such choices are more than likely subjective and culturally based. However for you to ascribe stereotypical values based upon ethnic culture is pretty unacceptable.

Indeed, were I to play the same game I might suggest that Italian culture might not have such values had it to deal with the effects of alcoholism as Irish culture suffers.

So accept or reject what I suggest, but don't resort to such base comparisons, especially if what I've suggested is not what you'd hoped to hear.

If my daughter ever "throws me to the wolves", so be it; whatever her reasons, it won't be because I didn't love her unreservedly or hounoured her life more than my own. Because I do and I always will, and that will do me on my death bed just fine.

That's for you to ultimately choose, all I did was add pretty much the only vaguely objective argument to what is a largely subjective topic.

This is obviously a personal issue for you. Are you sure that Humanities is the best place for you to discuss it?

seenitall

The Corinthian wrote: »

Watch what you're suggesting there. I gave an opinion, clearly marked as subjective and based upon a non-Irish influence, because ultimately such choices are more than likely subjective and culturally based. However for you to ascribe stereotypical values based upon ethnic culture is pretty unacceptable.

Indeed, were I to play the same game I might suggest that Italian culture might not have such values had it to deal with the effects of alcoholism as Irish culture suffers.

So accept or reject what I suggest, but don't resort to such base comparisons, especially if what I've suggested is not what you'd hoped to hear.

That's for you to ultimately choose, all I did was add pretty much the only vaguely objective argumentto what is a largely subjective topic.

This is obviously a personal issue for you. Are you sure that Humanities is the best place for you to discuss it?

?

What's got you so hot and bothered, TC?? I'm really sorry you feel I made base comparisons and suggestions, but for my part I can't see it. If you feel that I, by some insidious means/power of suggestion, made a wholesale attack on the Italian society, I can honestly say it certainly wasn't my intention.

There was neither mention nor notion of a specific ethnic culture in my remark. I made an observational remark on traditional societies, and I feel well placed to do so since I was born and raised in one of them and have lived in another for the last 11 years. (Traditional in the European context, of course.) Neither one of them is Italy, although I would put Italy in that company for sure, based on pretty extensive travel in that country and having met/befriended a good few Italian people in my time. So your remark about Italy did prompt mine about traditional societies in general, and I wasn't aware I was breaking any forum rules with it. If I am, please report my post, because I stand by my observational remark. I don't mind being modded/warned by a mod if I have crossed a line, but I do mind being back-modded/told to watch what I'm writing by someone who has no business doing so. You will watch that, won't you?

As for the compassionately proffered advice in your last paragraph, as I feel I have some valuable insight to add, I'm quite happy to discuss this topic here, thank you very much. You are the soul of consideration, TC, you really are.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

I think you would have to define parental abuse before you could really answer that question.

For example some people believed the fact they were never given any encouragement or praise and were alway put down by a parent was a form of abuse!

At some stage you have to psychology leave your parents behind and develop an adult to adult relationship with them.

I do think we have a responsibility to help our parents as they age, but we don't not have a responsibility to carry them!

Giselle

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's probably my Italian upbringing, but I'd disagree. We ultimately have duties and obligations both to the generations before us and those that follow.

I would be of the opinion that our parents deserve at least equal care to that they expend on their children.

If your parents did the minimum in terms of loving parenting, and contributed only to your basic needs for food and shelter, then they deserve the equivalent, at least, in return. No parent 'deserves' love, if they were abusive or uncaring.

Perhaps showing your (abusive) parents more love or care in their final years would enhance the lives of all for the better, should you be able to provide it.

Luckily I've had wonderful parents, and it would be my pleasure and privilege to care for them.

The Princess Bride

mariaalice wrote: »

I think you would have to define parental abuse before you could really answer that question.

OP here again.With my friend, it was a childhood best forgotten.

*Neglect- children walking to school in all weathers when there was a car sitting in the drive; lack of nutrition/clothing while both parents chain smoked;lack of educational opportunity due to no money ( then again,if you spent every penny on cigs,it might be hard to send your children to school/college.) Much more than this too.

Physical abuse- repeated beatings /fights from a very young age.

Emotional abuse- constant name calling,criticism- as bad as it gets.This is ongoing.*

The more I think about it,the more I reckon,that if it were my life and my situation,I'd have to walk away and live my own life- far away from these people.
I've only met this couple a handful of times ever and they are really something else.




