~1000 days is a long time, out of SOs, no one has to know that far away, especially kids. I'd defiantly be against hiding it all the way through though, from personal experience, that's just wrong.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
[The Atlantic] My wife was dying, and we didn't tell our children
- Thread starter Kieli
- Start date
I was lied to about sort of similar circumstances. It fucked me up pretty bad. They wouldn't even tell me why my mom was in the hospital, why her stay in the hospital broke up the marriage, why my friends weren't allowed in my house by their parents.
Good intentions I'm sure. Still not appreciated in my instance. It's something that still hangs over my relationship with my parents almost 30 years later.
Dishonesty is a dangerous game to play with your children.
Good intentions I'm sure. Still not appreciated in my instance. It's something that still hangs over my relationship with my parents almost 30 years later.
Dishonesty is a dangerous game to play with your children.
They were lying about all her appointments, the mother was hiding her ailments. Constantly lying to them. If this was anything but denial they would have put effort into dealing with mortality, how to introduce it to their kids, then would have talked to the kids about mortality in general, and then opened up about it once they would understand that, yes, kids can handle this. Talking about mortality. would be teaching them about mortality. All this shows is that denial is a hell of a coping method.
And people, it's not about the number of days. It's about the fact that you're lying to your kids, for your own sake. There are huge potential downsides to this that make it not worth it, at all. You're not ruining your kid's childhood by opening up to them, and helping them deal with the mortality of their own parent, geez!
Where did this narrative even come from, that a child's upbringing will be worse if you don't lie about a parent that's terminally ill? I highly doubt that the parents from the article did any research on this matter and then came to a pedagogically sound conclusion. I'm open to be corrected though. But to me, it just screams denial and projection -> lying to the kids is the easiest way to live in denial, and then using the reasoning as an excuse to justify not having to deal with telling your kids anything.
How old were you when your dad was diagnosed and when he passed away? Did he pass away recently?
I was 20 when my mom was diagnosed with colon cancer. It was stage IV already, and she fought super-hard. Really really hard. She wanted to live. And me, my dad, and my brothers wanted her to live too. She passed away from the disease a few months before my 23rd birthday. That was about six years ago. My parents were open with us about what was going on. We were fully informed about her treatment and prognosis, and considering the age of me and brothers - that was an appropriate choice. We were young adults.
But a tiny, secret part of me wishes I hadn't known about how dire my mom's prognosis was until maybe later. Because from the moment I was told this disease would likely be terminal, it put me in a state of desperate, soul-scorching grief that continues, in some form, even today. I don't know when would've been a "better" time to have been told - if such a time even exists. Maybe when the tumors in her liver stopped responding to all available chemotherapy drugs? I would've been about 22 by then. Two-plus years of perhaps more muted sadness over mom having cancer but not necessarily "terminal, advanced stage IV cancer."
I think the family in The Atlantic article did the right thing, because it was the right thing for their family. Those children were 10 years old or younger. Their mother was only expected to live 1000 days, but she survived for several more years. For those children to live, though their entire adolescence, under the shadow and active awareness of looming death of one of their primary parents would have been so corrosive. If we're lucky, childhood is when we build that reserve of good things and good experiences that buoy us through the all the challenges and fucked-up-ness yet to come. Those children were lucky and loved. The decision could've been - probably would've been - different if they were adults.
After my mom died, I was in a state of rage. Sometimes, I'd lash in out in weird, vicious, unexpected ways at people who did nothing to deserve it. On the first Mother's Day after my mom died, I picked a huge fight with my cousin and her mom who wanted to take me out to comfort me, but I was furious. I didn't want to be around another mother/daughter, even though they were being loving and kind. I could've just said I didn't want to go, but I was too lost in grief to see that as an option. For a while, that anger made me rigid and brittle.
The way you wrote to Grug in this thread is seriously unusual. You're saying cold, cruel things to a father fighting cancer. A father who made a different choice - in terms of disclosure - than your own dad. Were you 3 years old like grug's son is, when your dad got diagnosed? If you were a lot older than that, the situation isn't comparable. And even if you were as young as grug's son is, that doesn't mean grug's choice is superior/inferior to how your dad handled it. It's just different, and grug is in the best position to know what's right for his family
Are you mad at your dad? I was mad at my mom. Sad too. And filled with love and gratitude. Like I said, you reacted to Grug in an extremely unusual way. It was unwarranted, and he did nothing to deserve that. But you still wrote those things. It was something I wanted to point out.
I'm not mad at him at all because I think he did it the right way. I would be mad if he kept it hidden. I'm proud that he was brave enough to tell us and trusted us to handle it well.
