Death precedes grief and its occurrence is a terrible mystery: terrible because for most people (beliefs aside) when facing death, experience fear which is reasonable; we were born to live, dying seems so contrary to life.
I have been with patients, parents and partners at their time of death. “Time of death” is a strange concept; time is a measurement for the living, for the dead time is no longer. When I have been with someone when they stopped being a part of this life, when the breath they exhaled did not return at all, I have always wondered, “Why was that their last breath? Why not the breath before, or the one after? Why that breath?” I never cease to be awed by that moment.
I have observed that a lot of what instinctively people do is unconsciously or consciously build their resilience towards undertaking difficult tasks; tasks which other people often tell them not to do.
Examples of things people tell the bereaved not to do include such activities as looking at pictures, smelling clothing, smelling the pillows, and hair brushes, not wanting to do the laundry because their clothes may be in there and it will feel like they are trying to ‘wash away’ an aspect of their loved one.
All these activities are not re-traumatizing but rather are a way in which they help themselves to embrace the ‘presence of their loved one’s absence’. As painful as the activities are it is more painful to be inadvertently ambushed by a previously avoided circumstance. People intuitively know how to grieve its those around them who may be uncomfortable with ‘grief’ who try to usher the grief away, they are the obstacle to people’s successful grieving.
My advice to those who are uncomfortable with the grief process of others is (1.) Address the discomfort in therapy, (2.) If you think the person is in trouble encourage them to go to therapy.
Bérnard Douglas, MA, LMFT
Delaying Departures: Destinations To Be Unknown
Towards the last quarter of each year there always seems to be an increase in departures; family holidays, everyone gathered around, or holidays spent alone again and it makes sense to depart. Whatever the scenario whether surrounded by loved ones, or by indifference, the holidays bring on an increase in departures.
The departures I am referring to are people dying. For many a loved one dying in the next month and a half will ‘ruin’ the holidays for the rest of their lives, and for many the converse is true. Human beings have such an interesting relationship to death. For some death threatens their lives for the entirety of their lives, for others it is promise of transcending, or ascending to a preferred, eternal bliss. Sometimes we use death as a weapon to coerce an opponent into submission, to get them to acquiesce their freedom. Some use death as a vehicle to exhibit a grotesque act of suffering visited upon another human being; a person tortured to the point of begging their assailant to kill them. Sometimes death is just a spectacle appropriated to promote the evening news.
But I digress. One particular occurrence relating to death and dying is a client who recently came to me to discuss their father who was approaching the end of his life after several vain attempts to treat his cancer. He said he and his siblings were struggling with their father’s ‘denial’ about his immanently approaching death. He said the “Our father is delusional and refuses to talk about his approaching death”.
I asked him why this was a concern and he said because the family doesn’t want to collude with his denial and prevent him from facing his death, commenting “He has stated that he’s not brave, that he is terrified of dying”.
“And all of you want to tell him how you’ll you will stay with him to the end, and how much you love him and will miss him, but if he doesn’t accept his dying you can’t do that because he wont hear of it?”
· “Exactly.”
· “And how is he delusional?”
· “He says he is going to live till 90, and he is going to exercise so he can get stronger and survive.”
· “So what? Is he going to live till 90? Is he going to be able to exercise?”
· “No?”
· “No, of course not…there is no need to challenge him…you say he is terrified of death.”
· “Yes.”
· “Do you know how to die?”
· “No.”
· “Neither do I.
