Friendship runs deep in individuals and in humanity. It's an essential fact of life for most people, a vast collection of relationships reported to lower blood pressure and the risk of depression and provide social interaction and connection in an increasingly disconnected age. It's immortalized in songs and in its own section at Hallmark. When it works it survives bridesmaid horrors, periods of remarkable self-absorption and the collection of bumps and bruises that life gives every relationship. It can be painful and it can be glorious.
But should it be legalized?
Arguments for and against legally recognizing friendships came out this summer, first in an essay by Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow in the Boston Globe and then in a response blog post from Jane Gross at the New York Times Health Blog.
Tuhus-Dubrow wrote about what she calls a "nascent movement" among scholars to give designated friends legal rights and responsibilities, from access to the Family Medical Leave Act and write-offs for certain "friend expenditures" to the right to make health-care decisions and even just ride in an ambulance or visit a hospital room should a friend get sick.
While some of her sources said that the government shouldn't be involved in everything and this kind of movement encourages too much control, others said that it's just the ticket for people who don't have a family support system for times of need.
Gross doesn't have children and has made a few arrangements with friends to serve as health-care proxies and potential roommates, but in her essay "Single, Childless and Terrified" she says that as a "single, childless woman" she lives in fear that there will be no one to care for her when she needs it the most.
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.
Gross suggests that friendship should be lifted from its "second-class status," given some clout. Reader comments are sad, hopeful, angry and resigned. Alex says a lonely old-age is what selfish people who haven't chosen to raise children get, especially if they have money left over. Jen in Astoria says she's going to be just fine regardless and doesn't appreciate Gross's "fear-mongering." Presumably a very different Alex says,
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.
Hey, I get it. Single, childless, here - although not terrified, yet. And since after years of social work with seniors I'm in touch with the realities of aging - financial and daily caregiving aspects - it's crossed my mind that not having kids or a spouse removes a common layer of human beings who are both legally tied (in the case of the spouse and frequently in the case of the kids) and emotionally connected enough to make sure I don't waste away alone.
This assumes that those people in the traditional roles are there at all. Let's face it - it's often a couple of my friends now who've got my back, along with my sister, and those are the people I would trust in a serious jam. Some of my married friends know they could depend on me or another of their close friends should there be a serious problem or absence of a nuclear family. One friend who recently separated from her husband just put me down as an emergency contact at her child's school, because her family is in another state. Most of my closest friends are young enough to have living parents who are still involved with our lives, single or coupled, so we're still benefitting from that support system in a variety of ways. I'm confident I'd be writing a different response to this in 10 or 15 years. Divorces happen (and already have.) Kids move away. Older relatives die.
Increases in domestic partnerships and civil unions in recent years include rights that some quoted in Tuhus-Dubrow's article say should be allowed for friends as well.
"If the law decides to support some relationships, why not others that
similarly involve care and support?" asks Washington University's
Rosenbury. "What is it about marriage or marriage-like relationships -
that is, relationships that are assumed to have sex in them?"
Carolyn McConnell at Rock the Cradle is in favor of legal friendship and says that it's not just for single and/or childless women.
Jane Gross in the New York Times focuses on those who are single and
childless and their need for support in old age. But this isn’t only an
issue that should concern single women. It’s past due time for women to
consider that most of us will spend less than half our lives married to
a man (see my old article in Salon
on this topic). I’ve already considered that my spouse is likely to die
many years before me (sorry, sweetie) and that my friends will be the
support of my old age.
To put that into pop culture terms for my Gen-X brain, "I Love Lucy" didn't last into Lucy and Ricky's divorce or Fred's death, and the Lucy Show didn't count, so it's hard to say how Ethel would have had to step up to the plate if Lucy got sick and Little Ricky flaked out. I'm pretty sure she came in handy regardless, though. Tuhus-Dubrow mentions Friends and Sex in the City as influential shows that a tribe of friends as a support system - although transitional, before "real life" begins.
Leanna Hamill, and elder law attorney in Massachusetts, writes in her blog that single or coupled, planning is key.
