What Would You Do: Married a Short Time, Tragedy/Accident Changes Your Spouse, Do you Stay or Not? (wife, marriage)

[selhars]

I've never been married so I'm asking as an observer.....

Do you think spouses who've been married longer -- owe each other more than spouses who've been married a short time?

Examples:
-- An acquaintance in her mid-sixties married her second husband, whom she'd known only a short time. a year -and-a-half after they married, she fell in her apartment (where they lived) -- and broke her neck and became paralyzed from the neck down. (Supposedly they were in the early process of separating when she fell)

-- A couple married, two years in he gets a brain injury, a few years a later the wife feels she must leave, due to how he's changed emotionally.

-- What about tragedies of newlyweds injured on their honeymoon?


In cases like these, or even others I suppose, do you think if these couples had been married for 20, 30, 40 years -- instead of two or less -- that the uninjured spouse would stay in the marriage, or "owe" the other spouse the commitment of staying and caring for the injured spouse??

Or is feeling the level of commitment separate from how long one has been married??

[greatblueheron]

It's such an individual decision. There's no right or wrong way to look at it.

Some might want to care for and be with a permanently injured spouse, others would sink under the responsibility. Many would feel their life choices should be about them, would choose to divorce and move on...neither is an easy decision.

And no one should find fault with someone's choice. It's a spot none of us would want to find ourselves in....

[Serious Conversation]

Definitely.

I don't know what I would do, but if you hadn't had a normal, healthy life together, I think it would be much easier to move on.

[Sassybluesy]

[quote=selhars;52519583]I've never been married so I'm asking as an observer.....

Do you think spouses who've been married longer -- owe each other more than spouses who've been married a short time?

Examples:
-- An acquaintance in her mid-sixties married her second husband, whom she'd known only a short time. a year -and-a-half after they married, she fell in her apartment (where they lived) -- and broke her neck and became paralyzed from the neck down. (Supposedly they were in the early process of separating when she fell)

-- A couple married, two years in he gets a brain injury, a few years a later the wife feels she must leave, due to how he's changed emotionally.

-- What about tragedies of newlyweds injured on their honeymoon?


In cases like these, or even others I suppose, do you think if these couple had been married for 20, 30, 40 years -- instead of two or less -- that the uninjured spouse would stay in the marriage, or "owe" the other spouse the commitment of staying and caring for the injured spouse??

Or is feeling the level of commitment separate from how long one has been married??[/quote]


I think it has more to do with the level of fidelity, than the amount of years a couple has together. Some people, when they get married, fully intend and commit to be there in good times and bad, sickness and health, to death do they part. And that's how they make it 20, 30 or 40 years.


Those people, who marry, with that level of commitment, will care for their sick or injured spouse until death, they do part. Even if they've only been together a couple of years.

[The Dissenter]

Originally Posted by selhars

I've never been married so I'm asking as an observer.....

Do you think spouses who've been married longer -- owe each other more than spouses who've been married a short time?

Examples:
-- An acquaintance in her mid-sixties married her second husband, whom she'd known only a short time. a year -and-a-half after they married, she fell in her apartment (where they lived) -- and broke her neck and became paralyzed from the neck down. (Supposedly they were in the early process of separating when she fell)

-- A couple married, two years in he gets a brain injury, a few years a later the wife feels she must leave, due to how he's changed emotionally.

-- What about tragedies of newlyweds injured on their honeymoon?


In cases like these, or even others I suppose, do you think if these couples had been married for 20, 30, 40 years -- instead of two or less -- that the uninjured spouse would stay in the marriage, or "owe" the other spouse the commitment of staying and caring for the injured spouse??

Or is feeling the level of commitment separate from how long one has been married??

Depends on the health of the marriage a lot. If the marriage is mediocre at best, I wouldn’t count on someone sticking around if tragedy struck, especially after only a couple of years. If the marriage is great, it is more likely try to stick around.

Me personally, to be honest and (hopefully) not surprisingly, I’d probably end the marriage if I were in that situation myself. I’m not up for care taking in any fashion.

[greatblueheron]

I've seen two marriages end from results of injuries...

one guy became a paraplegic, his young wife left....married only briefly. She was just overwhelmed.

The other guy had a head injury with profound personality changes...belligerent, angry, abusive. The wife left of course, even though they had been married quite a while and almost grown kids.

You can't imagine how people can change emotionally unless you've see it...I witnessed his personality changes....and would have left too.

[hawaiiancoconut]

I take commitment very seriously, and once I make that decision to commit, I'm in till the end. Keep her in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others, be faithful to her... and all that. Of course, love has limitations.

[greatblueheron]

Originally Posted by hawaiiancoconut

I take commitment very seriously, and once I make that decision to commit, I'm in till the end. Keep her in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others, be faithful to her... and all that.



Of course, love has limitations.

Yes, until you experience something like that.....

[Sonic_Spork]

My 18 year marriage sucked in a lot of ways, but when he got sick and was hospitalized, had multiple surgeries, etc...we're talking back around 2001 or so...even though I'd been on the brink of leaving him just prior to that, I buckled down and stood by him. It had the opposite effect. I could not live with myself if I abandoned him in his time of need. In fact at the time I took it as a Sign From God that we were meant to be together. Believe it or not.

Later, things were getting bad and worse and he would say that I abandoned him when he needed me the most because he was in a mental health crisis. That's as may be, but he refused to get any kind of help. He just wanted to stay at home 24/7 smoking weed and drinking and terrorizing everyone. Some of his behaviors were things he could have changed, and should be held responsible for, even though he is desperate for reasons not to be, after the fact. My home felt like a hostage situation those last couple of years. Even still...I was coming to the realization I needed to leave him, but he had an emergency when his back went out and he was in terrible pain, and I waited a good 10 days or so for him to recover, gave him as much comfort and support as I could during that time, before I dropped the bomb on him. I am just not one to kick a man when he's down, no matter what he "deserves" or not.

Objectively I'd say...if someone is posing a danger to me, or caring for them is beyond my abilities, I would put them into some kind of facility if I needed to, or leave them if they seemed to just be looking for excuses to be an a-hole. But otherwise I've got a pretty strong caregiver personality, so no, I wouldn't leave. Especially, given how I need to feel about someone to marry them at this point, if I have that kind of investment, yeah I'm in it for thick and thin, sickness and health and all that jazz.

[germaine2626]

My husband and I actually discussed this before we married. While he was a little more hesitant, I knew in my heart that if he became disabled I would stick by him. Sadly, it did happen. He developed dementia in his late 40s and lost the ability to be a trial attorney. But I hung in there through increasing dementia. Then he fell down a flight of stairs (due to other health issues) and suffered a traumatic brain injury so he needed 24/7 supervision/care. I still loved him and cared for him. He developed other serious health issues and passed away at age 65. We were married for over 40 years and I still loved him as much on the day he died as the day that I married him.

Originally Posted by hawaiiancoconut

I take commitment very seriously, and once I make that decision to commit, I'm in till the end. Keep her in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others, be faithful to her... and all that. Of course, love has limitations.