×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。

Elder-care is about more than duty. It's the law --THE GLOBE AND MAIL

本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Elder-care is about more than duty. It's the law

ERIN ANDERSSEN
THE GLOBE AND MAIL

or the mother, it was an assumed truth: When she got old, one of her kids would take her in. As far as her five children were concerned, however, it was never going to happen, though they didn’t say so to her face. Not that she was a bad mother (if anything she loved her offspring too intensely). But did they want a sweet, docile granny living in the spare bedroom? Far from it.

B.C. woman sues adult kids for parental support: Should she get it?
Caring for elderly parents inflames old sibling rivalries
Singles help aging parents more than married folk: report
“She’s too difficult,” says her daughter, Barb, a retired schoolteacher in Windsor, Ont. “She argues about everything and I seriously could not take that. I would be a basket case.”

But when her mom was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, there was no question of Barb’s role. Despite every screaming match in her teenaged years, and every gritted-teeth conversation in adulthood, this was still her mother. Her siblings helped out but, ultimately, it was Barb, the eldest, who went to her mom's house nearly every day, listened to her grouching, and patiently explained, for the hundredth time, why she couldn't drive any more.

“There were days I absolutely hated going there,” she says of daily visits to her mother’s house. “It wasn’t something I wanted to do. But it was the right thing for my mother and for me.”

What do adult children owe their parents, and how far do those obligations extend? Socrates and Plato pondered the question, philosophers have long debated it. A dusty law – left on the books in every province except Alberta, dating back to the Depression when social supports for the elderly were scant – says the state can enforce a financial duty on children to their poverty-stricken parents. (A proposed law in China would go even further, ordering children to regularly visit elderly parents.) Even if your parents don’t sue you, the question of obligation – moral, emotional and financial – is one more Canadians will encounter in a society with two converging complications: an aging and longer-living population, and families with fewer children, many of whom live too far away to share the load.

Filial law, as Queen’s University law professor Nick Bala observes, is a “legal oddity,” one that’s been used rarely in Canada, for obvious reasons: Good luck attempting a pleasant Christmas dinner with a child you took to court over a few bucks a month. (Prof. Bala, who like many legal scholars believes the law should be repealed, also points out that elderly parents are far more likely to be supporting their struggling kids, not the other way around.) In a now-infamous court case in British Columbia, a 73-year-old mother named Shirley Anderson has been fighting in the courts for 12 years to get parental support in the form of a monthly cheque from her children. Like any similar divorce court matter, it’s full of vitriol – the kids were brats, their mother was derelict. Last week, the children named in the case went to the British Columbia Supreme Court to ask for the case to be dismissed.

Filial laws also exist in a majority of U.S. states, leading to a few controversial cases where nursing homes have tried to chase down adult children to pay their parents’ outstanding bills. But the cases may be more complicated than a monthly stipend for dear old dad: In 2001, an Ontario man was sentenced to six months in prison for failing to provide his father with the “necessities of life.” The court was divided on the ruling – the father was found living in filth on the ground floor in their shared house, but he had also refused to go to a nursing home, and often stubbornly rejected his son’s help.

But as U.S. philosopher Claudia Mills point out, the idea of legislating an obligation to one’s parent is bound to leave neither party particularly happy. The old “I didn’t ask to be born” argument says that while parents have a duty to provide for their offspring, the children, who receive those provisions without their consent, don’t have an obligation to respond in kind. Dr Mills argues that the nature of family creates a responsibility to be in a relationship – though she feels that responsibility disappears when the person can no longer reciprocate, as with someone with advanced dementia. And that doesn’t mean, she says, that you sacrifice your “own happiness to give care to an elderly relative who doesn’t know who they are, flossing what’s left of a person’s teeth when there’s a staff member to take care of it.” It’s not an obligation that exists above everything else.

Ruth Ho always promised herself that she’d look after her mom, who has lived with her in Vancouver since being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. Still, she sometimes wonders if she has sacrificed too much fulfilling that responsibility. Her mom can’t be on her own, which means Ms. Ho doesn’t go out much; she quit her job to take on the care-giving role full-time, even when she became ill herself. For a time, when her sister also became sick, she looked after both of them.