It is true that those clients with children generally have an easier
time choosing who to appoint as a health care proxy or power of
attorney, but those childless clients who have to think about it more,
and have conversations with friends about the responsibilities may be
ending up with people who are more willing to serve and who know their
wishes better.
Msmeta at Adventures at Midlife includes Gross's post in ruminations about a friend suffering from dementia.
But none of this is any guarantee that, when it’s time, the
biological switch won’t get pushed. And so many of us will have to
depend on the kindness of family and friends — and in some cases, even strangers — to guide us through those last confused years.
Candice Watters at The Boundless Line: bringing focus to the single years says that Gross's fear reflects an "unintended consequence of the cultural assault on marriage and children," that giving legal rights to friends would extend.
I think Gross has stumbled onto one of the reasons God made
families...The reality of an aging, childless population is undeniable. How we
care for them, however, is yet to be decided. Where some see tragedy, I
see opportunity. The church is uniquely gifted to step in with
compassionate care not only for the body in this life, but also for the
spirit with a view toward the next.
Chronicles of Spinster isn't buying it.
I read this article today in the NYTimes and it irritated the hell out of me. I understand its a NYTimes "blog", but pllleeaaassseeee.
Although
I understand the sentiment I refuse to spend the next 40 years of my
life worrying or being terrified about this shit. Build strong
relationships, know your rights, take care of your finances and your
health as best you can, and it will be what it will be. Why do fearful women want to scare the hell out of the rest of us? There were no useful suggestions in this crappy waste of space.
Model Minority read the comments on Gross's post also and came away concerned about the "system" we live in.
What amazes me when we talk about prisons, schools or the elderly is our unwillingness to criticize the system in which we live and how it may affects our lives on a structural level.
The possibility of legalizing a relationship assumes permanence, and what wasn't addressed much in the essays or the comments was what happens if a friendship should go south? How do you know who to trust? One of the most-read posts I've ever written on here that also received the most emotional responses across the board dealt with friendship "break-ups," something I called an art and a sadness. Considering it in this context, though, it's not very different from other partnerships that, when legalized, don't always make it, or in other ways let us down.
Writing through this was tough. It's a complicated topic where the focus too easily veers back into single-peron-bashing with a side of self-pity, but it could really affect anyone. One of my mantras in working in the senior community was, "it's hard to understand because until you've been old, you haven't been old," and I still believe that's true. It's impossible to say what kind of support you'll need in your old age, or how it will be provided. My parents have already stepped up to help out married friends with terminal illnesses, and my father just turned 60.
I don't know if "legal friendship" is the answer but I do know that in a world where people often "choose their family" there are ways to designate wishes and responsibilities to those who do not share your blood, household or marital tie.
I don't know what I would choose. I don't know what kind of care I'll need tomorrow or years down the road. I don't know if I'll live thousands of miles away from my sister at that time like I do now or in the same area. I have a godson, and the one time I cracked a joke about my old age in
his presence (seriously, a joke) his mother made sure to tell
him that he had no responsibility for me, so that's awkwardly out. I don't know if I'll end up married or remain single, but I do know, as I've stated before, that I will not marry just for security as I'd rather deal with a stable of nursing assistants than one incompatible man in my house, so there's that.
What I do know is that I have some really great friends, and an extended family I love who love me. I can only hope that that's enough, and that beyond the boundaries of legality, a few of those people will be there for me as I know I will be there for them for the long haul, like I would be there today if they really needed me. And I'd kind of like to see someone try to keep me out of a hospital room if I felt that was where I really needed to be.
Laurie White writes at LaurieWrites.
Comments
I guess I don't see the
I guess I don't see the point of this. As you've stated, there are already means by which you can designate a non-relative to be your advocate, so why the need for a legalized friendship? And? How would you even bring that up with someone?
Stephanie
http://quirkyblogger.com
I don't think that's entirely clear...
Which is why it would likely be a hard sell. Quotes in the Globe and NYT articles from lawyers who are for and against legalization speak to it more intelligently than I can (Ethan Leib is a good one in the pro column, as I recall) Quote from Boston.com:
(and please note that I'm just referring to these articles and the opinions therein, not championing or condemning them.)
