...or at least that's the gist of many of the comments in response to this provocative New York Times blog posting. What was it that set people off? The admission by the author, a childless single woman, that she's worried about who will look after her in her frail old age.
For sure, my long-term care insurance policy will buy me a home health aide and pay to retrofit my house if I'm able to remain here, or contribute to care in another setting. I have the luxury of savings and a mortgage that will be paid off by the time I'm 70. If I need a geriatric case manager, I'll probably be able to afford one. I count my blessings.
But, having witnessed the "new old age'' from a front-row seat, I'm haunted by the knowledge that there is no one who will care about me in the deepest and most loving sense of the word at the end of my life. No one who will advocate for me, not simply for adequate care but for the small and arguably inessential things that can make life worth living even in compromised health.
Responses range from "What, me worry?"
Why the scaremongering? I am 40, single, and childfree, and plan on remaining in the last two states for the rest of my life however long that may be. I see plenty of little old ladies in my neighborhood going along and getting along just fine-if anything, living in New York City, a place with phenomenal public transportation and an array of "full service" neighborhoods (ie nearby shopping, medical help, and other services) would seem an ideal place to grow old in.
Also, isn't it as selfish as hell to regret not having kids just so that they can take care of you?
As far as healthcare proxies-I plan on sending mine to a very good friend, because I think someone should have it. In fact, I think everyone should have one with someone they trust. Having said that, as someone who loves their solitude, I can't think of anything WORSE than a group home or needing someone to take care of daily things for me. I hope it never gets to that.
For me, this whole article smacks of "you see, you silly feminists, what happens to you if you try to make a life for yourselves without breeding?" No thanks; I won't take the bait.
to the downright nasty:
Legal status for friendships? How completely ridiculous. Friendship will always be secondary to family, the nuclear family being the basic organizational unit of society.
There are many people who opted not to have children because they didn't want to make the sacrifices necessary to have a family. It's obvious though that if you are unwilling to make sacrifices for family, then you will have no family to sacrifice for you when you need help. You can't have it all.
and
This is a harsh reply, but I want to put it out there:
Those who have not raised children have, in a some ways, sown the seeds of their own troubles later in life.
One could argue that raising children (of course, including by adoption) is not only a blessing but a duty. Especially if you have the financial means to care for yourself at the end of life, this failure is all the more glaring. In the end of the day, bringing up the next generation with one's lessons of experience, bringing a life into the world to enjoy all of the wonders that you've experienced, may be the single greatest contribution a person can make on this earth. Perhaps we should have limited sympathy for those who turned their back on this responsibility (and I would not count Ms. Gross among that number) who now say: "But who will care for me?"
to the reality check:
How amusing! You assume that those people with children are somehow not going to be magically stuffed into a nursing home and ignored by those children.
The purpose of having children is not to make sure someone's there to take care of you in your old age. That's a harsh thing to accept. Life is full of harsh things. Dying is one of them.
Even if I had children, I would forbid them from feeding me and bathing me and so forth. I wouldn't keep my cat alive in those circumstances, why would I do it to myself?
I worry sometimes that if we stick with just the one kid, we'll end up putting a lot of pressure on her later. But I definitely don't think that's reason enough to have a second on its own. Lots of other things have to be in place too.
The bigger issue, it seems to me, is that there's a general "I look after me and mine first and only" attitude among many people. Coupled with an eroded safety net, that spells disaster.