Hypothetically, would you have been mad if your father had passed away suddenly, from a preventable condition, such as a heart problem?
These discussions remind me of a situation my partner experienced as she worked in an ER department of a relatively young dad who had suffered a rupture of on undiagnosed aaa. I'll spare you the absolute details, but the chap passed away in front of her eyes, as she tried to stem the blood loss, his last words were 'Tell my family I love them'.
They were outside in the waiting area.
I do think with cancer, it's very much 'what would I do in that position', and I'm not sure it's a question a lot people really want to answer.
I guess if I were in those shoes, it would depend on the age of the kids and how obvious the illness was and when it becomes obvious. I hope I'm never in those shoes. Horribly sad story, those poor people.
My grandparents were alive well into my teenage years. My wife's grandmother is still going at 98. But I still had to tell my kid (who was 3-4 at the time) that his grandfather was sick. It was unavoidable and we still wanted my kid to visit him in the hospital, rehab, at home, etc. so that my dad could have his spirits raised when possible. When I got the call about 2 months before he died that I had to rush to my parents' house to help life my dad off the floor because he couldn't move, my kid was in earshot of the call. It was unavoidable having to tell my kid SOMETHING about what was going on.
When my dad was diagnosed, my parents didn't tell us for almost two months. They wanted to have a Christmas celebration free from it. I get that, but I still wish they would have told me when they found out (and I was an adult with my own kid at that point).
Given what happened in the following year (he died about a year after the diagnosis), we could have perhaps planned a grander Christmas celebration, or maybe done a few different things. And also had some "clearer" time to spend - because very shortly after Christmas, he had surgery and was starting treatments. So I was shuttling him around and in the thick of everything that comes with treatment.
And once you get into cycles of treatment, the times are very very different. And not everyone can keep mentally focused during their treatments, some people just don't have the mental tools even if they are otherwise physically strong. You are fortunate (relatively, obviously) if you do. The family in the article had that relative fortune of being able to have many more celebrations than was initially expected. Also, that the children were able to receive "final words" from their mother, which helps a bit to reconcile the earlier hiding. I was not able to receive final words from my father, he was too far gone in hospice at that point. But obviously I had more time overall with my father than they had with their mother.
When it comes to children, you have to acknowledge that children are their own people and are entitled to have their own feelings and experiences, and be able to communicate them. They are also entitled to their own relationships with the victims of the disease that they are in such close proximity with. They are entitled to sad feelings. Entitled to the opportunity to offer comfort and moments of joy for the victim.
The victim is also entitled to strive for normalcy if that is what they wish. I still remember the last time my kid visited with his grandfather, and kissed him goodbye when leaving. It was a "normal" enough experience, even with everything going on.
And if you can acknowledge all that, then you can make appropriate decisions of what and in what manner to communicate.
Still, trying to hide something that is already out in the open, well, people catch on to it anyway, don't they. And that feeling of "I'm glad you didn't tell us" expressed in the article by the children may change over time. The children in the article are still relatively young, and the first year after the passing of a loved one is often the hardest.
When my dad was diagnosed, my parents didn't tell us for almost two months. They wanted to have a Christmas celebration free from it. I get that, but I still wish they would have told me when they found out (and I was an adult with my own kid at that point).
Given what happened in the following year (he died about a year after the diagnosis), we could have perhaps planned a grander Christmas celebration, or maybe done a few different things. And also had some "clearer" time to spend - because very shortly after Christmas, he had surgery and was starting treatments. So I was shuttling him around and in the thick of everything that comes with treatment.
And once you get into cycles of treatment, the times are very very different. And not everyone can keep mentally focused during their treatments, some people just don't have the mental tools even if they are otherwise physically strong. You are fortunate (relatively, obviously) if you do. The family in the article had that relative fortune of being able to have many more celebrations than was initially expected. Also, that the children were able to receive "final words" from their mother, which helps a bit to reconcile the earlier hiding. I was not able to receive final words from my father, he was too far gone in hospice at that point. But obviously I had more time overall with my father than they had with their mother.
When it comes to children, you have to acknowledge that children are their own people and are entitled to have their own feelings and experiences, and be able to communicate them. They are also entitled to their own relationships with the victims of the disease that they are in such close proximity with. They are entitled to sad feelings. Entitled to the opportunity to offer comfort and moments of joy for the victim.
The victim is also entitled to strive for normalcy if that is what they wish. I still remember the last time my kid visited with his grandfather, and kissed him goodbye when leaving. It was a "normal" enough experience, even with everything going on.
And if you can acknowledge all that, then you can make appropriate decisions of what and in what manner to communicate.
