In his response, the Ethicist noted: “It sounds as if her reluctance to discuss the future reflects a reluctance to face up to her bleak financial prospects. Such procrastination isn’t unusual. In fact, it also sounds as if you and your husband may have put off making a serious attempt to figure things out with her — that the situation gained urgency only after her physical difficulties became evident. At this late date, though, what do you think she should be doing? Given her job history, is she going to be able to earn a lot more doing something else? No doubt she should have put away money over the years — perhaps, in the usual way, by making payments on property — but she can’t do so retroactively. … Does her refusal to talk about her dire situation absolve you from all responsibility? Your anxiety makes it clear that you don’t think it does. You and your husband needn’t compromise your own financial security, but if she finds herself in straitened circumstances, you’re going to want to help out, even if in a limited way. Your own family’s ethic of independence is admirable, but a history of improvidence can’t be undone; comparisons here aren’t so much odious as pointless. Facing reality — for you as for your mother-in-law — means looking ahead.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
I agree wholeheartedly with the Ethicist. I would add that any attempts to help the letter writer’s mother-in-law make plans must be done graciously and compassionately, without judgment or a critical spirit. Otherwise, the discussion will devolve into nonproductive exchanges of blame and resistance in which it will be very hard to accomplish anything. — Rebecca
⬥
I enjoy The Ethicist’s column, but I am disappointed by his use of the word “improvidence” to describe the mother-in-law’s financial history. Often people don’t have a plan because all their current resources are used as they live and they are surrounded by people in the same situation so they don’t even have exposure to what might be possible. — Tim
⬥
It appears that the letter writer’s mother-in-law has been making do on her own for some time. Aging single women are the population most at risk for falling into poverty. Why? Because they get paid less than men and are not compensated for child rearing. Have some compassion for her. Jobs for working-class women in their 50s? Fast food, retail, home health care. The letter writer seems to acknowledge a generational attitude toward aging that suggests a privileged upbringing. Her mother-in-law is like millions of other women. It’s not pretty; behind her lottery jokes, I am sure she is scared. I live in Mexico where the generational attitudes are different and elders are afforded love, care and respect.— Gayle
⬥
I don’t like the letter writer’s condescending attitude. As a former horse trainer, I can tell you that one becomes a horse trainer for the love of horses, not to make money. I do have other skills and a college degree as well, but most trainers don’t. It is very unusual to get any benefits, including vacation and sick leave, and you generally work six days a week. I would suggest the letter writer’s mother-in-law shift to teaching only. She could also switch to training dogs, as my ex did. I’m 66 and I have two new hips, will probably need new knees and a new shoulder. I have arthritis everywhere. I wouldn’t change a thing. I was lucky enough to do what I loved. — Julie
⬥
I don’t disagree with the Ethicist, but I do have some insight to share. This ethical dilemma feels personally and humanely chilling, and deeply saddening. How might such a person as the letter writer consider herself so entirely different and superior that she has earned a distinct right to leverage another’s life choices? To reduce the value of her husband’s mother to one determined by haves and haves not, dollars and cents and nothing else? We know almost nothing about this mother-in-law. Has she participated in the family? Does she suffer from mental illness? Is she a beloved person by anyone? Does she have a spousal partner, and has she suffered loss? Is she educated? Might she be the giver of love and care to any children, grandchildren, friends and neighbors as well as to her horses and perhaps other animals? Of course personal responsibility matters. Of course a sound life requires financial means. However, not all means or financial requirements are equal in depth and purpose, and certainly not successful outcomes. What might the responsibility of this letter writer be then — one who apparently possesses financial means but suggests having nothing else at all to contribute to the well being of her aging mother-in-law? Could this more reasonably be an opportunity to slow down, to consider broadly and openly the implications of caring for others that generate from within oneself, and how those may manifest positively here? Often, in my experience, many gifts arise from such an opening of awareness. — Kate