Would you date somebody with a terminal illness?

I'm thinking I will... it's better to have loved and lost... then again, Shakespeare WAS the original emo...

one thats for a year, only casually

He's a great guy; met him online. Been chatting for a few days. Definitely a terrific personality, to say the least.

I cried when I read his e-mail telling me he has it; it's an illness something nobody should have to have, even if there are drugs to slow its progression. A real cure is such a better thing, but 20 years out of treatment is still one hell of an advancement compared to even a decade ago...

I also know of the stigma he has to endure, and there's so much to his personality I truly enjoy. And I put myself in his shoes, metaphorically speaking. Especially after he said what he thought of me, I've taken a long look and, no, I can't do what some would and cut ties.

Nobody should be alone, if two people click. An illness should not keep people apart, in friendship or anything else.

And anybody can die at any time of any thing, that is the ultimate reality.

I like him. If more develops over time, there are safe ways to express love too.

But knowing a soul mate is far more rare to begin with; to summarily abscond would be extremely cruel to begin with... and our conversations; we clicked from the start... that is what matters most in our human lifetimes. And one day there may be a cure too. I'd like to help to try to find a cure, more than just donating money, just for the sake of restoring others' lives. Naive, probably, as I probably wouldn't find anything everyone else has already found anyway... but HIV and ultimately AIDS have killed too many good people, too early in life. I always sympathized, but never did I ever think it would become this personal.

not a statement about a person.

well good for you. hope it works out either as a friendship or romantically or even to broaden your horizons

in that case, do what is right for you, there are lots of way to play safe, esp. if you enjoy some of the fetishes (not trying to turn it into a sex thread)

Not to sound too dramatic -- but you have a powerful connection to this person and it has developed quickly, which means to me that there is something real, special, maybe even magical there.

Without question.

Shakespeare had it right, IMHO...

:hug:

it's better to have loved and lost if you're gonna inherit, just don't blow it all on hookers and blow like anna nicole smith

about someone he met that he might care about. Jeez. No need for snark and cynicism.

like this:

:sarcasm:

there have been many fun rhetorical question posts lately

i was just offering a playful answer

seeing the playful answer was wrong, rather than (i think dishonestly) remove my first post, i simply added a second post elsewhere

sorry for the confusion

Anyone in a long-term relationship has to deal with the mortality of their SO, you will just have to deal with in far more obvious sense than most.

Nevertheless, love is one of the few comforts we have in life, if you think you might find it, then it is worth risking what we all have to face in the end.

Best of luck to you.

My girlfriend has lung cancer. She was supposed to die a year ago. I guess she forgot.

The Prisoner -- so congrats on the best name I've seen here at DU! We even went to Wales to visit the location of the Village.

I don't have lung cancer (very rare bone cancer) but we know how it sucks to live with this disease and how people can be very un-sympathetic (I don't know if you and your girlfriend have had this problem but sometimes for us it seems that the world is very scared of people with illnesses).

Please know our hearts are with you and your girlfriend. You are an excellent soul and I hope you have years together.

she met him, fell in love.
he was dying of cancer.
they married, then even though the odds were against them they had a baby.
he died, she fell to pieces.

she got it together eventually but it was way too traumatic for anyone to endure.

it's one thing to fall in love and accept what happens. to head into something that you know won't end well is a different story and really depends on the person.

yes
if they make me laugh
and cry
and enjoy life


I would hope
I have done the same

oh

I have!!!
my brother
did not regret one minute

hey you

still love and respect your art...
and you (((hug)))
just not here to much

lost

:(

It is very sad to outlive someone you cared about, and it is something that will keep coming back into the forefront of your thoughts periodically for the rest of your life.

The thing is, life itself is a terminal illness, and even a healthy person might suddenly turn out not to be. And sometimes a person who has been diagnosed as terminal also turns out not to be. So since you really never know what's going to happen anyhow, you might as well take the chance.

