Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By accepting the natural order of things and not thinking of death of elders as tragedy.

Children with cancer are a tragedy; people in midlife and beyond with cancer are the natural order of things.

Either you are cold as ice or just have not lived through this yet.

Often these are vital people, hit out of the blue with terror and pain that you have to watch as they decline.

We are not talking about some folk song lyrics.

I guess you can't read, as I have just posted about the many early deaths I have suffered among family and friends. And I have spent a decade of my life as a hospice caregiver so there isn't anything YOU can tell me about helping people cope with impending death at any age.

DP. Maybe you need a break from caregiving. You sound burned out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By accepting the natural order of things and not thinking of death of elders as tragedy.

Children with cancer are a tragedy; people in midlife and beyond with cancer are the natural order of things.

This. 100% this.

I agree that elders is not a tragedy but midlife certainly is. I have teens, it would be horrible if they lost a parent.

It is definitely sad for children to lose a parent or parents at an early age in the child’s life.

But this is the very foreseeable possible consequence we accept when we choose to postpone having children to an age that biologically we were meant to be grandparents, not parents.

One need only look at actuarial tables to understand how much higher the risk of death is in midlife and beyond. Having babies in our 40s might mean we are more financially secure and have sown more of our wild oats and are more ready for the commitment that children demand, but it also means we are far more likely to orphan our children when they are still young.

We cannot outrun biology and the natural order of things.

It was muuuuuuuch likelier in the past that a child would be orphaned. Women had babies young, yes. But they died. All. The. Time. In childbirth, from disease. Their babies died too, routinely. So did their toddlers and children under 12. That was the state of humanity for the last 10,000 years and more. That is the actual “natural order.” Women waiting until their 40s isn’t perfect but I’d take those odds — grounded in the breathtaking medical advances of the 20th/21st century — over our foremothers’.

Well actually while yes more women died in childbirth in the past, many more children didn’t survive early childhood so that was the pre modern medicine natural order of things. Many people didn’t even name babies until they survived a year.

But even with the wonderful advances of modern medicine, the odds of being around for your kids well into their adulthood are best if you have them in your 20s or early 30s rather than in your 40s or beyond.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By accepting the natural order of things and not thinking of death of elders as tragedy.

Children with cancer are a tragedy; people in midlife and beyond with cancer are the natural order of things.

This. 100% this.

I agree that elders is not a tragedy but midlife certainly is. I have teens, it would be horrible if they lost a parent.

It is definitely sad for children to lose a parent or parents at an early age in the child’s life.

But this is the very foreseeable possible consequence we accept when we choose to postpone having children to an age that biologically we were meant to be grandparents, not parents.

One need only look at actuarial tables to understand how much higher the risk of death is in midlife and beyond. Having babies in our 40s might mean we are more financially secure and have sown more of our wild oats and are more ready for the commitment that children demand, but it also means we are far more likely to orphan our children when they are still young.

We cannot outrun biology and the natural order of things.

It was muuuuuuuch likelier in the past that a child would be orphaned. Women had babies young, yes. But they died. All. The. Time. In childbirth, from disease. Their babies died too, routinely. So did their toddlers and children under 12. That was the state of humanity for the last 10,000 years and more. That is the actual “natural order.” Women waiting until their 40s isn’t perfect but I’d take those odds — grounded in the breathtaking medical advances of the 20th/21st century — over our foremothers’.

To the OP, I have great sympathy and solidarity with you! I’m dealing with this now myself, as I sit in my mom’s hospice room in Florida while my kids and spouse are 500 miles away. It’s really though and I feel torn in half a lot of the time.

I’m 41, my mom is dying, a close friend died of cancer last year at 34 and another friend is battling stage 4 cancer right now. With all of this caretaking and loss, I feel drained.

I’m an atheist but strangely, have found that going to church has been what’s helped me most. Churches evolved to help people work though big emotions and transitions and somehow I find those rituals give me peace even though I don’t share their belief in God.

Circle of life is great and all, but a birthday party isn't the same thing as a funeral. A high school wrestling match isn't the same as a round of chemo.

My family started dying off when I was seven so I became used to death. I still felt grief and depression over the later deaths.

After the most recent loss, I decided I have to take better care of myself in grief. Otherwise, I get sick. The book The Body Keeps the Score explains the connection.

I do basic things like:

Drink water
Take walks
Write down feelings and thoughts
Find time alone
Eat nurturing foods
See a therapist if I need

I have been improving how I help others, depending on the issue. Food, funny gift, flowers, basket of treats, a card. I choose the right thing for the event.

I’ve been very grateful for support from others. Even if someone just gave me a hug after learning about the recent loss, it meant a lot to me.

Take good care of yourself and your health. Don’t be like me and stop drinking enough water and develop kidney stones, etc. I made a real mess of my health.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By accepting the natural order of things and not thinking of death of elders as tragedy.

Children with cancer are a tragedy; people in midlife and beyond with cancer are the natural order of things.

This. 100% this.