Obviously this is a cultural as well as a legal statement and shift, which I'm sure could be cast as a need for some people. Stopgap measures like POAs aren't always rock solid for family members - I imagine they'd be even more iffy for friends, therefore making a legal pronouncement the best way to avoid problems.
I think if you felt uncomfortable bringing up such an arrangement, the relationship might not be mutually deep or supportive enough to warrant it - but that's just me.
Laurie
LaurieWrites
Would that come with a ring?
What a lot of food for thought. A 'legal friendship' does sound weird, but it can be terrifying to go in an ambulance by yourself, or to think of what would happen should you end up on life support and there's nobody who can legally advocate for you. In the absence of close family it makes sense.
So if a legal friendship works for someone, well, why not? Though I must admit I'd feel awkward pushing a pen and forms across the table during a game of MahJong and saying 'Oh by the way, friend..."
Thanks for sharing both sides of this one.
Susan
stonyriverfarm.blogspot.com
www.carersgroup.com
Yes, it would take a special relationship to
warrant it.
And I do think it's a special circumstance that would be difficult to understand if you haven't stood in solitary shoes.
I think the housing crisis will spawn more creative living arrangements that could also affect this sort of thing. While related, my elderly aunts (one widowed, one never married) lived together for years. My aunt's children provided for our other one after their mother died, but if they hadn't been so kind she would have been in a real jam. It is important to protect yourself, and if a trusted friend or extended family member is willing to "make it official", so to speak, it can mean a lot for financial and emotional security (which I think is a huge concept underlying all of this.)
Laurie
LaurieWrites
Legalizeing friendships is
Legalizeing friendships is an interesting idea. While it may be true that you can designate a health care proxy or power of atterny in your state, that may be meaningless in another, or may take a rediculous amount time prove at least. And it certainly doens't mean that a hospital would allow visitation.
It is not say that I don't love my family, but I think my few close friends truly know me and would be far more likely to act on my behalf to carry out my wishes than my family would. And if I were seriously ill, I'd much rather see my friends, than my family.
I don't necessarily think that "legalized friendship" is the answer. But I think that legal documents should transfer state to state, and that hospitals and nursing homes should be more flexible with their visitation policies.
Interesting perspective as usual, Zoe.
I always appreciate your point of view.
My parents are still responsible for me whether they like it or not (we're mutually dependent at this point) but my sister is the person I'd count on to best reflect and enact my wishes, although I'd trust all three of them unfailingly with financial/life stuff.
See, I think that legalized friendship becomes a possible or preferred answer because state-by-state requirements are so random, and the legal scholars speaking out about this know that. Unfortunately it often comes down to a "bottom line" when it comes to health care facilities (which arguably speaking is a protection too, but can bite back too...) After my parents and my sister it would definitely be my best friend, and I'd want to make sure she had as much clout as possible - whether she'd be willing to be my most legally-vetted friend or not I don't know, but this has me thinking for sure. (NOT that I'd do it - it's just one of those "Would you ever..." questions that helps to clarify who holds what role in your life.)
Laurie
LaurieWrites
Definitely food for thought
You've brought up such great points and I'm sure I'll be mulling over them for weeks but I wanted to particularly agree with your response above: "I think if you felt uncomfortable bringing up such an arrangement, the
relationship might not be mutually deep or supportive enough to warrant
it". Like others, I can see pros and cons of the legal issue but even bringing up things that are currently legal (like giving someone power of attorney) can be a really tough thing. But one advantage of the whole legalizing thing is that it's part of changing the conversation, to make people recognize that non-sexual, or non-blood relationships can be just as, if not more, important than sexual or blood family relationships. And maybe that will eventually make the personal conversations easier?
Jenn
http://quirkyeconomist.blogspot.com
True, Jen
Looking at the language surrounding the presidential campaign, for instance, it's still focused on a nuclear, traditional family structure when that simply isn't a reality for most people. Elder care is largely missing from the discussion and given the rapidly aging population, that's a little scary.
These are tough conversations to have, no doubt, and in my experience people don't have them until they have to (often when they're ill or under some other kind of terrible stress.) I'm not certain that legalizing everything is the key to making it easier, but it is good anyway to ensure that ALL people have options.
