My head exploded because I cannot imagine how someone who calls himself an ethicist could possibly answer this question…
“My Grandma Has Dementia. Should I Help Her Vote?”
…any other way but “NO! Of course no. What the hell’s the matter with you?“
Incredibly, Prof. Appiah, an NYU philosophy professor, answers in part,
“When the situation is hazy, my inclination would be to err on the side of helping someone to vote, because voting is such a central form of civic participation. I’ll also note that in our polarized polity, many people aligned with either of the two major parties think that the choices of people aligned with the other one are not merely ill considered but make no rational sense. From their perspective, your grandmother, however impaired, would be far from an outlier. It remains the case that a broad franchise and regular elections are better for social peace than any available alternative. And for your grandmother, as for so many people around the world, the simple act of voting may have greater significance than whatever choices it conveys.”
Unforgivable. The question isn’t hazy at all. The questioner describes how the family “helped” grandma vote in 202, when she was much more cognitively healthy than she is now:
“In the 2020 general election, she obtained an absentee ballot, and her immediate family members, including me, helped her fill it out. (Her cognition was in decline four years ago, but it was not as degraded as it is now.) As I remember it, she held the pen while we did our best to explain each office and issue. If there was any confusion, we would tell her how we voted, and she would do the same.“
Got it! You voted under your grandmother’s name in 2020. That’s illegal, as well as unethical. Your family rationalized it, and now an “ethics expert’ is rationalizing your rationalization.
The New York Times, which usually can’t tell an ethical value from a lime wedge, sub-headlines the post, “The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on helping someone with a disability carry out a civic responsibility.” Pure deceit.
Senility and dementia are not disabilities that can be legitimately compensated for by others. If the disability was physical, as if the old woman had Parkinson’s and couldn’t fill in the ballots, that would justify helping her carry out a civic responsibility. Voting, however, is an expression of an individual citizen’s personal choice based on at least a minimal processing of information. “Helping” a late stage Alzheimer sufferer vote is like helping a goldfish vote, or a lamp.
This is voting fraud.
[I am wrestling my hands to the floor to avoid speculating on the political orientation of The Ethicist’s inquirer and her family.]
Ethics Alarms 
I remember around 2004 there was an article (I think it was on Freerepublic, so give it what weight you like) about someone who took a retarded relative and his friends from the group home where they resided to vote. Afterwards one of the retarded people was asked who he voted for and why, and simply said he voted for John Kerry “because my brother says he’s a great man who wants to do good things.” This is about the same.
Hilarious. Joe Biden has locked down the much sought after demented demographic. Is this a great country or what? They probably hide the demographic under “undecided.” This story should be started with one of Dave Barry’s, “and I am not making this up!”
But seriously, the Dems harvest votes in nursing homes and retirement facilities. And half-way houses and drug re-habilitation facilities, no doubt. Anywhere there’s a bunch of people with mailing addresses.
this is why we can’t have nice things. A republic if you can keep it
rest of my reply censored due this being a family blog
I don’t agree.
People with dementia don’t lose their right to vote.
A goldfish or lamp aren’t human beings with the right to vote.
If the person with dementia didn’t want to vote, or you made them go vote, that would be another issue.
Or tricked them into voting?
Yes that would be wrong. But there’s nothing unethical with helping a person with Dementia vote if they want to vote.
Please, Please, Please tell me you don’t really think the issue is the person’s status as a human with (technically) the right to vote, rather than the fact they don’t have the mental faculties to actually do so. Small children are humans, but they can’t process the information and understand what they’re doing, so we don’t let them vote.
Of course it’s about their right to vote. It’s not “technically”
There are different stages of dementia and I dont agree that an adult with dementia automatically makes them not have the mental faculties to vote.
Maybe they do maybe they don’t, but it’s not your right or anyone else’s to decide that. Maybe we should go back to giving tests to make sure people have the “mental faculties” to vote? What about people who are mentally handicapped?
Yes it would be unethical for someone to force an invalid to vote for who you want them to vote for, but I dont see that happening here.
