Well I gave you an example: childcare in nursery is widely accepted. You however got upset to hear a straightforward answer to a question expected to demonstrate your moral superiority.
Ok good we're on the same page then. So if the nursery was permanent and replaced the role of the parent completely, would that be moral?
Or to equate it more fairly, if a parent paid somebody to permanently take care of their children while they they visited them periodically, would that be as moral as putting their parents in a nursing home?
Oh, sure. Foster homes are a thing. Where children who would otherwise greatly suffer or disappear in "family-oriented" societies can live in reasonable safety and care.
There are parents who reject their children or even kill them: apparently infanticide in India is not uncommon. There are relatives who try getting rid of their inconveniencing elderly. You can't be unaware of it, these are plot devices in a number of Bollywood films and there are specific laws to deal just with that. In a country size of India, the number of people not receiving adequate care or outright abused has to be in millions. An independent safety net greatly improves their odds of survival and life expectancy.
Approximately noone is looking forward to watching after incontinent, or demented, or paralyzed patients while trying also to get on with daily life. It becomes a full time job very quick, and many simply have no proper means to do so. Lacking any other options, most people would do that however out of basic humanism, but it's not to say they find that process rewarding or they do any good job at that. Quietly hoping for timely death of the patient in their care while hating yourself for it isn't uncommon.
So again, for the lack of any alternatives you present the social order you live in as a virtue. But you can only make moral choice when you have any realistic choice at all.
I only ask that you don't let the plot devices of Bollywood films have a non-trivial influence on your world view.
The statement of yours that I was originally replying to was:
As long as you can provide good quality care, there isn't much of a moral difference how it's done. Just don't see how a trained professional changing vessels is worse than resentful daughter-in-law doing the same.[1]
The extended case I wanted to talk about was of a healthy, financially sound adult. Not kindergartens or extreme circumstances that lead to foster care. Say this adult wanted to put their 3-year old into an institution of permanent professional care. Would you find that to be the same as putting one's parents in an old folks home? Or is there some difference?
I am going to assume that you have children, because your entire tone changed when I brought up kids. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Would you be fine with putting your children in such an institution if you felt overwhelmed by the responsibility of child-rearing?
You keep deflecting from the original topic because you have nothing to say on my point, and are simple minded enough to think I don't see through this.
To your question: if I was an unfit parent, say an additct or abusive or schizophrenic, and maintained enough reflection to realize that, yes, absolutely. Otherwise there is no reason.
Now answer my question: are you really looking forward to wiping shit on an immobile incontinent patient for 15 years? Not asking if you would do that mind you, but if you dread thinking it.
The "immobile incontinent patient scenario" isn't too commonplace. In my family and most of the extended families of my friends, you stay with your parents for companionship and helping them out in day-to-day tasks if required. You don't wipe their shit for 15 years, they're still pretty able-bodied and independent.
What is confusing to me is your insistence to see the worst-case scenario and treat what is the last 3 months of their lives to the year-to-year scenario.
Please don't call me simple minded when I'm trying to be civil.
Now, back to your reply. You're saying that for you to put your child in professional care you would have to be an addict or abusive or schizophrenic. However, these don't seem to be preconditions for putting your parents in professional care. So going back to the statement I was focusing on:
As long as you can provide good quality care, there isn't much of a moral difference how it's done.[1]
Is it fair to say that you feel this is true for one's parents but not for one's children?
You keep dropping the second sentence of my reply to keep arguing your strawman:
Just don't see how a trained professional changing vessels is worse than resentful daughter-in-law doing the same. [1]
Noone puts their folks to elders home just for fun of it, I thought that much is clear. The freaking article we discuss here describes demented, incontinent elderly, yet you prefer to ingore the context.
Regarding "unrealistic" scenarios, I know people who lived through what I described (and worse).
Now, you did not answer my question, which is outright rude. I am not in an interrogation here, questions go both ways. Now of course I know your answer already, and it's uncomfortable enough for you to keep deflecting. But if you are unwilling to face it, this conversation is over.
Or to equate it more fairly, if a parent paid somebody to permanently take care of their children while they they visited them periodically, would that be as moral as putting their parents in a nursing home?