Fundie Lite Wife Having Baby with Husband with Severe TBI

[nokidsmom]

I can't help but wonder if Kathleen is having a baby because she wants to leave the marriage, and this is a irreproachable method of doing so. No one will blame her for failing Cale, or refusing to fulfill her wifely obligation to take care of him, if she leaves in order to protect their baby.

I don't know that a someone is obligated to stay married to a spouse who suffers significant cognitive impairment, especially early on in the marriage. Certainly, such a relationship cannot be an equal partnership. And, as this situation shows, there can be huge conflicts of need. Kathleen has every right to a loving and supportive partner, a child, and a pet. Cale has every right to a stable, loving environment that is constructed around his capabilities and limitations. Neither person's rights are more important than the other's. And neither set of needs seems remotely compatible.

It just seems unfortunate that Kathleen might feel as if having a child is her only way to escape an unbalanced "marriage" in which she is her husband's caretaker, since she will otherwise be blamed or abandoning him.

There could be something to that, even if unconsciously on her part. It's hard to know but I would imagine that people in her situation face a lot of pressure (both internally from their own feelings as well as from people on the outside) to see it through, to not be seen as abandoning the disabled partner, the "whole sickness and in health" thing comes into play. At the same time, she has in a sense, lost her partner. Everything is changed and as you say, their individual needs as they now stand are not compatible.

[twinmama]

Man with that picture of Cale and the stuff about him being anxious about the baby, I feel really horrible for him. Adjusting to parenthood is really, really difficult for people with out TBIs; I can't imagine the fear he is feeling. And with his lack of coping mechanisms, it is scary to think about his reactions when the baby comes and won't stop crying.

I don't follow their blog constantly (only check it when it pops up here in discussions), but when did the dogs business happen? Because that is such a huge red flag about having a baby around that I am horrified if it was before they got pregnant and they still got pregnant anyway.

And despite Kathleen putting herself in this situation and making poor decisions, I feel bad for her too. The stress she will be under with a newborn and a husband that needs her to take care of him so much will be immense. I almost hope that she is doing it so she can leave him with less perceived scorn. For the baby's safety and her sanity, and for Cale as well as he doesn't seem like he will be able to cope.

(anything I say about whether they should or should not have children is ONLY about Cale, not all people with TBIs or disabilities, at all!)

[lipstickgoalie]

Man with that picture of Cale and the stuff about him being anxious about the baby, I feel really horrible for him. Adjusting to parenthood is really, really difficult for people with out TBIs; I can't imagine the fear he is feeling. And with his lack of coping mechanisms, it is scary to think about his reactions when the baby comes and won't stop crying.

I don't follow their blog constantly (only check it when it pops up here in discussions), but when did the dogs business happen? Because that is such a huge red flag about having a baby around that I am horrified if it was before they got pregnant and they still got pregnant anyway.

And despite Kathleen putting herself in this situation and making poor decisions, I feel bad for her too. The stress she will be under with a newborn and a husband that needs her to take care of him so much will be immense. I almost hope that she is doing it so she can leave him with less perceived scorn. For the baby's safety and her sanity, and for Cale as well as he doesn't seem like he will be able to cope.

(anything I say about whether they should or should not have children is ONLY about Cale, not all people with TBIs or disabilities, at all!)

I am having trouble finding the post about the first dog. But the latest one is: adarlingkindoflife.com/2013/06/20-things.html

The first, or at least the one that I think was first was actually her mothers dog. Cale didn't react well to that either. I am still trying to find it but it was around the time they were building the house.

Edited to add: As soon as I posted this I found it. adarlingkindoflife.com/2012/09/dogshouseand-praises.html . They had to get rid of her mother's two dogs. And while we are on the topic of dogs Cale was decided to be intelligible for a service dog because he was unable to properly interact with the dog. You have to be in pretty bad shape to be turned down for a service dog. I think Cale is actually in worse shape than I previously thought. I don't understand on what planet Kathleen thought that having a baby was a good idea.

[MrsFoxx]

I am having trouble finding the post about the first dog. But the latest one is: adarlingkindoflife.com/2013/06/20-things.html

The first, or at least the one that I think was first was actually her mothers dog. Cale didn't react well to that either. I am still trying to find it but it was around the time they were building the house.

