Do We Have Inalienable Responsibilities to One Another?

I have a confession to make. I am an avid reader of personal advice columns. When I read those published generations ago, I feel that they provide a great insight what life was really like in those days--and what the prevailing norms were regarding what was considered right and wrong. Contemporary advice, by the likes of Carolyn Hax and Jeanne Phillips ("Dear Abby"), provide similar sociological fodder. In addition, they allow me to play a little game. I first read the question and ask myself what I would counsel, and only then read the advice the columnist gives. I am often stymied. The advice columnists "solve" most difficult problems by sending the reader to see a shrink.

Anyhow, I was reading the Carolyn Hax column the other day. A woman wrote that she was asked by her sister to serve as the guardian for her sister's kids in the event of her and her husband's death. The woman refused on the grounds that she and her husband did not want any children of their own, but she was troubled by the rift her refusal caused in her relationship with her sister.

Carolyn Hax took my breath away when she pronounced that responsibility for children lies with the parents, and that extended family are under no obligation to accept this responsibility for themselves.  (She did, however, note that this is not the case in many cultures, but asked if, even in these cultures, it would be in a child's best interest for a guardian to accept the responsibility only because of societal pressure.)

She added that the sister who refused to be the guardian had her reasons for making the choice, even if they were reasons others may deem selfish, and the sister with the children should accept that choice. She also rejects the notion that only option is that family takes responsibility or the children go to foster care, as guardians do not have to be family.

As I see it, family bonds do lay obligations on the members for the good of one another. We are not--to our siblings, parents, children--like causal acquaintances, and even friends have some obligations to their friends. Indeed, the very essence of the family is that its members do things for one another they feel they ought to do, even if they do not enjoy them. True, agreeing to take in someone's children is a very big commitment, but it typically merely entails providing a peace of mind for the parent. If death does strike, it does call for heroic measures, for the sake of the children.

In my view, even if the refusing sister is so hostile to children that she truly cannot take care of them, she still should accept the guardianship, with the understanding that she will make other arrangements for the children and ensure that these work better for the kids than her home. Family is more than chicken soup. I would love to hear what others think, would do, or have done.

 

Comments

[Aaron]

I agree completely, familial ties compel people to do things they may not want to do. It disturbed me to read that the woman refused to take on the responsibility for the children in the event of the parents' death. I thought that family may be the last place where some semblance of a collective consciousness existed in this country, but now I'm not so sure.

[Benjamin Kerstein]

In principle, I agree with you completely. However, there is a dark side to family responsibility, which is that family members often exploit the sense of family responsibility in order to avoid taking responsibility for themselves and their actions. This seems not to apply in this particular case, obviously; but I think we can all testify from personal experience that one's obligation to one's family must be balanced with the obligation to insist that family members take responsibility for themselves (which, of course, applies to oneself as well).

[tip fallon]

Agree with Benjamin. As long as the mother did not put herself in a position where she is not deserving of support, I would think her sister should be supportive in this case.

[Kally]

You are talking about responsibility. But what does this word mean? According to the definition I found on http://rapid4me.com (rapidshare search)it's "a duty to be in charge of someone or something that you make decisions and may be blamed if something bad happens". But it's only one of many meaningd of the word. And to my mind for each person responsibility has its own sense.

[James]

My godparents are the couple that introduced my parents to each other (Judy had a girlfriend, my mom Sandy, and Jay I had a buddy, my dad, Jay II). Given the circumstances, don't we know who our best men are? Our maids of honor? Yes, sometimes this is family, and sometimes it's not.
Never heard of refusing though. It's the cushiest job, typically of no more responsibility than volunteering to sit next to the emergency exit hatchway on an airplane. In the case where your friend or sibling bites it, however, just think of all the responsibility dumped on you. Suppose there's no inheritance or insurance. You now have a kid to put through school. You can see why every beloved children's story has an orphan in it and wicked step-parents.

[Alex]

So sad story....Every children has an orphan in it. Why do parents feel like this..If they are facing problem why should they bring us to this world?? what is the need. Parents should love their children and should not feel like its their responsibility...Childrens are the mark of the love between that couple. I read an article at http://www.evildrome.com regarding childrens..

[Creative Recreation]

You got a really useful blog I have been here reading for about half an hour. I am a newbie and your post is valuable for me. these practices are unfair; but they say that most of their rules are only to apply to people who overdra.

[gucci handbags]

Hello！ Nice to meet you! I am finding some beautiful articles and I found your place. It is a very good place, just like the heaven in the fairy tale. Thank you so much！