I know! And, thanks Rich...

I see that in terms of people going thru an alcohol or drug problem. If it's a close family member or good friend the first instinct would be to "balance the books". The key is knowing when to say enough. Not easy to do.

Here is a related question..

Is it truly altruistic if you are repaying perceived past benefits from them? Or rather, is it "balancing the books" in your own view?

I can't believe they are still doing any version of it. Whenever I think how barbaric it seems I wonder what cutting edge treatments today will seem barbaric in 50 years. Hope your friend works things out.

Great question. I, personally, would stay to take care of my wife in that situation. If she had done something to herself (like drugs or heavy drinking against my requests) - no.

Modern medicine is interesting. We have made great advances. Yet, still, we are really stupid in some areas. I have a friend who is now going through what I guess is a "toned-down" version of electro shock. She says she fells better. She was forever depressed about her son basically disowning her and couldn't dig herself out of it. Funny thing...she still drones on about her son, but just doesn't burst into tears each time. Go figure.

I would have guessed no because of the religious aspect.

It is important to note that admission to the Gulch for married people required that both made the decision independently.

My dad is doing the best he can, and so am I. That is the best anyone can ask of any of us, and is what all producers ask of themselves.

From this story it sounds like she would have need care all her life regardless of whether her breakdown went untreated or they used the accepted treatment of the time. In hindsight, though, we know the electric shock was possibly as bad as what they were trying to treat, and more effective treatments were coming.

Hearing the story makes me feel blessed that no one in my immediate family has had a serious health problem.

The typical marriage vows say the couple promises to stay together in such a scenario. Maybe the question is is such a promise consistent with Objectivism. I think the answer is yes, but it's a question for someone more knowledgeable about Objectivism than I am.

True. He would have been raised during a time when divorce was out of the question. The guilt would have been felt from what he was taught from a young age. Hard to over come that. Best of luck dealing with your dad. It can be emotionally exhausting.

This is a very challenging ethical dilemma. Hank Rearden leaving Lillian despite his prior oath of "until death do us part" is fundamentally different than this decision because Lillian was still capable of making decisions for herself.

Perhaps he did stay out of guilt over the shock treatments, but I would have stayed regardless. I am dealing with a father with rather severe Alzheimer's disease. He provided value to me, not only during my childhood, but with a sizable inheritance when he passes on. I am providing value back to him now. Your grandfather likely saw dealing with your grandmother in the same way. I know I would do so with any immediate family member.

I know I am not an Objectivist, but with any such situation, you must ask yourself, "Can I live with myself and my decision?" The answer to that will guide you to the ethically correct answer. If Objectivism leads you to a different answer, then you and Objectivism are in conflict.

Guilt can be very powerful. You have to ask yourself whether your guilt was properly earned whether intentional or not (ex. You commit a vehicular homicide.), or whether someone is trying to make you feel guilty. In that event, you ought to reject such guilt completely. In your grandfather's case, he should not have felt guilty. He did the best he could under the circumstances. Nonetheless, he probably assessed that staying with your grandmother was in his best interest.