Edited to add: As soon as I posted this I found it. adarlingkindoflife.com/2012/09/dogshouseand-praises.html . They had to get rid of her mother's two dogs. And while we are on the topic of dogs Cale was decided to be intelligible for a service dog because he was unable to properly interact with the dog. You have to be in pretty bad shape to be turned down for a service dog. I think Cale is actually in worse shape than I previously thought. I don't understand on what planet Kathleen thought that having a baby was a good idea.

The video on that first post of Cale talking about eating a cow was like watching a video of a little kid. I feel bad for her, because this isn't the marriage she signed up for, I'm sure, but still.

[Cleopatra7]

I read some of the encouraging comments on the latest blog entry. Do these people not see what we see?

[YPestis]

I don't know that a someone is obligated to stay married to a spouse who suffers significant cognitive impairment, especially early on in the marriage. Certainly, such a relationship cannot be an equal partnership. And, as this situation shows, there can be huge conflicts of need. Kathleen has every right to a loving and supportive partner, a child, and a pet. Cale has every right to a stable, loving environment that is constructed around his capabilities and limitations. Neither person's rights are more important than the other's. And neither set of needs seems remotely compatible.

This will probably be an issue as medical science advances. The "in sickness or health" clause was created during a time when people got sick and died or got sick and than better. Surviving a traumatic brain injuries were extremely rare and many died from a host of other medical issues that comes with such severe disabilities (i.e inability to move).

Today, people can and do survive severe brain injuries but then require round the clock care, perhaps suffering from mood wings and personality changes. I agree whole heartily with you that this type of relationship will conflict with each spouse's right to living out a happy life. The healthy spouse deserves a life with someone who can offer emotional and physical companionship and children (if that was the spouse's original wish). The disabled spouse deserves a safe and caring environment where he can operate to the fullest extent of his capabilities. Children deserve a stable, safe home with involved parents. Unfortunately, all three "rights" cannot occur when you have one spouse doing round the clock care of another spouse.

A while back, I read an article in the WaPo (or NYT?) that interviewed a young wife whose husband suffered a TBI. The husband ended up needing round the clock skilled nursing care. He was unable to function beyond the walls of the nursing center. The wife still loved her husband and visited him often. However, at a certain point, she decided to remarry. She still wanted to include her now ex-husband in his life and her current husband agreed to that. This brought a host of admonishments from onlookers because people thought she was "cheating" with two men. I guess people thought she should have either stayed with the disabled spouse, foregoing emotional and children, or cut off relations with the disabled spouse and "got on with her life". It seems an unnecessarily hard choice to place on a woman.

I think our society still struggles with the ethics behind a TBI patient. We still want to think of TBI patients as equal to that of their pre-TBI state, so we may castigate people for emotionally or physically leaving those spouses. However, modern science has made it possible for people to survive even the most severe head injuries, but unable to do much else. Is it fair to tell a spouse that she/he is a bad person for wanting a spouse who can be there for them emotionally? physically? financially? If a spouse could no longer do any of those three, is it fair to expect their spouses to give up those needs?

[shedemei]

I haven't really thought of this before, but this really is a topic couples should discuss along with things like living wills and medical preferences. I've told me boyfriend in the past that it's important for me that he's happy, and that I want him to move on and find love again if I die. But I don't know how I feel about a TBI. I still want him to be happy, but where's the line we both feel comfortable with? How can we still take care of each other even if a romantic partnership isn't really feasible?

[France Nolan]

I read some of the encouraging comments on the latest blog entry. Do these people not see what we see?

People see what they want to see. The encouraging comments are probably from other fundies/fundie lite folks.

I'm just sad for everyone involved.

[lipstickgoalie]

I am having trouble finding the post about the first dog. But the latest one is: adarlingkindoflife.com/2013/06/20-things.html

The first, or at least the one that I think was first was actually her mothers dog. Cale didn't react well to that either. I am still trying to find it but it was around the time they were building the house.