I have learned one thing over the years working in the “thin places”, standing in front of the thin veil which separates life from death, the place at which the last breath does not return and that is that no one know ‘how’ to die, we only know how to live. Some of us can live understanding and accepting we will die, and others will face death by planning to live. Whether I plan to live forever or not I will die. Who is to say where courage resides at the end of life. Is the person who professes, “They’ll have to drag me kicking and screaming to get me to die” any less courageous than the one who says “Into thy hands I commend my spirit”? So what is my point? That the concept of denial at the end of life is nonsense; after all who should care if the patient does not want to? Why should I need someone to face their death? Is it reasonable for me to insist that they ‘accept’ their death? I say, let those who refuse to ‘face’ death, do so proudly; it is them facing death. My partner, years before I ever imagined the path I’m on, said to me the day before he died, “When I get out of the hospital I want to go dancing”, I agreed “Yes when you get out we will go dancing”. Was I being complicit in his ‘denial’? No! At the dawning of that following day at the age 25 years old he took a final breath, exhaled, and lay cradled in my arms.
I do however have an opinion about how many medical professionals contribute to a patient’s confounded predicament; oncologists who agree to provide further treatment to appease the patient and family when the evidence is 100% contrary to further interventions. Often these patients and their families suffer a peaceless end; rather than confessing it would be unethical to continue treatment, the oncologist et al avoid the call to compassion, to be a witness to the patient and family’s grief. I believe all of us as healthcare providers must learn that our success is contingent upon, and proportionate to our capacity to humbly embrace our powerlessness and our willingness to abide with our clients as witnesses. Regardless the event, being a witness is simultaneously the most courageous, and the most humbling discipline to embrace.
On the morning, two days before thanksgiving of 2003, my older sister Johanna at the age of 44, suffering with severe pain from stage IV ductal breast cancer, with several sites of metastasis, took her own life. It was a devastating loss for me. At the time I didn’t know if I could ever make people smile again. I was angry at her oncologist who had her on a trial study, and repeatedly discouraged her from leaving the study and going on hospice. I was working in Hospice at the time and was so enraged, but my sister was convinced he had her best interests in mind. The trial drug was something used to inhibit the rapid replication of her cancer cells. The evening before she died she called me to tell me that the drug was no longer inhibiting the replication and now the cells were replicating at an accelerated rate. I told her I would fly out to see her. She dissuaded me saying that we had already said our goodbyes, I protested that we could always say more goodbyes. She said we could speak about it in the morning, but in the morning it was my elder brother with whom I spoke; I was on a conference call with him and the ICU at Stamford Hospital. The hospital was asking us if we would consent to a DNR, because Johanna’s prognosis was that she would never recover from her injuries or the cancer and although she was on life support they had already resuscitated her four times from cardiac arrest. My brother and I gave consent. At the end of the call I asked the ICU nurse to put the phone to Johanna’s ear; I told her she no longer had to fight and that she could go now.
At the time my brother was in New York and was headed up to Stamford to give consent and to be present for turning off Johanna’s life support. I was in California: within minutes of hanging up the phone with the ICU I saw a vision of my sister at what appeared to be her at around 12 years old, dancing in front of my shrine, shortly there after the phone rang and it was my brother calling to tell me that Johanna had died. Expressing his relief and gratitude he said “I’m so relieved I didn’t have to turn off the life support for my baby sister”.
So I end here, not sure whether my writing ends in a cohesive manner but cognizant that today I remember someone who’s suffering was worsened by her doctor’s inability to let his patient go. The last couple of years of my sister’s life were not easy and the kind and considerate person she had enjoyed being before gave way to someone less available, less empathic, and less engaged. She became withdrawn so at the point a which she chose to leave this life she had few, if any, attachments stopping her. Every year I remember not out of duty, love or whatever; every year I remember because I can not forget.
The Problem of Men in Humankind
Historically and universally the personification of justice, is usually a blindfolded woman holding scales and a sword. In the illustration we see the scales torn away from a disarmed Lady Justice, her throat tightly gripped in a strangle hold (in this depiction Uncle Sam remains unmoving, standing in the background).