I would agree that having dementia doesn’t automatically render one incapable of voting — but it certainly could. Do you disagree?
—
This is from the description of what happened in 2020: If there was any confusion, we would tell her how we voted, and she would do the same.“
How I interpret this is that she had the mental acuity to know who she wanted to vote for in some cases, but not in others. Suppose she knows who she wants for city council, but has no idea in the gubernatorial race? Should she be required to vote as someone else did? As well, what if the kids voted for different candidates?
Reverse the situation. When the grandkids were 18, would you think it right for grandma to be able to tell them who to vote for?
If she can vote, then fine. But if she can’t vote, then also fine.
You’ve constructed a straw man by substituting mere “dementia” for Jack’s “late stage dementia”, a totally different animal. Someone still on the voting roll “technically” has a right to vote, but a late stage dementia patient lacks the mental capacity to understand what they’re doing and make their own decisions. “Helping” them vote in that condition is the same as requesting a ballot in their name, filling it out, and voting a second time with your own preferences.
This is a good opportunity to go through the first two steps of the three-step values reconciliation method.
Step 1: Understand one’s own values. In this case, the relevant concept is trust. It sounds like you’re concerned that if we don’t make sure people with dementia are able to vote, they won’t have a voice in policies that affect them and the people they care about. You may not trust that politicians will look out for the interests of people with dementia if they don’t vote.
By contrast, you may trust that people with dementia can, with assistance, vote for the candidates whose values and policies most align with theirs. Does that sound right?
I appreciate that you draw the distinction between the people with dementia who want to vote of their own volition and those who are pressured to vote.
Step 2: Understand other people’s values. Why might other people be less inclined to trust the process of people with dementia receiving assistance with voting, even if they decided themselves to vote?
See, this is what I called nuance. Most of my opinions are nuanced. Jack is making a blanket statement and I dont agree with it on its face. This issue isn’t black and white. As with most things, it depends.
People with dementia have good days and bad days. Let’s say your grandmother said “oh wow I’m going to vote for X” and then on voting day, they forget they have to vote and they’re having trouble filling out the form. Is it wrong to help them vote? I dont think so.
Mentally handicapped people, huge idiots, people with dementia, have a right to vote. And people are allowed to help them vote if their mental abilities are interfering with that right.
As soon as someone takes advantage of someone with a mental disability like forcing them to vote, manipulating their vote, etc, then I agree, it’s wrong. But I don’t see that happening here.
Curious what you think EC
That’s hilarious. It is you who are deliberately ignoring “nuance.” When “help” means assisting someone capable of making a decision regarding who to vote for to execute that vote, that is legitimate. What is described in the question is not helping the individual vote, but substituting their choice for the demented relative’s choice, because that individual is no longer capable of making that choice. There is no right to sell a vote, trade a vote, or transfer one’s vote to another–or, obviously, to allow someone to turn your own vote into theirs. Little legal details like “informed consent” are involved here as well as respect for another’s autonomy. The individual described could not sign legal documents in that condition described, and a vote is a legal document. You’ve just thrown up straw men. If the dementia-sufferer is having a “good day,” then that citizen is capable of voting. That wasn’t mentioned in the column, and is irrelevant.
their choice for the demented relative’s choice, because that individual is no longer capable of making that choice.
Sure but I dont believe that they’re ”no longer capable of making that choice”. I’ve had family members who just vote for whoever the other family member is voting for. That’s the choice and that’s their right.
Do you believe that when a person is legally judged mentally incompetent, they should lose the right to vote, or just that they should be monitored during election season to ensure if they have a ballot, nobody’s telling them who to vote for?
Do you believe that when a person is legally judged mentally incompetent, they should lose the right to vote, or just that t
They should lose the right I think, yes. But there should be a rigorous legal test, which this post made me look up and it does exist.
read it again….she voted the way they told her to, that is unethical at the best and illegal at most. They plan to do it again this year and she has in their own eyes deteriorated.
Awesome! I’m taking a road-trip to Pennsylvania, visiting as many memory care units as possible, and helping the residents vote for President Trump. I might have to take a couple days off from work, but that’s a small price to pay.