Edited to add: As soon as I posted this I found it. adarlingkindoflife.com/2012/09/dogshouseand-praises.html . They had to get rid of her mother's two dogs. And while we are on the topic of dogs Cale was decided to be intelligible for a service dog because he was unable to properly interact with the dog. You have to be in pretty bad shape to be turned down for a service dog. I think Cale is actually in worse shape than I previously thought. I don't understand on what planet Kathleen thought that having a baby was a good idea.

We may be up to 4 dogs now. I went back and am reading the blog from the beginning and there was another dog at some point. Kathleen adopted it while Cale was still in the hospital. adarlingkindoflife.com/2010/04/update-kathleen_14.html

[Milly-Molly-Mandy]

I read the post before her pregnancy announcement, in which she says that she decided to get a Yorkie puppy. Evidently the puppy lasted for four days and Cale, her husband, hated it. I'm very concerned about that baby.

I'd think she would leave him and take the baby to be honest. She is clearly having the baby for herself.

[Cleopatra7]

I'd think she would leave him and take the baby to be honest. She is clearly having the baby for herself.

At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if she decides to take the Dateline/48 Hours approach to resolving her marital issues, and Cale ends up having an "accident." :? Or Cale kills her and the baby in a fit of rage. I can't see this ending well for anyone involved.

[Minijumb]

This will probably be an issue as medical science advances. The "in sickness or health" clause was created during a time when people got sick and died or got sick and than better. Surviving a traumatic brain injuries were extremely rare and many died from a host of other medical issues that comes with such severe disabilities (i.e inability to move).

Today, people can and do survive severe brain injuries but then require round the clock care, perhaps suffering from mood wings and personality changes. I agree whole heartily with you that this type of relationship will conflict with each spouse's right to living out a happy life. The healthy spouse deserves a life with someone who can offer emotional and physical companionship and children (if that was the spouse's original wish). The disabled spouse deserves a safe and caring environment where he can operate to the fullest extent of his capabilities. Children deserve a stable, safe home with involved parents. Unfortunately, all three "rights" cannot occur when you have one spouse doing round the clock care of another spouse.

A while back, I read an article in the WaPo (or NYT?) that interviewed a young wife whose husband suffered a TBI. The husband ended up needing round the clock skilled nursing care. He was unable to function beyond the walls of the nursing center. The wife still loved her husband and visited him often. However, at a certain point, she decided to remarry. She still wanted to include her now ex-husband in his life and her current husband agreed to that. This brought a host of admonishments from onlookers because people thought she was "cheating" with two men. I guess people thought she should have either stayed with the disabled spouse, foregoing emotional and children, or cut off relations with the disabled spouse and "got on with her life". It seems an unnecessarily hard choice to place on a woman.

I think our society still struggles with the ethics behind a TBI patient. We still want to think of TBI patients as equal to that of their pre-TBI state, so we may castigate people for emotionally or physically leaving those spouses. However, modern science has made it possible for people to survive even the most severe head injuries, but unable to do much else. Is it fair to tell a spouse that she/he is a bad person for wanting a spouse who can be there for them emotionally? physically? financially? If a spouse could no longer do any of those three, is it fair to expect their spouses to give up those needs?

I agree with this post so much. I worked in a high care nursing home while doing my undergrad studies. One of the ladies I looked after had suffered an aneurysm in her 50s, leaving her with a profound intellectual disability and needing constant nursing care. Her husband visited every other day or so after work, staying to feed her dinner, taking her for walks etc. He also had confided in some staff member that he was seeing someone else at some point. The amount of gossip, and comment he got, stopping barely short of outright hostility was incredible. Carers can become quite attached to and protective of their residents, but I couldn't believe how most people seemed to not understand his point of view at all. I can completely understand him seeking another relationship, and actually admired his devotion to his wife. Where I worked, it seemed that about 2/3s* of residents were rarely (if ever) visited by family or friends, and while the wife was happy to see him, there was no way their relationship could have remained at all similar to how it would have been before her injury. She was happy to see him, but unable to even hold a basic conversation. How lonely the husband must have felt. 'In sickness and in health' is an extremely high, in some cases unrealistic, standard now.