Laurie
LaurieWrites
Hmmm.... wasteful spending?
Maybe I'm just being cynical, but it seems to me this would just spawn a whole lot of governmental spending to accomplish something that can, essentially, already be accomplished.
That being said, I understand the prospect of aging, or even just living, without someone having your back *legally* can be scary. Maybe, though, this is something the private sector can take on... a kit or book or doula of sorts that could teach the elderly, infirm and petrified how to cross their t's and dot their i's when it comes to setting up living wills, proxies, etc?
April
www.AprilsLittleFamily.blogspot.com
That could be said about any legal
arrangement, though.
Even marriage. ; ) (Sorry, devil's advocate.) Singles get no marriage or (for the most part) child tax benefits so it'd be interesting to add it up and see what the disparity is...Not that I'm volunteering. I failed economics in undergrad and feel myself verging dangerously close to uneducated territory here.
Those kits exist. NOLO has a ton for all kinds of legal procedures. And although I can see your point, I really think this is more of a movement to have a real live person there to advocate for you (and provide emotional/caregiving support as well) when and if things go south. The doula concept is interesting...and I like the idea that we'd ever get as comfortable ushering people out of the world in this country as we do ushering them in (although to be fair it's important to look at caregiving and life management as a long-term process, not just happening when death is imminent.
Laurie
Maybe, maybe not?
Well, wherever government is involved, there is likely some (much?) wasteful spending. But I don't necessarily agree that marriage is a proper comparison - I think the amount of time and money spent on legal disputes with respect to property, children, etc. would grow exponentially if we were to abandon marriage laws. But, eh, I could be wrong ;-)
I wholeheartedly agree with your point on life management versus stepping in when death is imminent.
April
www.AprilsLittleFamily.blogspot.com
I was being a little facetious...but just a
little.
It's really not known if these things could be accomplished anyway, which is the argument of people who support far-reaching supports for single (including widowed/divorced) people without next of kin to support them. I'd be more interested in someone being able to be there for me and advocate for me across the board, and if that was assured as a result of a legal arrangement where I didn't think it would be otherwise, I might consider it.
I'm not sure it would cost that much more than other, less important things, is all I'm saying, beyond marriage-related things.
Laurie
LaurieWrites
Point taken.
:-)
April
www.AprilsLittleFamily.blogspot.com
There is so much in this post
As that "aging, childless" woman who spends small bits of time worrying - not about dying alone, but about living alone and vurnerable - there is LOT to read and get out of this post.
I have friends listed on an emergency contact sheet with my driver's license. I list them as family members. To me they are. It shouldn't matter to the legal/medical system how I define family. Yet I know it might.
Now I look at the list once or twice a year and make sure it's still what I want. Change it if I must. I tell a person when they are on the list, but not when they've been removed. (it's NOT that we're not friends anymore. One person might have had a dramatically busier life; another has died, etc.).
Making those adjustments on a legal document would be harder.
A group of friends sat last night (after the death of one's friend) and all verbalized: how I want to die, what choices I'd make. Just so we could all advocate to friends, family and whomever our wishes. Will it matter? I hope it takes decades to find out.
Debra
A Stitch In Time
Weight for Deb
Deb, good points
I felt really honored when my friend put me on her kids' emergency list at school. It meant she trusted me and especially because I don't have children and do enjoy being close to my extended family and family of friends, I like being included in multigenerational life.
I think along with the knowledge that someone cares we're alive and get in the door safe at night is the thought of who would care and help us out if we were incapacitated at any age - or maybe that's just me and you. : )
Whether it's through legal documentation or a document YOU draw up that folks know how to find in that case, I think it would be nice to have some way to have that realized. It is a shift in thinking, for sure, but I do like the consideration of how we are ALL - married, single, kids, without - considered, treated and valued in times where we need it the most. The Teri Schiavo case caused me to state my wishes to my parents and my sister. There is no doubt there no. But if they all weren't there I have no idea who would be, so it pays to pay attention to what those options are.
Laurie
LaurieWrites