New York Times Slammed over ‘Soulless’ Piece on Escaping ‘Obligation’ to Visit Grandma with Alzheimer’s

alzheimers
Getty Images/Dean Mitchell
Joshua Klein

The New York Times faced massive backlash online after publishing a response to an inquiry about escaping one’s “obligation” to continue visiting a grandmother suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, noting that “other considerations” such as oneself and “emotional well-being” can “matter more.” 

In a letter published on Wednesday, a reader wrote to the paper with her dilemma involving her grandmother who is currently being cared for at an assisted-living facility.

Describing her 94-year-old grandmother as having “always been a very important person in my life,” the letter’s author notes how she would frequently choose to be with her over friends, as she “has always been one of my favorite people.” 

However, she writes, her grandmother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease several years ago, with the brain disorder initially progressing slowly but recently producing a “more rapid memory decline.” 

With two young children, the letter’s author notes that she continues to “make a point” of visiting her grandmother every month or two but is considering stopping altogether.

Admitting there is “a certain nobility and honor attached to relatives who continue to visit loved ones even after they have lost the ability to remember the visit or, eventually, the visitors themselves,” she describes her personal “dread” over the prospect “of seeing my grandma diminished in this way,” and she “cannot see the point” of continuing to see her.

She also adds how witnessing her grandfather’s final days before passing in hospice a decade ago was a “very traumatic” experience.
WATCH: “THIS IS GOD’S WORK:” Woman Thanks Two “ANGELS” Who RESCUED Her Elderly Mother:

Madonna Wilburn/MAGNIFI U / TMX

Though she recognizes that “the end of my grandma’s life is obviously not about me, and I don’t want to treat it selfishly,” she wonders whether she should continue visitation under such circumstances.

“Am I obligated to continue to visit my grandmother even after she ceases to remember me?” she asks.

The paper’s “Ethicist” columnist, New York University Professor of philosophy and law Kwame Anthony Appiah, responded by noting that “when you think about a future when your grandmother’s deterioration has progressed even further, you should bear in mind that it won’t arrive at any clear date.” 

“For a while, she might still take pleasure in your company, whether or not she retains a memory of it. In time, though, this level of awareness may fade as well,” he continues.

According to the “Ethicist,” whatever is “noble about visiting people in those circumstances, it isn’t that you’re truly helping them.” 

“Perhaps it’s akin to tending a grave, something you do in honor of a past you shared,” he adds.

However, Appiah emphasizes that “other considerations can matter more.” 

“If your grandmother is anything like mine, your well-being will have been a priority of hers. This includes your emotional well-being; someone who needs to look after young children, certainly, must also look after herself,” he concludes.

In response, many criticized the “vile” exchange.

“Soulless,” tweeted the popular conservative social media personality Catturd.

“This is deep. Of course you do! You visit her because she’s your family. Your mom’s mom. Or dad’s mom. Good grief. What an article. Smdh,” wrote author and columnist Sophia A. Nelson.

“Ffs…,” wrote conservative writer and commentator Chad Greene.

“This is Libs in a nutshell,” tweeted the popular Twitter account ComfortablySmug.

“This is…vile. But it’s absolutely an extension of the abortion ideology: grandma is now inconveniencing me, therefore I will cease treating her like a human being,” wrote one Twitter user.

“Absolutely revolting to treat your family members this way,” wrote another.

“I sincerely believe that the biggest problem in America currently is that society no longer values the most vulnerable: unborn babies, children, women, and the elderly,” another Twitter user wrote, adding: “That’s been replaced with selfishness, vanity, laziness, disregard for familial units.”

“Just constantly trying to erode family values and dignity. One article at a time,” wrote another.

“Don’t seek advice from an ‘ethicist columnist’ at a degenerate, morally bankrupt publication like The NY Times,” one Twitter user wrote.

“The fact that NYT even published an article exploring the idea of whether to visit an unwell family member is appalling,” wrote another.

The matter follows a Wall Street Journal-NORC poll last month that found the percentage of Americans who say family and other traditional American values are “very important” is on the decline, with young people and Democrats tending not to highly rank such values as much as older adults and Republicans.

Follow Joshua Klein on Twitter @JoshuaKlein.

COMMENTS

Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.