*Statistics calculated using the 'Ken Alexander method'

[France Nolan]

I agree with this post so much. I worked in a high care nursing home while doing my undergrad studies. One of the ladies I looked after had suffered an aneurysm in her 50s, leaving her with a profound intellectual disability and needing constant nursing care. Her husband visited every other day or so after work, staying to feed her dinner, taking her for walks etc. He also had confided in some staff member that he was seeing someone else at some point. The amount of gossip, and comment he got, stopping barely short of outright hostility was incredible. Carers can become quite attached to and protective of their residents, but I couldn't believe how most people seemed to not understand his point of view at all. I can completely understand him seeking another relationship, and actually admired his devotion to his wife. Where I worked, it seemed that about 2/3s* of residents were rarely (if ever) visited by family or friends, and while the wife was happy to see him, there was no way their relationship could have remained at all similar to how it would have been before her injury. She was happy to see him, but unable to even hold a basic conversation. How lonely the husband must have felt. 'In sickness and in health' is an extremely high, in some cases unrealistic, standard now.

*Statistics calculated using the 'Ken Alexander method'

Medical science is moving faster and faster, which is great. New discoveries, more lives saved, who doesn't love that? Unfortunately ethics haven't kept up the pace.

[twinmama]

I think with some TBIs (and I don't know anyone with one, just what I have read), the person is really not the person you married afterwards. I can't see anything wrong with leaving a marriage because your partner has changed so drastically. I don't think it makes the spouse a bad person at all. And of course they love their injured partner, but if the person they married is not there any more I don't think they are any more obligated to stay with them than any two people who grew apart after years. I can't imagine the guilt the leaving spouse would feel, but at some point you really have to think about your own life and what you want for it. If you are okay with being a care giver in addition to a spouse, go for it; if not, that is okay as well. I have NO idea what I would do in that situation, so I won't judge anyone else in it.

I do judge on putting an innocent child in harm's way though. If Cale was just childlike in his thinking that's one thing, a large burden for Kathleen to take on by herself, but not unsafe. But he's violent and unpredictable. That's not okay to do to a baby, or to Cale.

[Georgiana]

One of the first thought exercises my prof had us do in our into to human cognition was ask the question "If I put Steve's brain into John's body, and you were talking to that body, would you be talking to Steve or John?". Well, most people will answer it would be Steve. Everything we are, everything about who we are, is housed in our brains.

So when you fall in love with someone, you fall in love with their brain. And when you marry someone, you marry their brain. Marriage is a contract. You enter into a contract with a specific other brain. Not all other brains. This one specifically. The contract is not valid with a different brain (unless you enter into a new one).

When that brain changes significantly, whether because of illness, injury, addiction, whatever, it is no longer the brain you love. It is no longer the brain you entered into a contract with. Yes, we have to account for normal wear, tear, and changes in the brain, but in drastic cases like this, this is fundamentally not the person she married. It is the BODY of the person she married to. It is a sack of meat and bone that used to house the person she married. But it does not house that person anymore.

That being said, I don't think the answer is to just divorce the person and abandon them to a life they can no longer deal with. But I also don't think the spouse should be trapped. I think a nuanced approach is best; one that allows both parties to have ALL their needs met and be in a safe environment. Each TBI is a little unique, so I think society should approach each case individually.

But that will never happen.

[flojo]

I can't help but wonder if Kathleen is having a baby because she wants to leave the marriage, and this is a irreproachable method of doing so. No one will blame her for failing Cale, or refusing to fulfill her wifely obligation to take care of him, if she leaves in order to protect their baby.

I don't know that a someone is obligated to stay married to a spouse who suffers significant cognitive impairment, especially early on in the marriage. Certainly, such a relationship cannot be an equal partnership. And, as this situation shows, there can be huge conflicts of need. Kathleen has every right to a loving and supportive partner, a child, and a pet. Cale has every right to a stable, loving environment that is constructed around his capabilities and limitations. Neither person's rights are more important than the other's. And neither set of needs seems remotely compatible.

It just seems unfortunate that Kathleen might feel as if having a child is her only way to escape an unbalanced "marriage" in which she is her husband's caretaker, since she will otherwise be blamed or abandoning him.