* I realise that to some people,perhaps, this might mean nothing- I am familiar with Child Protection and the different Children's Acts so am confident that I am not exaggerating when I say ^^^^ this was abuse.*

seenitall

mariaalice wrote: »

I think you would have to define parental abuse before you could really answer that question.

For example some people believed the fact they were never given any encouragement or praise and were alway put down by a parent was a form of abuse!

Eh, being "always put down by a parent" is a form of abuse (mental abuse), as difficult as you may find it to believe. (!)

I will not go into what went on in my childhood on here because it would be off-topic and it would feel too much like I am justifying my position, while I don't feel that there is anything I need to justify. Suffice it to say, it was abuse, and anyone is at liberty to believe me or not.

Neyite

Some years ago I cared for my ill and elderly father until he died. I consider it a priviledge to have been in the position where I was able to repay him in this manner, because I loved him dearly, and recognised the sacrifices he made over the years to ensure my childhood was filled with love, good teaching and counsel, warmth, clothing, nutritious food, education and so much more.

But there were days when it was hard. I am human, and got frustrated with the limitations of his illness, with the limitations of my patience, and the emotions of seeing someone you adore slowly over years until there is a shell of the person that was once there.

I cannot imagine doing what I did for him for a family member who hurt me, or was cruel, or neglected me when I was small and vunerable, I am just not that selfless a person, and I just would not do it. I know my adoration for my father made helping him to the toilet, washing him and feeding him just about bearable.

This is area is a bit of a mind field, my mother would be the type that would do anything for her children, however as she has got older she has become some what difficult to deal with, its the usual Irish/old person thing of always talking about bad news and just general negativity plus complaints about her illness and pains.

We all have different ways of dealing with her I don't let her talk about bad news etc, because of this I have better relationship with her than some of my siblings ( who do indulge her carry on ) They do it because they think because she is old she should be indulged ( something I don't agree with )

If your parents sexually/psychical/mentally abused you in childhood then I don't see why anyone would look after them, but if they have turned in to difficult old people that might be something you just have to put up with to an extent.

When I am old I do not want my children to fully look after me because its unfair to expect it I think.

miec

Taking the balanced and traditional view of family, as an inter-generational kinship relationship, there are minimum duties owned to even the worst of parents. It is good to set humane examples.

I disagree with this on two points; speaking as a child of abusive parents and as a parent of a much loved child.

Duty was forced down my throat by my family despite being the recipient of varying levels of abuse until I removed myself from my family. So if / when they become infirm I will not be around to assist them and I am comfortable with that. I don't think one has to care for parents and in particular for cruel, uncaring parents.

As a parent myself who broke the cycle of abuse, etc, I am glad to say that I love my child (who is a teenager) when I conceived him I did it because I wanted to experience parenthood, so in effect it was a selfish act, it was for me and I gladly parent him despite the challenges that parenting brings but with love comes freedom, and I want my child when he grows to be utterly free, he owes me nothing, absolutely nothing and I don't want him to feel obligated to care for me or be tied to me, that would break my heart, I want him to be free to choose whatever, if he wants to care for me in my dotage and he happily chooses it then fine (although I think he would be nuts to do so) but for me there is no expectation. I think this whole notion of duty to parents is pretty disturbing for me. I believe that once our kids grow up they should fly the nest and not look back.

gcgirl

miec wrote: »

Taking the balanced and traditional view of family, as an inter-generational kinship relationship, there are minimum duties owned to even the worst of parents. It is good to set humane examples.

I disagree with this on two points; speaking as a child of abusive parents and as a parent of a much loved child.

Duty was forced down my throat by my family despite being the recipient of varying levels of abuse until I removed myself from my family. So if / when they become infirm I will not be around to assist them and I am comfortable with that. I don't think one has to care for parents and in particular for cruel, uncaring parents.

As a parent myself who broke the cycle of abuse, etc, I am glad to say that I love my child (who is a teenager) when I conceived him I did it because I wanted to experience parenthood, so in effect it was a selfish act, it was for me and I gladly parent him despite the challenges that parenting brings but with love comes freedom, and I want my child when he grows to be utterly free, he owes me nothing, absolutely nothing and I don't want him to feel obligated to care for me or be tied to me, that would break my heart, I want him to be free to choose whatever, if he wants to care for me in my dotage and he happily chooses it then fine (although I think he would be nuts to do so) but for me there is no expectation. I think this whole notion of duty to parents is pretty disturbing for me. I believe that once our kids grow up they should fly the nest and not look back.

+a million