I would stand by his side through anything. But if he had a terminal illness to begin with, I probably wouldn't. Then of course I would have missed out on him. It is a hard question because you don't want to go through the heartache. But you can miss so much by not. I think Garth Brooks said it best in the song "The Dance" "I could have missed the pain, but I'd had to miss the dance."

Love your grandparents? Parents? Pets? Chances are, you'll outlive them.

Even if you manage to avoid that, no guarantee you'll miss out on the tragic experience of saying goodbye. When I was 14, my best friend got a cancer diagnosis. She died when she was 16 and I was 15. I just...went to visit her in the hospital a lot. And cried. And coped. I've had friends who were robust and healthy die from car accidents and homicide. I've been with beloved pets at the vet when it was time to end their suffering. I am prepared to move back home when either parent needs me, and change their diapers before the end (it's the least I can do - they changed mine!).

All anyone really wants out of life is the right person to hold their hand at the end. It's not too much to ask. I know for a fact I want that, and if I hope to get it, I damn well better be prepared to offer.

was only 24. I saw what it did to my mom. But I would still rather have those 18 years I got to have him in my life even knowing the pain I would have to endure at the end.

That must have been horrible.

That's my point, though...it really is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.

They should have a dating service for terminally ill singles.

He once joked that he shouldn't have spent his money the way he did, but he didn't expect to be living so long.

Life is terminal, after all. None of us get out alive, and people die at all ages for all reasons. There are no guarantees.

disease or drop dead of say a brain aneurysm or die in a car accident. I have never understood those who blithely believe in an unreal immortality -- they think only other people die.

when I was diagnosed with a brain tumor. When I heard the news, I started planning my memorial service. Even after the surgery was 100% successful and the tumor was graded as benign, I still kept planning the service.

And that is because . . . I'm still gonna die someday! Just because I cheated death then, doesn't mean I've cheated it for all eternity. :)

In the mean time, of course, I will continue to live. :hi:

May all be well!

Doesn't love count for something? Plus as others have pointed out, we all have terminal conditions, and none of us can count on living any amount of time because accidents and so on happen every day. And people who are currently healthy can find out they have a terminal disease at any time (pancreatic cancer and liver cancer are especially sneaky forms) -- my aunt, a rabid health nut, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and died within five months. A colleague of ours just died of pancreatic cancer and she was diagnosed three months ago. Everyone was shocked.

I can't imagine someone telling people with illnesses that they wouldn't date or maybe love him/her because of his/her illness. And just when someone needs human companionship the most.

if they had a terminal illness.

The question asked whether you would start dating someone who has a terminal illness.

But that is who he is.

But that was just who he was, and has nothing to do with that particular quote. I just happen to think that his writing was the "demolition man" of its day.

As to whether I would... Probably not. I suppose it would depend on the illness. But I have never been one to "casually" date. And knowing that there was a term limit on a relationship would probably keep me from fully committing to it. Losing my wife is the worst thing I can possibly think of.

HIV can be a pretty long term thing now days, so that would be a consideration. And If I was a bit older, that would be another consideration. But at my age, with my level of attachment to people, I do not think I could do it. I work with people at the ends of their lives, where death is likely at any turn. I do not think I could do it at home as well.

I wonder how many people will be reading your posts in 500 years.

Ive only ever written one thing that I was satisfied with, and looking back, that was rather incomplete itself.

I wonder how many people will be watching Demolition man in 500 years. None of us know what will become the treasured classics of the past.

:P

In an accident, when Hamnet was still a child.

Would he have chosen to have never had children, knowing the potential--hell, almost the inevitability--was there to feel the pain of losing one at some point? Well, in 16th-century England, the child mortality rate was very high. Investing your emotions in a child was probably actually even more emotionally risky than loving an HIV-positive person in 2009 - the mortality rate is probably higher for children in the 1590s than for HIV-positive people in the late 00s.

Even as late as the early 20th century--my hometown cemeteries are FULL of little tiny baby graves, and often right next to them, their mothers, who were often in their teens or early 20s.

Modern medicine helps. The modern idea that death is a rarity, a disaster, and a failure, does not.


Gather ye rosebuds while ye may.