At the very least, giving her an oppotunity to live separately, even if her community looks down on divorce in these circumstances, typically it is more ok if "accomodations" are made because of the baby.

[Burris]

I’m not entirely sure what to make of this situation. I will say, however, that I would usually find the idea of one spouse divorcing the other over disability distasteful. Either marry with the knowledge that things can go even more wrong than your wildest dreams, or don’t marry at all – or at least don’t claim you’re marrying for better or for worse because people who divorce over infirmity in a partner are ignoring their vows.

On another note, Cale’s competency is for professionals and possibly for a judge to determine. I have no doubt, given that he is on several forms of government support, that he and his family come into contact with mandated reporters all the time.

One comment – from the first post, in fact – really got my attention:

Now, I don't judge Kathleen for remaining married to Cale.

You point that out as if it’s a social allowance you’re granting them – the right to remain married without fear of your judgment.

[PurpleSheepleEater]

I’m not entirely sure what to make of this situation. I will say, however, that I would usually find the idea of one spouse divorcing the other over disability distasteful. Either marry with the knowledge that things can go even more wrong than your wildest dreams, or don’t marry at all – or at least don’t claim you’re marrying for better or for worse because people who divorce over infirmity in a partner are ignoring their vows.

My take on it is this. They were together for better or worse. However the marriage does not exist anymore. Caregiving is not marriage, particularly when you are dealing with people who are still very young. Cale, though no fault of his own, cannot maintain his own vows so, in my opinion, she should not have to maintain hers. I think it's very unfair to expect someone to give up their whole lives and hopes and dreams to take care of an invalid because they were in love with who that person was. Alternately I think it's very unfair to expect someone who has been brain damaged to fulfill the roles of husband and father to the point of making a baby with them knowing full well they cannot parent. Each situation is different. This one makes me sad for everyone because no one is getting what they want and the expectations are heavy for all involved due to their belief system.

[lipstickgoalie]

I’m not entirely sure what to make of this situation. I will say, however, that I would usually find the idea of one spouse divorcing the other over disability distasteful. Either marry with the knowledge that things can go even more wrong than your wildest dreams, or don’t marry at all – or at least don’t claim you’re marrying for better or for worse because people who divorce over infirmity in a partner are ignoring their vows.

On another note, Cale’s competency is for professionals and possibly for a judge to determine. I have no doubt, given that he is on several forms of government support, that he and his family come into contact with mandated reporters all the time.

One comment – from the first post, in fact – really got my attention:

You point that out as if it’s a social allowance you’re granting them – the right to remain married without fear of your judgment.

My husband and I have talked about it at length and if I were to suffer a TBI that left me significantly impaired and in need of full time care (in the same manner as Cale) I in no way whatsoever expect him to stay married to me. I don't think that is fair to him. Of course we have also had the talk and if I were that level of injured I would not want to continue on and wish that he would cease care either in the form of a DNR or withdrawal of nutrition. I do not have the same feeling about physical disabilities, just a severe impairment of mental cognition.

That being said Katheen is his medical proxy and holds his POA. I think that it is ethically squicky for her to get pregnant. I really do think the power imbalance is too great. And that is before how Cale's volitility will impact the child. Kids have a way of making everything about them. If Cale is melting down and becoming volitile even on a semi regular basis that is really going to impact their daughter in a negative way. That kid is going to be thinking "if I were only better/faster/quieter daddy would be happy". I don't think that is something that is a mandated reporter level of abuse but I also think that it is incredibly selfish and irresponsible of Kathleen to purposely bring a child into that environment.

[tigerchild]

I’m not entirely sure what to make of this situation. I will say, however, that I would usually find the idea of one spouse divorcing the other over disability distasteful. Either marry with the knowledge that things can go even more wrong than your wildest dreams, or don’t marry at all – or at least don’t claim you’re marrying for better or for worse because people who divorce over infirmity in a partner are ignoring their vows.

Like so many things, it's easy to say this kind of thing until it bites you in the ass RL.