Still, trying to hide something that is already out in the open, well, people catch on to it anyway, don't they. And that feeling of "I'm glad you didn't tell us" expressed in the article by the children may change over time. The children in the article are still relatively young, and the first year after the passing of a loved one is often the hardest.
No, I don't think so. It's the idea that we could have just been bumming around for months/years having normal conversations while they kept such a huge secret is what makes me mad. It's the lack of trust/respect.
If you read the article, they entirely avoided addressing the fact that the mother WAS going to die.
They told their children when (I'm inferring) treatment options ran out.
They told their children a month before their mother died an inevitable death that they'd known about for 10 years.
I remember a norwegian documetary about an end of life care facility and the head doctor there pleaded parents to tell their children that their parents where dying because it's so much more devastating to the children when the death comes unexpected.
A teenage girl that was on the program whose mother kept telling her she was fine and she was going to get well again said after the mother died that she wish she'd known.
A teenage girl that was on the program whose mother kept telling her she was fine and she was going to get well again said after the mother died that she wish she'd known.
Yeah, again, why does one necessarily do a much better job of teaching about mortality?
Well, because refusing to acknowledge mortality until a month before death doesn't really teach about mortality.
Yes. Should 8, 9, 11 year olds be told that their parent's disease condition is terminal when the timeline for disease progression is not set in stone? I can see the case for holding off on that piece of information. The children knew their mother was sick and receiving treatment for something. And their mother lived for 10 years after she was diagnosed. That's a long time for a child to live with the burden of an ever-present awareness/anxiety that their mother is going to die.
Maybe the parents should've told their children earlier than they had been - when the oldest was in her late teens for instance? It seems they decided to tell them when their mother's disease progressed to an untreatable (which is different from "uncurable") stage. That was not an unreasonable decision in my eyes.
My mom died of a terminal illness. Last year, my grandfather died of a terminal illness. Both were diagnosed a few years before they died. I was well aware of both their diagnoses and prognoses from the start.
I don't know shit about mortality.
I see the phrase "inevitable death" used in this thread. All our deaths are inevitable. All the deaths of our loved ones are inevitable. Mortality is a bitch, and no matter what we do or how we try to prepare, it'll knock everyone of us off our feet somehow or another.
That's what I would do. No need to disturb their lives until necessary. The kids had clearly seen her go through operations and chemo before this diagnosis ever came, so "sick" was known, just not the terminal part.
Hiding serious shit about my mother from me at around the age of 8 , presumably because they thought I wasn't ready, irreparably damaged my relationship with both my parents forever.
So there's a risk in trying to protect your kids because you think they can't handle it.
What serious shit was that? If it wasn't about her being terminally ill, then it's not really comparable?
Why not? It just delays the lesson. Actually, it makes it a rather stronger lesson if you ask me, rather than having them live with the very real fear that their mother might die at any moment for a decade.
This is something I can understand. I was 5 when my dad passed away. I knew that my dad was sick but I didn't know it was terminal. My mom didn't let me go to the funeral. I stayed with my Grandmother. When the funeral was over, she picked me up and then sat me down and explained everything. It took me a VERY long time to stop crying (which might attribute to my bad eating habits, since eating bad = made me forget about the pain). Even to this day, I still have that "What if..."
I'm not saying that they should have been given a timeline, I'm saying that they should have been made aware. The article makes it clear that they went as far as disguising treatment as "volunteer trials" to avoid the issue. This wasn't any type of cancer. The prognosis was very specific.
As others have pointed out, it's great that this worked out so well, but they could have just as easily ended up with 11, 12, and 14 year old daughters blind sided by their mother's sudden death. That deserves to be considered.
I really don't see how that would have been any worse, other than the obviously larger impact the death of a mother would have on younger children. Kids that age simply cannot prepare for the death of a mother that they rely on so much. Learning about their mother's imminent doom and having it drag out for years seems like it would be a torturous ordeal for a child, especially at a time when a sense of normalcy is so essential.
As someone who lost my mother when I was only 13 this really does not seem to be the way to go. I was "sheltered" from the fact my Mother was terminal and was going to die for much of the same reasons the article lays out. Problem is I was not stupid and I am sure almost no child is stupid enough to fall for it. I knew the reality of the situation even while people tried to put on an act that everything was ok.
Life went on as it usually did during that time. Yes I was aware of the situation and yes it weighed on me but I was also at an age where going to friends and playing games etc. was the therapeutic way to get away from the realities at home.
Here is where the whole charade backfired. One day After school I went to a friends house knowing I could be there for so long until the work day was over and I needed to be home before my Stepdad was from work. Instead I came home to a Pissed off Stepdad and other family who screamed about me being selfish and not doing what I was told all because my mother had taken an extreme turn for the worse and was rushed to the Hospital earlier in the day. Instead of pulling me out of school etc. it was decided to not alarm me.
