[waivek]

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?

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19354278

[varjag]

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.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19354278

[waivek]

This is getting borderline pedantic, lol.

This is the first time I dropped the second sentence. I've only quoted it twice and I quoted it fully the first time.

I tried to answer your question by trying to inform you that the scenario your painting is incredibly, incredibly unrealistic.

I also feel that the context of the argument changes when you take into consideration what my top-most statement was.

I was expressing disbelief at the prevalence of old-age homes in western civilization. I took the article as a way to express that sentiment.

I acknowledge that dementia can be rough, and even I have had one or two extended family members who have gone through the same. My own grandfather passed away from Alzheimer's and yes, the last year was difficult. I'm not uncomfortable to face the question. What is a hypothetical to you was a brief reality to me. I'm just trying to make you see things from a different perspective.

All I was trying to do was to understand what I felt was a dissonance in your world view w.r.t how we treat our children vs. how we treat our parents with regards to professional care. That's all.

EDIT: The only reason I omitted the daughter-in-law statement is because it paints you in a poor light if you think that it's her duty to take care of aging in-laws. It came off as a bit sexist and I didn't want to derail the conversation.

[varjag]

Daughter-in-law often ends up tending to bodily needs of husbands ailing mother. Super common thing in "family oriented" societies as touching body parts of opposite sex tends to be a taboo.

You know that though, and your edit serves no other function than an insult. So go screw yourself.

[waivek]

It wasn't an insult as much as an observation made by another user:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19357372

And almost every view you have of India, even your most recent one seems to be based on stereotypes and Bollywood films.

If you actually said these things to an Indian in person, they would call you a bigot.

^ That was an actual insult.