Good thing I just changed the oil in the car…
I think what Thor may be referring to with his mjolnir reasoning is that in general Democrats have the right to vote, but they are a nuanced bunch with nuanced lives and this great plurality of nuances is a feature of their party(think joy). And though motley nuanced are the Dems, it is a shame to diminish the joy of the bright future ahead of anyone identified as belonging to their number by any restriction on voting, even denying aid, as it is their right to vote and if the govt will not guarantee that vote then good discerning compassionate Democrats patriotically bound to render them aid toward fulfillment of defending democracy.
Exactly. Thor? Did you get that. You might want to send the above to headquarters. Good talking point.
I find the idea, claimed by some, that voting is an absolute right while at the same time claiming that freedom of speech is subject to restrictions that reduce disinformation or hateful rhetoric.
How is voting for someone when you have no idea of where the candidate stands on an issue or even who the candidate actually is any different than making a choice based on what some decree as misinformation.
Logic would say that if you believe that voting is an absolute right then you also have an absolute right to whatever information the voter deems accurate and should only be rebutted but not censored
At issue here is whether grand ma was manipulated into choosing a candidate she might not have otherwise chosen.
I suppose my answer would be if it is acceptable to assist someone with mental deficiencies obtain a firearm license then helping them vote would have to be acceptable.
I find the idea, claimed by some, that voting is an absolute right while at the same time claiming that freedom of speech is subject to restrictions that reduce disinformation or hateful rhetoric.
Should have been
I find the idea, claimed by some, that voting is an absolute right while at the same time claiming that freedom of speech is subject to restrictions that reduce disinformation or hateful rhetoric disingenuous.
Further, what is missing in these arguments, is that for every claimed “right” there is a corresponding responsibility. If a person cannot be held responsible for something then the corresponding right to do something can be limited. No amount of assistance can overcome the disability of incapacity to reinstate a right. For example, a person cannot grant power of attorney to exercise another’s voting right in a civic election.
I can argue that if someone who pays no attention to that which is transpiring around them and or fails to understand the issues promoted as policies by candidates votes that too is unethical. They may have a right but they have abrogated their duty as a citizen by remaining ignorant. Moreover, voter turnout in the US is substantially lower in the US than other countries. To combat low participation we enacted methods of voting that make it EASY to vote. Well easy to vote also means easy to cheat.
There is no doubt that people or family members ask others who to vote for. However, that advice cannot be given inside the voting booth. The voter who asks who should they vote for can be influenced in different directions until the vote is cast in the booth. This allows competing opinions to weigh in. This is why some are hell bent on expanding mail in ballots because the influencer can lock in their influence just as surely as if they were allowed in the voting booth with the voter.
We have gotten to a point where the duty to vote is a mere numbers game in which the winner is decided by two factors: how many D’s are in the state and how many turn out to vote. A split ticket is no longer something that occurs with any regularity. We now have red states and blue states and the purple ones are deemed swing states that decide elections.
Maybe the first step in reestablishing the concept of civic responsibility with respect to voting is restricting absentee ballots to people in the military or working out of the country. Students in dorms can register to vote in the state in which they are residing while in school they do not need to vote in the state of their parents. Make voting day a national holiday and a one day event. We will never have an electorate without the ignorant but we should start reinforcing the idea that RIGHTS come with CIVIC RESPONSIBILITIES.
What is it about “mental capacity” in relation to the legality of various acts does Thor not understand? For example, everyone has a legal right to execute a will and dispose of their estate. But if they attempt to do so without having the mental capacity to do so, the act is a nullity. As another example, children do not have the mental capacity to commit crimes. Is this difficult?
Thor’s either on someone’s payroll, acting in bad faith, or both.
ere is my opinion on the topic of persons with Dementia or Alzheimer’s voting and helping them vote.
