When I was younger, my father told me about a man who divorced his wife after he learned she had cancer. I remember, 20 years later, him using the phrase “good time Charlie” to describe the man.
As PianistClare - who I find to give very good advice - said, “in sickness and in health,” etc., and that is true.
I would add, however, purely in my opinion, that I would think there is a distinction between a married couple where an accident occurs - where they have taken a vow before God to be a union and to care for one another - and, for example, a situation where a person meets someone while single and for whatever reason the couple know one is impotent. We are not to be “good time Charlies” or “good time Charlenes,” but IMHO we can and should have our eyes open to health issues. Another real-life analogy would suffice to make my point. I knew a young woman who met, and ultimately married, a young man with a serious heart problem such that he had a defibrillator surgically implanted in his chest, so it could shock him back to life if his heart stopped. It did as advertised, twice in the 6 weeks before their wedding. I don’t know, but I would strongly suspect that, based on his heart condition, he’d be unable to conceive – as an aside, there’s a reason those Cialis-type ads tell watchers to ask their doctors if their heart is healthy enough for sex. Now here’s my point: If that were my 27-year old daughter, I suspect I would strongly counsel her to find another boyfriend, long before the defibrillator episodes: It is really asking a lot of a young woman to not only marry someone apparently impotent, but with a major health issue such that he could basically die at essentially any moment, leaving my daughter a widow. The same way there are issues that would be a major red flag to any relationship such that Mom & Dad would counsel their child to “call it off” - whether drugs; abuse; psychological issues; whatever – health issues IMHO could and should be such issues as well. Sorry, just being honest.