“I have been told many times by people that [I]have given up too much,” she says. “And to a certain extent, I have. But it was my choice.”

Legal enforcement aside, most seniors need not worry: Research consistently finds that people expect to provide care to their parents, and often find it to be a bonding experience. A U.S. study in 2006 suggested that Boomer children were more committed than previous generations to caring for mom and dad. It helps, of course, to have a daughter, since women report higher levels of responsibility than their brothers.

But Barb, whose mom moved into a nursing home recently, says siblings (and even parents) should discuss their views on obligations and responsibilities before they get too far into care-giving – so they know what to expect from each other.

Ultimately, her decision to be a caregiver is about how she sees her role in life, as a daughter and mother herself. “I have to be able to look myself in the mirror everyday,” she says. And “good or bad, family is family.”

When her time comes, she says, she hopes her sons feel the same.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 枫下家园 / 幸福家庭 / 居然加拿大有遗弃罪? 这让那些喊无责任养老人的怎么办? 岂不是争论结束, 改成怎末界定遗弃行为了
    • 不要断章取义,那个案子怎么来龙去脉要先搞清楚.绝对不只是不养老的问题.如果这样,犯遗弃罪的人多了.
    • 给个相关的法律链接吧。。。
      • 我好象看过,关键是车库改成的房子不符合居住要求,至于什么罪就没印象了.
        • 俺隔壁住了一个95岁的老太太,一年到头都见不到她儿子的面,也没见警察上门。。。
          • 那是。你打孩子没人告的话,警察也不会上门的。。。
            • 你放心,孩子自己会打。这里的孩子明白着呢。
              • 是啊。可惜父母都太糊涂,养了个没良心的孩子还舍不得告。。。都让孩子精去了。
                • 我想你理解错了,不打或是看到的人不打电话是因为没有触犯法律。就像父母打小孩,小孩大人不报警,但任何人都有可能会做,大家都知道这触犯了法律。
                  • 触犯了法律没人告的也不会有警察上门。我就是回答为什么没警察上门的问题。你也不是律师,怎么知道遗弃父母不触犯法律?不是还没有定论吗?
                    • 既然没有定论,还在这里声讨?打住,大过节的,歇歇吧
                      • 声讨是道德层面的举动。 否则就是法律层面的举报了。
                        • 撤了吧。如果他们觉得自己将来被子女遗弃不是啥大不了的事,你确实得承认这个世界有些人很强大,不是你我能理解的。。。
                          • 不要在这里虚度时光了,从这小窗口看看社会万象就足够了
                      • 恩。我确实不知道对很多人来说,善待父母原来是要通过法律强迫他们去执行的,今天见识了。
                        • 知道你的初衷,其实没有人说要遗弃父母。我自认为不孝,做了很多让父母不开心的事,包括嫁老公出国。但我父亲突然病重,我马上辞职回国陪伴在他身边直到他去世。孝与不孝每个人都有不同的标准,对得起自己的良心不后悔就可以。除非虐待法律都没有办法给孝与不孝下界限。
                          • 你的确做得很好,但你不能否认这个世界上有人是没有良心的,又如何谈得上后悔?这里就一大堆。
              • 你在对牛弹琴,呵呵。。。
                • 弹琴?太抬高你自己了。
    • 其实在中国,不瞻养,不善待父母也未必要坐牢的。就是捂着自己的良心问问就行了。网上登出个猫狗被遗弃这些人还会掉泪,愤怒,父母被遗弃他们觉得无所谓。
    • Elder-care is about more than duty. It's the law --THE GLOBE AND MAIL
      本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Elder-care is about more than duty. It's the law

      ERIN ANDERSSEN
      THE GLOBE AND MAIL

      or the mother, it was an assumed truth: When she got old, one of her kids would take her in. As far as her five children were concerned, however, it was never going to happen, though they didn’t say so to her face. Not that she was a bad mother (if anything she loved her offspring too intensely). But did they want a sweet, docile granny living in the spare bedroom? Far from it.

      B.C. woman sues adult kids for parental support: Should she get it?
      Caring for elderly parents inflames old sibling rivalries
      Singles help aging parents more than married folk: report
      “She’s too difficult,” says her daughter, Barb, a retired schoolteacher in Windsor, Ont. “She argues about everything and I seriously could not take that. I would be a basket case.”

