Anonymous wrote:Why would it be wrong? It sounds to me that in the face of death, Person A realized that whatever the issue had been with Person B, that issue was less important than their human connection. This seems reasonable and wise to me. I hope, candidly, that Person A has learned a little bit more about what is really important in life from this series of events.

I agree.
In the face of death things are interpreted much different.

Does it ever matter why friendships wax and wane?

There's no reason to define Friendship as having a beginning or an end. I doubt that even happened, like it's suggested.

I think Person A realized that looking at things from a different perspective, that in the grand scheme of things in life that friendship supersedes whatever differences that existed prior , etc.

Person A isn’t wrong.

The differences no longer matter and are no longer something person A would have to deal with much longer. Love and concern for the friend continued.

If person B felt there was something awful or off about this, she easily could say she was not open to resuming the friendship at this difficult time.

An old friend can be of more support than family during these kind of times.

As long as person A is not looking to inherit in anyway, then I think it is a beautiful thing.

Person A is not wrong. People change, come together, move apart. Repair is hard. Grace is hard.

It's a blessing that they were able to reconcile.

I don't think person A is wrong and I do think it is what most people would do. But it also sounds like person A may be a little bit of a black and white person if they cut a friendship of 30 years off over some differences that she was then easily able to overlook and just resume their friendship.

I don’t think it’s wrong and yes I think it’s what most people would do. The stuff that made a not like n anymore probably went away when they started fighting cancer.

Person A is awful. Of course she reached out just because of the cancer diagnosis. She assumes Person B will die and Person A doesn’t want to live with the guilt after, so she’s pre-empting it.

Person A is only concerned with Person A.

Why would it be wrong? It sounds to me that in the face of death, Person A realized that whatever the issue had been with Person B, that issue was less important than their human connection. This seems reasonable and wise to me. I hope, candidly, that Person A has learned a little bit more about what is really important in life from this series of events.

*views

I see that this post has a number of reviews yet only one person took the time to respond.
This one is a toughie imo.

A is not wrong, but I have no idea what "most people" would do if they were in A's shoes. People have wildly different tolerances when it comes to friend shenanigans, so if B acted in a kind of grey zone... it's hard to tell what "most people" would do.

Person A is a 50 yr old woman who has had a best friend for over 30 yrs.
Unfortunately the past few yrs the friendship has run its course and Person A no longer wanted to be friends with this person.
She still loves this friend and wishes her no ill will, it’s just that there are some differences that exist now with her friend that she no longer can deal with.

Person B (the friend is hurt but has accepted Person A’s choice.)

Two yrs pass and Person B is diagnosed with Stage IV cancer and may not have much time left.
Person A hears about this and feels guilty about ending the friendship, she contacts Person B who forgives her and the two resume their friendship.

Is it wrong that Person A only resumed the friendship due to finding out that Person B had terminal cancer??

Isn’t that what most people would do if they found themselves in Person A’s shoes?