In the US, medical issues can bankrupt people, even if they have insurance. If the couple married, his wife's income would be fair game to the hospitals and insurance companies.
I know a distant relative in the Midwest who's wife had a stroke. After about a year they made the difficult decision to get divorced because the aftercare was ruining them financially (she couldn't live at home). By divorcing, she became eligible for federal assistance, allowing her husband to keep a house over their children's heads.
> We would be married but for my condition, which has placed a question mark at the end of nearly everything. Will experimental treatments eventually fix me? Can I contribute to a family? Is it fair to ask that Dunia sustain a lifetime of my poor health?
I should have clarified. I read the article, including that quote. That sounds like a choice to me. Other people, such as Arline Greenbaum, in similar circumstances make different choices. Two gay men Saudi Arabian men "can't" marry.
There's always some form of "choice". For instance, the two gay men could attempt to immigrate to country where they could marry. But at what price?
I don't know Ari's situation, but I can guess because I'm living through something similar. When he states that "we can't marry", I'm guessing he came to that conclusion after looking at the full bill.
When you go from being a person's partner to being a dependent, when you lose all sources of income (don't count on that social safety net), when you can do few to no fun things together anymore, it doesn't feel like much of a choice anymore.
It takes a special type of person to marry into that. And if you do marry, you need to live with the guilt of imprisoning them forever too. This kind of thing is not a spectator sport. Everyone participates, and suffers. That's "choice".
Looks like this really depends on the state and the contract. In this case, they were both in New York and it looks like under law she might have to pay his bills after he deceased.