There was a ruling in Maine (Doe v. Rowe, 156 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D. Me. 2001)) that set what appears to be a base standard used for testing individuals suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s, it’s now referred to as the Doe voting capacity standard which is used to determine voting competence, focused on understanding the nature and effect of voting and on the ability to choose. In the USA version of the CAT-V test, the subjects are asked to imagine that two candidates are running for Governor and that the day of the interview is the Election Day, the scenario we proposed was real rather than hypothetical. Furthermore, in order to shorten the time of interview, unlike the original, our version of the CAT-V did not include a question evaluating subjects’ appreciation of the significance of voting. For each CAT-V item, the scores assigned to each person ranged from 2 (correct response reflecting adequate performance) to 0 (inadequate performance). My understanding is that there are six total questions and three are specifically about elections as stated above. Here is a (Brief overview of Competency Assessment Tool for Voting or CAT-V), this is a one page PDF document that you’ll have to download.
Dementia and Alzheimer’s are terrible diseases and they put a lot of strain on those who take care of them, my wife and I have been through it with a parent.
In my opinion, anyone that has a family member that’s suffering from Dementia or Alzheimer’s and is they’re asking to vote in an election should have this test conducted and live by the results. If you have to test every two years as elections come around then so be it, test every two years. It may be an annoyance but when it comes to Dementia or Alzheimer’s I think it’s a moral obligation if, and only if, the individual asks to vote. If they don’t ask to vote, don’t bring it up and stir the pot which usually increases agitation.
I have absolutely no issue with helping someone with Dementia or Alzheimer’s to vote, but I draw a firm line in the sand when it comes to answering any questions related to the candidates or issues or telling them how I voted, I consider that to be campaigning or electioneering and that kind of behavior is NOT allowed in a polling place. Campaigning or electioneering has to remain at lest 100ft away from the entrance of a polling place and, let’s face it, standing next to a Dementia or Alzheimer’s and engaging in any kind of campaigning or electioneering would be unethical and quite likely illegal. The statement in Jack’s post “If there was any confusion, we would tell her how we voted, and she would do the same” tells me that there was campaigning or electioneering happening when the ballot was filled out.
[ I apologize to SW and everyone else for not being available last night to release this comment from moderation, where it got stuck because of its length and the links.]
Not a problem, I knew you had a performance.
It occurs to me, especially since this ruling came from Maine, that given one of the questions is something like ‘How will the winner be determined?’.
Maine, as you may recall, uses ranked choice voting. If that is a key question, very few people in Maine would be qualified to vote.
If you want a hilarious video, do a man in the street interview and ask them “How does Ranked choice voting work?”
Oy
I have several issues with this post’s discussions that fall into my pet peeves list. It is sloppy and misleading to conflate the definition of legal and ethical. Many charlatans use this tactic to support their agendas. Alternatively, many simultaneously ignorant and lazy individuals conflate the two because it is too taxing for them to be accurate. Making something legal does not in itself confer ethical status. I submit the institution of slavery has always been unethical regardless of its legal status. Jack’s post dealt with the ethics of “helping” a dementia sufferer vote. He did not suggest a dementia sufferer should be denied the legal ability to cast a ballot. That premise was manufactured by a commenter without any foundation.
The second issue I have with much of this post’s comments is claiming voting to be a right. This is not settled law. I offer the linked articles below in support of my position.
The Right to Vote: A Constitutional Guarantee or Privilege?
Does the Constitution Guarantee a Right to Vote? The Answer May Surprise You.
Progressives have a habit of finding all sorts of rights in the Constitution when it suits their purpose. The right to vote is listed for all to see along with the right to an abortion, the right to privacy, the right to same-sex marriage, and finally the right to healthcare. Conversely, many of the same Progressives twist themselves into knots arguing the right to bear arms or to exercise free speech should be restricted or eliminated.
He did not suggest a dementia sufferer should be denied the legal ability to cast a ballot
Good, if that’s the case, then it’s settled. It’s fine to help a dementia sufferer cast a ballot.
But not to help one decide who to vote for. “Fine” is also not a useful word here. The term is “ethical.” If a demented citizen can’t make the decision of whom to vote for on their own, then it is unethical to make that decision for her, which is what the question to the Ethicist boils down to.
On the plus side, I’m thrilled to learn that you can be obstinately wrong on more than one topic.