So Suddenly I was the bad guy for trying to just be a young teenager who was told there was nothing to worry about in the first place. In their attempt to shelter me even to the end it robbed me of a chance to actually say goodbye to my mother. When she was rushed to the hospital that day she ended up slipping into Acoma and never woke again until she passed.
Life went on as it usually did during that time. Yes I was aware of the situation and yes it weighed on me but I was also at an age where going to friends and playing games etc. was the therapeutic way to get away from the realities at home.
Here is where the whole charade backfired. One day After school I went to a friends house knowing I could be there for so long until the work day was over and I needed to be home before my Stepdad was from work. Instead I came home to a Pissed off Stepdad and other family who screamed about me being selfish and not doing what I was told all because my mother had taken an extreme turn for the worse and was rushed to the Hospital earlier in the day. Instead of pulling me out of school etc. it was decided to not alarm me.
So Suddenly I was the bad guy for trying to just be a young teenager who was told there was nothing to worry about in the first place. In their attempt to shelter me even to the end it robbed me of a chance to actually say goodbye to my mother. When she was rushed to the hospital that day she ended up slipping into Acoma and never woke again until she passed.
I think it is very clear why 20 year olds are better equipped to handle the death of a parent than 13 year olds.
Yeah... I wrote pretty much the same thing in my post that you quoted.
8-11 age range to tell them is a hell of a gray area, and really tough for me to come to a good answer on even if I knew what was going on. A few years later and I think you'd definitely be doing the kids a disservice by not letting them come to terms with it but here... I've certainly read not, like, outright horror stories about the way that families deal with it, but sometimes the adults wind up trying to rely on the children for emotional support in ways that aren't healthy for anyone.
I don't know if there's any real solution to this problem beyond making therapy easier to access
I don't know if there's any real solution to this problem beyond making therapy easier to access
I don't think it would have been worse than if they were told well in advance, as if they have any way of mentally preparing for such a thing at that age.
Difficult choice. Not sure why they included the number? The counting down aspect would be the worst, but its not like those are guarantees, so why include th enumber?
As Family, I would tell our children. I wouldn't attach a number, since its not guaranteed anyways.
UGH.
As Family, I would tell our children. I wouldn't attach a number, since its not guaranteed anyways.
UGH.
Children are smarter than you're implying. They learn how to adapt if we give them tools to do so. Avoidance does not provide tools.
Last edited:
Yes, they would have learned to adapt after the mother died. Telling them that she's expected to die in 3 years gives them zero tools with which to prepare and instead just instills a general sense of daily dread and uncertainty when they are expected to keep on trucking in school as if nothing is wrong.
Ok, yet several of us in this thread DID have that knowledge at a young age and adapted to it well.
Bullshit. You are acting as if a kid can't fucking prepare for anything if they know about it ahead of time. They don't 'have the tool' because they've never had it happen before, but they DEVELOP them. If you just dump something terrible on them all at the end it's going to be far worse.
It's the difference between having a safe braking mechanism and running full speed into a wall. You still end up in the same place but you have more time to process what is happening, and thus the condition you come out in is very different.
Of course they can, but chances are those are going to be a grim few years of "preparation." I feel that for most kids, it would be better for them to enjoy life normally and learn to deal with the situation in a shorter span (a month or so in this case) than have it dragged out for so long.[/QUOTE]
lol this
That is a beautiful piece of writing. I'm used to death and dying in my line of work but the last line really guts you, christ.
[/QUOTE]
You're right. all of us in this thread saying the opposite were clearly broken by the experience.
Turns out maybe not everyone out there is the same or lives under the same set of circumstances!
No shit, but unless you somehow have experienced this twice (or even once, which it doesn't sound like you have) you probably don't have much place coming in telling everyone disagreeing with you that they're wrong.
"I think it's better for them" is pointless if you both have no experience with the matter or any training in the subject, or both.
What? I'm disagreeing with certain posters, not telling them that they are objectively wrong.
The kids in this particular story certainly appreciated what their parents did for them.
They appreciated it a few months after her passing, in an article. Of course they're not gonna talk shit when they're processing the death itself. Processing being lied to so severely for a decade is going to come later. Check back in a few years, then you'll see.
I cannot imagine any consequence except living your entire life past that thinking your most loved ones are hiding important things for you.
Seriously, the first thought of the kids MUST have been "How did we miss this".
8, 10, 12, even 14, ok.
at 16-18? Face reality.
Seriously, the first thought of the kids MUST have been "How did we miss this".
8, 10, 12, even 14, ok.
at 16-18? Face reality.