:evilgrin:

I do tend to be a bit contrarian, and I will admit that I was never a lit major, but I've been to the rebuilt globe, and Ive been to his home in Stratford on Avon. And I enjoy demolition man. And twelfth night. But I still hold the opinion that, based on what reading of the history I have done, that at his time his work was considered pop drivel. And that this makes our current veneration of his work somewhat ironic. And I personally find his themes a bit repetitive.

He stands well above the vast majority of them. So if he was pop drivel, what does that make them?

If you're only reading his work for its themes, you're missing about 80% of his work.

I also take note of the whole question of whether his work was indeed his work. And, given the number of times there are women pretending to be men pretending to be women in the body of it, its a question I take give more credence than I might otherwise.

If Shakespeare's contemporaries were, as you suggest, "the gigli of their day," then who represented the other end of the spectrum, since you decry Shakespeare as pop drivel. Or do you suggest that there was simply a void?

Further, your choice to equate Shakespeare to Demolition Man undermines your choice to identify Gigli as a bad film; by your own argument, Gigli might be considered a work of transcendent genius 500 years from now. You're trying to have it both ways.

Whether or not one man named Shakespeare actually wrote the works is not relevant, because that wasn't your original objection. At issue is the quality of the works themselves regardless of the authorship, which I am in any case willing to attribute to William Shakespeare until I see more compelling evidence to the contrary.

I confess that I don't understand what you're getting at with this part. Can you rephrase it?

having been written as notes in the margin of a playbill at the globe, long since composted. Or perhaps the really good stuff just wasn't politically acceptable, and went away. Or perhaps whats really good depends on who is doing the reading. Its rather irrelevant, to my mind. A lack of any really good movies in 2009 would not make Transformers 2 any better or worse.

Gigli may be considered amazing 500 years from now. Just as in his day, I understand, Shakespeare was not well thought of, but now has a wonderful cult following. How that means I "want it both ways" I don't follow. I have no way of knowing what the future will judge to be the masterpieces of my lifetime. I do not see how that means I have to like Gigli or idolatrize Shakespeare.

As to authorship, you are right in saying that has little to do with this argument. Though, I also generally don't like listening to music played by musicians I know are jerks. But take it as my little ad homonym against the Bard, if that helps.

I think, however, we have gotten far off of the OP topic. I will restate my thoughts on that. If I found out someone I was dating had a terminal disease, that wouldn't change anything. But I do not think that I am selfless enough to start that relationship from scratch.

hard. I know that the situation the OP is describing is exceptional in the sense that this issue would be foregrounded (the possibility of loss). I am entirely sympathetic. But as earlier posters have said, our lives will all be ended, without exception. Some sooner than others, but there is always the chance that our partner will be taken from us, and this could hypothetically happen at any time.

If the OP feels a strong connection to this person and wants to pursue a relationship, I wish them the very best. It may be very hard and there will likely be suffering, but maybe this person will be the love of OP's life and who would want to miss that? Sentimental perhaps. Plus as others have said, HIV is highly treatable now and many people live for decades.

I agree with what others have said. We all have a terminal illness, it's called being mortal. And none of us know when our time is up. (Health nut, runner, and jogging bible author Jim Fixx died of a heart attack in his 40s. William S. Burroughs lived to a ripe old age.)

I love my parents and my cat wholeheartedly, passionately, and without reservation, even though I know I will probably outlive them. it's going to hurt like hell when they leave me, but I know I'm a better person for having been close to them.

I have friends I loved very much who died violently and unexpectedly, and one who was very ill and we knew it was coming (She had cancer; she died at 16).

Honestly, for someone who is terminally ill and dealing with all that comes with that, to also have to deal with a romantic rejection that they know probably wouldn't have come if they weren't sick? Slap in the face. Salt in the wound. Insult to injury. It sounds awfully cruel. And selfish, if this is really someone you could really love.

I think we'd be better as a society if we had a more accepting and realistic attitude about death.

comment is what I was thinking about -- thank you for putting this in such a clear and perceptive manner. And your comment about our society's attitude towards death is spot on. Something tells me that we would have a real health care system if this were the case and reform wouldn't even be a debate.