      But when her mom was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, there was no question of Barb’s role. Despite every screaming match in her teenaged years, and every gritted-teeth conversation in adulthood, this was still her mother. Her siblings helped out but, ultimately, it was Barb, the eldest, who went to her mom's house nearly every day, listened to her grouching, and patiently explained, for the hundredth time, why she couldn't drive any more.

      “There were days I absolutely hated going there,” she says of daily visits to her mother’s house. “It wasn’t something I wanted to do. But it was the right thing for my mother and for me.”

      What do adult children owe their parents, and how far do those obligations extend? Socrates and Plato pondered the question, philosophers have long debated it. A dusty law – left on the books in every province except Alberta, dating back to the Depression when social supports for the elderly were scant – says the state can enforce a financial duty on children to their poverty-stricken parents. (A proposed law in China would go even further, ordering children to regularly visit elderly parents.) Even if your parents don’t sue you, the question of obligation – moral, emotional and financial – is one more Canadians will encounter in a society with two converging complications: an aging and longer-living population, and families with fewer children, many of whom live too far away to share the load.

      Filial law, as Queen’s University law professor Nick Bala observes, is a “legal oddity,” one that’s been used rarely in Canada, for obvious reasons: Good luck attempting a pleasant Christmas dinner with a child you took to court over a few bucks a month. (Prof. Bala, who like many legal scholars believes the law should be repealed, also points out that elderly parents are far more likely to be supporting their struggling kids, not the other way around.) In a now-infamous court case in British Columbia, a 73-year-old mother named Shirley Anderson has been fighting in the courts for 12 years to get parental support in the form of a monthly cheque from her children. Like any similar divorce court matter, it’s full of vitriol – the kids were brats, their mother was derelict. Last week, the children named in the case went to the British Columbia Supreme Court to ask for the case to be dismissed.

      Filial laws also exist in a majority of U.S. states, leading to a few controversial cases where nursing homes have tried to chase down adult children to pay their parents’ outstanding bills. But the cases may be more complicated than a monthly stipend for dear old dad: In 2001, an Ontario man was sentenced to six months in prison for failing to provide his father with the “necessities of life.” The court was divided on the ruling – the father was found living in filth on the ground floor in their shared house, but he had also refused to go to a nursing home, and often stubbornly rejected his son’s help.

      But as U.S. philosopher Claudia Mills point out, the idea of legislating an obligation to one’s parent is bound to leave neither party particularly happy. The old “I didn’t ask to be born” argument says that while parents have a duty to provide for their offspring, the children, who receive those provisions without their consent, don’t have an obligation to respond in kind. Dr Mills argues that the nature of family creates a responsibility to be in a relationship – though she feels that responsibility disappears when the person can no longer reciprocate, as with someone with advanced dementia. And that doesn’t mean, she says, that you sacrifice your “own happiness to give care to an elderly relative who doesn’t know who they are, flossing what’s left of a person’s teeth when there’s a staff member to take care of it.” It’s not an obligation that exists above everything else.

      Ruth Ho always promised herself that she’d look after her mom, who has lived with her in Vancouver since being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. Still, she sometimes wonders if she has sacrificed too much fulfilling that responsibility. Her mom can’t be on her own, which means Ms. Ho doesn’t go out much; she quit her job to take on the care-giving role full-time, even when she became ill herself. For a time, when her sister also became sick, she looked after both of them.

      “I have been told many times by people that [I]have given up too much,” she says. “And to a certain extent, I have. But it was my choice.”

      Legal enforcement aside, most seniors need not worry: Research consistently finds that people expect to provide care to their parents, and often find it to be a bonding experience. A U.S. study in 2006 suggested that Boomer children were more committed than previous generations to caring for mom and dad. It helps, of course, to have a daughter, since women report higher levels of responsibility than their brothers.

      But Barb, whose mom moved into a nursing home recently, says siblings (and even parents) should discuss their views on obligations and responsibilities before they get too far into care-giving – so they know what to expect from each other.

      Ultimately, her decision to be a caregiver is about how she sees her role in life, as a daughter and mother herself. “I have to be able to look myself in the mirror everyday,” she says. And “good or bad, family is family.”