When I was much younger, I dated a guy who was paraplegic and had a TBI, and fell in love with him. We married. Then I discovered what it was really like to be married to someone with his kind of TBI, the kind that honestly does not seem to have much of an impact on functionality in the short term--until you have to deal with the occasional rages/outbursts and have them directed at you, the short term memory loss, personality shifts with very little warning, ect. I was 23 and wanted a life again, one that did not involve me getting things thrown at me, cursed at, hit, because he just could not manage to maintain impulse control stamina. I did have a lot of comments like yours thrown in my face, since I was fundie-lite by that time but eh. Like I said. Until you live it, you don't know. I do not doubt there are better people than me that could keep going, and I walked into it "knowing" at least a bit of what I was getting into (not really though). I think if I'd stayed so that other people could see I was a good person who was capable of taking their vows seriously, I'd probably be dead by now, one way or the other.

[salex]

My husband and I have talked about it at length and if I were to suffer a TBI that left me significantly impaired and in need of full time care (in the same manner as Cale) I in no way whatsoever expect him to stay married to me. I don't think that is fair to him. Of course we have also had the talk and if I were that level of injured I would not want to continue on and wish that he would cease care either in the form of a DNR or withdrawal of nutrition. I do not have the same feeling about physical disabilities, just a severe impairment of mental cognition.

That being said Katheen is his medical proxy and holds his POA. I think that it is ethically squicky for her to get pregnant. I really do think the power imbalance is too great. And that is before how Cale's volitility will impact the child. Kids have a way of making everything about them. If Cale is melting down and becoming volitile even on a semi regular basis that is really going to impact their daughter in a negative way. That kid is going to be thinking "if I were only better/faster/quieter daddy would be happy". I don't think that is something that is a mandated reporter level of abuse but I also think that it is incredibly selfish and irresponsible of Kathleen to purposely bring a child into that environment.

Hubs and I had this and a few other "what if" talks when we were younger. The upshot seemed to revolve around two things-- making sure that the person who sustained the injury or illness was well taken care of and making sure that the partner who was not injured was also not devastated permanently, either emotionally or financially. The range of what was acceptable was discussed--as well as what qualified--and how to handle our assorted relatives. We never have had to put our "big talk" to the test, but it is something we did discuss.

[adidas]

Can you imagine, though, if she divorced him after the accident? Fundy circles are extremely judgmental and holier than thou. She literally would have felt like she had no choice.

Make no mistake, there would have been a LOT of laying on of hands and prayer for a full recovery. To leave would be telling her church that she doesn't believe prayers can be answered.

We can see a different perspective because we're not living that life. If she dared to leave she would have had visits from church people who would have changed her mind. They would convince her by using guilt tactics (which we all agree are powerful). They would have preyed on the guilt she would have already been feeling. They would have told her to trust more in God and to give it all to Him. They would have implied that her faith wasn't strong enough. I can really imagine that she felt trapped and like there was no other choice but to stay.

The baby is a whole different story.

Her situation reminds me a bit of the movie 50 First Dates.

[lipstickgoalie]

She was pushing for a baby before he was even released from the hospital. I have a REAL problem with the ethics of that. adarlingkindoflife.com/2010/12/im-full-of-adventuresalways.html

[DaffyDill]

She was pushing for a baby before he was even released from the hospital. I have a REAL problem with the ethics of that. adarlingkindoflife.com/2010/12/im-full-of-adventuresalways.html

Actually, according to her, they were trying for a baby before the accident:

Since he was in the process of getting out of the Army, he had a lot of extra time off work, so we played games, went ice skating, hung out with friends, watched movies, cuddled, planned our "across the US" trip, laughed, and were lazy. Both of us were scared and excited all at the same time for what was next for our lives. Whatever it was going to be, we new it was going to be good. We had already started trying to have a baby...

adarlingkindoflife.com/2010/12/only-by-gods-grace.html

[lipstickgoalie]

Actually, according to her, they were trying for a baby before the accident:

adarlingkindoflife.com/2010/12/only-by-gods-grace.html

I read that as well. I didn't articulate that as well as I could. It seems that nothing about the accident made her rethink her plans. She was already asking for a baby while he was in the hospital.