Your post will be very helpful for the OP I think as the OP contends with a very difficult life decision (though it seems that the OP really cares about this person already).

You know, I'm an aging goth chick, and I've read an awful lot of 19th-century poetry memorializing lovers who've died.

It may be morbid to dwell on that. But it's equally, if not more, fucked-up and unhealthy to pretend that SOME people can completely escape the experience of losing a loved one, and that it's possible to control that through one's own actions.

Ain't gonna happen. The only way you can guarantee that won't ever happen to you is to go through life without loving anyone or anything. And, as debilitating and horrible as grieving is, it's part of the human experience. Structuring your life so as to avoid pain by running from love...ehhhh, that's....WAYYYY more messed up, and by no stretch of the imagination worth it. Truth is, not only will all of us die, most of us will watch a loved one die, which is much worse. It's part of the deal. That's what love IS, the gut-wrenching agony as well as the ecstatic heights (but mostly, it's neither - it's the socks on the floor and the stupid jokes and the book recommendations and the 'sorry, honey, I'm not chatty tonight - it was a shitty day at work and Ted Kennedy died' and the nod and the hug).

...that my partner would allow me to participate in that part of her/his life.

Love and laughter are worth pain and loss. It's a hard equation but it's true.

wouldn't you know, I have a thing for two ladies, each of whom has a different chronic condition! At the moment, neither is terminal (then again., nothing's happening on either front :( ), but the possibility is out there. :( (The third one doesn't count 'cause her congenital condition is merely disabling! Besides, she shot me down like an aging Soviet-era MiG fighter plane... :( )

Some folks just get to know that their departure date is near.

If somebody on their way out of this world wants to spend a few days with me, why the fuck not.

Enough said.

sorry bout that, slow day at work

Terminal illness has nothing to do with nothing.

seems to be moving very, very slowly. There are times I forget she has the problem.

I'm not a glutton for punishment, fuck that. But, it really does depend on what type of terminal disease it is. If the person has ALS or cancer, no, that shit is short term and sorry to sound selfish and crass but I'm not made of stern enough stuff to begin a relationship with a "short-timer", nor am I enough of a masochist.

But the I saw the second response that said HIV and the I went "Well DUH! That can and does have long term survival, why not?". I'd hate to say one of my dating criteria would be health status but there it is.

Short-timers, no, but long-timers, sure, ok.

and only if it's Reese Whitherspoon. And only then if she lets me get on top once in a while.

My mom had a high school classmate who was beautiful by anyone's definition. There was someone from that school who eventually became an actress and my mom's classmate was every bit as attractive. At get togethers or on the street my mom was invisible to this woman. Fast forward from the 40's to the 80's. Classmate came down with terminal cancer. Many of her friends deserted her. Only then did my mom get attention from this woman. It's not like they became bosom buddies but they did have conversations together, talked on the phone from time to time. On once occasion my mom remarked to me as to why did it take a terminal illness to bring them together? I know it's wrong to think that way. I know it's selfish as hell. Mom was a friend when this woman needed it the most in the last years of her life.

But posing the question to me as to whether I would date someone with a terminal illness it would depend on how long the prognosis was for. If it was a fast-acting cancer not serious dating but casually yes. If there was a greater life expectancy of several years or more then yes I could date her, fall in love with her, give my heart completely to her and be with her to the end. But in either case to be the last person they spent time with would be an honor. To be the one holding their hand as they crossed over makes me tear up to think about. To be able to share someone's last moments on earth would be the ultimate in intimacy.

Having said all that my greatest fear would be to meet a woman-heck, someone even completely out of my league and have our time together cut short. However as others have said life is something where no one gets out alive, unless of course you're a fundie praying for judgement day to come so they don't have to experience death.
Thus spake the selfish bastard.

We all are dying of a terminal illnes, called life! Guaranteed to be fatal at some time in the future.

there are no guarantees in life - NO ONE is guaranteed another day on this earth