      When her time comes, she says, she hopes her sons feel the same.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
      • 这下估计要联名要求取消这stupid law了。^^
      • 这是一篇新闻报道,你还是给俺一个官方的法律链接吧。。。那样会更清晰明了。。。
        • 不操心了,咱是不担心的
          • 如果有官方的法律条文放在这里,可以平息很多不必要的争执,何乐而不为呢。。。
            • Please go to section 32 of Family Law Act of Ontario.
              • 完了。。。这下应该吵法律也有不合理的了。^^
              • 这一条款的内容,以前有人说过:成年的子女在需要时,有义务照顾那些在他们是孩子时曾给予他们照顾和提供支持的那些父母。。。很简单的一句话,涵盖了一种对等的义务,可是你看到肉联来吐槽的有多少父母与子女之间是对等关系的。。。
                如此简单的一句话,涵盖了一种对等的义务,
                • 啊?这些移民们都是吃西北风,流浪街头长大的?他们在国内上大学读研究生的钱上街讨来的??
                  • 你不满意可以找相关人士修改法律,争取把条款写细,越详细越好。。。
                    • 你怎么解释这条法律的?我觉得在这条法律下,99%的人都有义务瞻养父母,为什么要求改写?我觉得很好。
                      • 照你的标准,应该有很多人被父母送上法庭才对,为什么鲜有例子呢,好好想想吧。。。别对我说父母个个都是圣洁无暇的哈,被父母从情感上身体上伤害的孩子有的是。。。
                        • 撤了撤了,安排安排假期吧。。。
                          • 等老公耗时间呢,一会就撤,呵呵。。。
                        • 法律不是照我的标准的。这条法律就是覆盖了99%的人。
                • 不对等吗?父母养你,你报养育之恩。哪里不对等了?很多人说的是,父母生我是他们要生我,不是我自己要的,他们老了,我没义务赡养,也就是给我滚蛋。
                  • 你在这里嚷没有用,法律的条款不是我定的,白纸黑字就是这么写的,你不满意可以去抗议、找区议员都可以的。。。
                    • 我很满意啊。就是对等的啊,这很好啊,就是说加拿大法律规定你有义务赡养你的父母。
                      • 这一条,只怕是针对担保移民的,本地的父母,几个需要孩子赡养?
                        • 需不需要是一回事,有没有义务是另一回事。
                          • 法律制定的时候,要考虑多种情况的发生.所以不能断章取义,要看到责权利落实的实际情况.如果你愿意担保父母,自然要负责若干年内的义务,直至父母可以申请社会福利,也不是一辈子的事.
                            • 法律就是法律,你要是有疑问,找律师咨询。这个法条告诉我们,只要你是父母正常养大的,你就有义务赡养父母。
                              • 我觉得你把很多事情绝对化了.我没有疑问,在父母没有任何收入的情况下,做子女的是要赡养,但父母有收入,也不能盲丛.父母有收入和没收入绝对不时一回事,也是决定法院判决子女赡养费的一个重要依据.
                              • 不得不说,有些人确实要用法律去强迫他们善待父母的。。。法律定得不够精确,应该是没想到有这种人移民过来。^^
                        • 需要不需要另说,问题的关键是像拜月说的,中国很多父母的控制欲太强大了。。。
                      • 连法律都不承认那种不对等的义务。。。所以那些没尽到父母义务的也就不要成天拿个孝字来压孩子满足自己的私欲了。。。
                        • 你不是父母养大的?或者你看到rolia上有谁说自己不是父母养大的?
                          • 肉联才多大,去天涯看看。。。养,有人养和天养之分,没听过吧,我第一次听时也吓一跳呢。。。但这个世界就是这么残酷。。。
                            • 这种断章取义的说法本身问题就很大.因为赡养费的制定,是要根据不同的情况来定的,如果父母有足够收入,赡养只是一个权利,没有收入,法律才发生强制的作用.这同离婚双方的赡养一样的.
            • 好象移民申请父母是有规定10年内如果父母向政府申请福利的话,政府会将这些转移到子女身上.但父母有收入的,是没有这个要求.移民的父母在加拿大有收入的,也没有这个要求.