Burden

One may respond in one or the other of two ways to  having a debilitating disease. He may say, Okay, I am ill--now everyone, especially my loved ones, must be sympathetic and take care of me. On the other hand, he may say, I will not be a burden to others, especially to my loved ones; for, after all, my illness is none of their doing and does not need to be allowed to take them down as well as me. 

Perhaps the most important thing is to honestly acknowledge the authenticity of the second party's feelings. Some folks are natural caregivers, and any response other than caring would be a betrayal of their own character. They find, for instance, the marriage vow,  In sickness and in health, obvious rather than odious. To participate in the condition of one who is ill or debilitated is natural to them. It's not so much a question of choice as a matter of destiny. 

Then again, there are those who definitely did not 'sign up' for the in sickness and in health clause. To these, it is they who have been betrayed, though certainly not with premeditation, by the one who is ill. He had from the outset promised to make their life better, not worse, and has failed to keep the promise. If they find themselves in the position of a caregiver, they will care with bitter unwillingness, and may even become cruel. They will in any case find their fate unfair and undeserved.

For my own part, to find myself being a burden to anyone else would be an extra burden to me, above and beyond the unavoidable realities of the disease. If caring comes not with its own reward--in pleasing the caregiver, in the natural operation and strengthening of character, in the application of pure devotion--it is not caring after all, but affliction and hardship, and only adds to the hardship of the disease itself. 

I stand, therefore, alone; and yet not alone at all--for there is an eternal One who suffers with me.