I agree that elders is not a tragedy but midlife certainly is. I have teens, it would be horrible if they lost a parent.

It is definitely sad for children to lose a parent or parents at an early age in the child’s life.

But this is the very foreseeable possible consequence we accept when we choose to postpone having children to an age that biologically we were meant to be grandparents, not parents.

One need only look at actuarial tables to understand how much higher the risk of death is in midlife and beyond. Having babies in our 40s might mean we are more financially secure and have sown more of our wild oats and are more ready for the commitment that children demand, but it also means we are far more likely to orphan our children when they are still young.

We cannot outrun biology and the natural order of things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By accepting the natural order of things and not thinking of death of elders as tragedy.

Children with cancer are a tragedy; people in midlife and beyond with cancer are the natural order of things.

This. 100% this.

I agree that elders is not a tragedy but midlife certainly is. I have teens, it would be horrible if they lost a parent.

What about endless parade of grief....endless parade of sadness....both of those can be true without having an endless parade of tragedy be the focus. It's human to die -- and it's also human to feel sad and to grieve, because of the importance of those relationships that have inevitably had to end for one half of the two people in the relationship.

OP, I'm sorry you're hurting. I'm also in the stage of life where these things are surfacing frequently, so I get it.

I think what people are quibbling with, though, is probably use of the word "tragedy." Speaking as someone who's been through it (both parents gone by the time I was 30, plus losing several other, younger relatives to cancer), I also just view it as life.

Anonymous wrote:DP. Bickering aside, does anyone have suggestions for *how* one might start accepting the death and illness and loss that becomes inevitable in midlife? It’s one thing to say, “don’t feel this way about sickness and death of older people you love, it’s not a tragedy.” It’s another to actually accept it and not despair.

I feel myself doing some pre-grieving for my parents. It's not constant and doesn't consume me. But I let my mind wander a bit to how it will feel when they are no longer here. I mull writing an obituary, even if I've never actually written it. Or let myself think "oh this would be a good story for the funeral". It's small moments.

I also think just being realistic about longevity is good practice. That friend whose struggled with cancer or something might be taken in a few years from that thing. It's ok to acknowledge this. You don't need to TELL them that, you do this internally.

Have you never experienced any death or grief? Sometimes it's shocking and sometimes it's not. It can still be sad, even if it's expected. But it's hard to do ALL the grieving before it ever happens.

Anonymous wrote:By accepting the natural order of things and not thinking of death of elders as tragedy.

Children with cancer are a tragedy; people in midlife and beyond with cancer are the natural order of things.

I agree. But it also doesn't meant that it's not sad. That said, friend dying of cancer in their 50s is definitely more upsetting than older family dying in their 80s and beyond.

Anonymous wrote:We as a society need to flip the switch on how we view death and dying. Yes it’s horribly sad but it’s also the natural order of things. We are all born and we’re all going to die- those are the only things every single person walking this earth has in common with each other. I wish our society would focus on the quality of life over longevity. Maybe we shouldn’t treat every terminal illness aggressively.

I’m convinced that my dad, who died of metastatic lung cancer, would have had a much better end of life experience if he’d just let things progress instead of trying every treatment out there (all which kept him very sick his last two years of life). He was two years from diagnosis to death and I doubt any of the treatments prolonged anything.

I think it will be very hard to flip the switch. Optimistically, this is such a shock to us because we don't live as barbarians, fighting everyday, eeking out our sustenance, dying of conditions early.

DP. Bickering aside, does anyone have suggestions for *how* one might start accepting the death and illness and loss that becomes inevitable in midlife? It’s one thing to say, “don’t feel this way about sickness and death of older people you love, it’s not a tragedy.” It’s another to actually accept it and not despair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By accepting the natural order of things and not thinking of death of elders as tragedy.

Children with cancer are a tragedy; people in midlife and beyond with cancer are the natural order of things.

Either you are cold as ice or just have not lived through this yet.

Often these are vital people, hit out of the blue with terror and pain that you have to watch as they decline.

We are not talking about some folk song lyrics.

I guess you can't read, as I have just posted about the many early deaths I have suffered among family and friends. And I have spent a decade of my life as a hospice caregiver so there isn't anything YOU can tell me about helping people cope with impending death at any age.

Then maybe you should think about whether you're inured, and accept that to most other people it's a new and unwelcome feeling?
Perhaps you can bring yourself to understand that different people have various coping capacities, and that if you're a hospice worker, you might have much better coping skills than other people? Maybe it's a difference you were born with, that life circumstances and career choices made you cultivate further?

My husband worked as a emergency doctor for a while. He's on the autism spectrum, doesn't let feelings get in the way of life-saving actions, and was eminently suited to the role because he can stay cool under pressure. He is not like most people. Maybe YOU are not like most people.

Get it?

The PP (hospice worker) gave you her view. You disagree. Ok. That's life. You would think someone posting in the midlife concerns section has gone through enough of life to know we are see things differently. Why is your language so mean about it?