I am forever appalled by the cruelty and immorality of men (in this instance not to be confused with humankind). Forever men impose their violence upon women and seek to ratify it by 'law' and 'God's will'. They blame women for their base and immoral thoughts, their lust, and for rape; they grasp at Adam and Eve as the one story vindicating their evil misdeeds. This vile and contemptible behavior is practiced to different degrees throughout Christendom, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism to name a few of the most familiar (and people often point to Islam as the main culprit, but it is not; in my studies as directed by faithful adherents to The Holy Prophet, He himself always displayed the greatest respect and regard, kindness and love toward women, particularly his daughters and those who bore them. I am disgusted by how the name of God, Jesus and the Holy Prophet, His name is invoked to legitimize the brutal misogyny practiced against women).
In the next section of this writing I will present a reflection on a writing by Martin Buber, as an exercise in not merely adhering to a thought or ideology because of the safety and sense of belonging it provides. Dogmatism though seductive is mal-adaptive because it demands conforming to that which is static and survival demands being adaptive to a world of reality which is dynamic. America as a nation has been challenged with 'adapting' to an ever changing self image, with embracing diversity because our survival depends on the multiplicity of innovations which come of differences not sameness; while preserving the rights to have our differences also be a refuge of comfortability, protected and upheld by the institutions of constitutional governance.
Only a society disciplined in tolerance will prevail to advance, succeed and survive. Tolerance is not an indifference to that with which we disagree or to allow ourselves to be destroyed by that we regard as threat; it requires a logical dialog to assess whether our fears are reasonable or merely the external projections of our individual or collective paranoiac delusions: tolerance is coming to terms with and not being opposed to the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference: a social architecture unwilling to tolerate dissent is doomed to collapse upon itself, whilst arguably anarchy historically is nihilistic and threatens planetary survival. Liberals and conservatives must be curious as to the nihilism within its ranks. In America the partisan politics of our times really threatens us with annihilation because it is suffocating dialog, there is no tolerance to discuss dissenting viewpoints (this is also a problem which can be seen as a global pandemic as well).
Most recently the issue of abortion: I have not yet met a woman who has thought that abortion is a preferred form of birth control. Men often act as if it’s the ‘oops’ option (failing to recognize their participation in pregnancy). While denying abortion rights there is no commitment to providing for the unborn child’s right to be wanted, to be born out of poverty not into it, to be born out of suffering not into it. Furthermore, there is an inherent judgement and condemnation towards those children either by society or the birth parents: referenced to by words like illegitimate, bastard, or mistake. There is a profound absence of kindness and charity. The ‘unwanted’ pregnancy has everything to do with the overall implications of being pregnant; whether the pregnancy is celebrated or shamed.
So, we must look at ourselves as a whole, as a society, as communities and not simply through our collective chauvinism. (We must recognize the socio-political implications inherent in procreation: men being the title bearers of a family, the imbalances effected by uneven distribution of wealth, power and control, etc.)
So, in an effort to provoke a deeper thinking and discourse I draw upon the mind and writings of Martin Buber (who when asked of what to do with the Arab/Israeli struggle he said they need to dialog with one another, the questioner protested that they have been talking back and forth for decades and it hasn’t worked, where upon he responded, yes, yes they have all been talking…but they have yet to listen to one another, dialog is mutual and reciprocal, it is not merely stating one’s opinions but listening…for he considered that if we listen deeply then we will hear what we agree upon and find the way to reconcile our differences: which is what many progressive Jews and Muslims have managed to do without political intent but for the wellness and survival of the children and collective communities. Some hardliners on both sides say there is not talking reason with those people: indeed there is not because if dialog is absent then talk will amount to nothing.
In his collection of Martin Buber’s written works “Meetings” there is a story of Samuel and Agag King of the Amalekites: Martin is reflecting to an older Rabbi that he doesn’t believe that God would ask King Saul to slay Agag who had surrendered with his family.
Martin concludes, that to translate or to interpret a biblical text, one must do so understanding, embracing the inescapable tension between the word of God and the words, intentions and statutes of man; our intentions must be understood, in order to understand how we have sought to explain, and legitimize our violence through perverse claims that the violence is in adherence to the will of The Divine.