Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / September 2004
Cancer's Toll on a Marriage - WSJ article
|
|
Thread rating:  |
MrPepper11 - 08 Sep 2004 21:49 GMT September 8, 2004 Sickness and Health A Wife's Struggle With Cancer Takes An Unexpected Toll As Lizzie O'Donnell Recovered, Tensions Rose in Marriage; Angry Words in the ICU A Truce Over Twin Beds
By AMY DOCKSER MARCUS Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
In their more than three decades together, one issue has posed the biggest threat to James and Elizabeth O'Donnell's marriage: cancer.
Nearly 10 years ago, Mrs. O'Donnell found a lump in her breast. At first, she wasn't worried. A routine mammogram a month earlier showed no signs of a tumor. But the lump grew so quickly during a two-week vacation in Hawaii that Mrs. O'Donnell went to see her doctor days after returning home to Indiana. The doctor ordered an immediate biopsy. The 42-year-old mother of three boys was diagnosed with advanced breast cancer and told she had only a 5% chance of surviving the next year.
She proved the doctors wrong. Mrs. O'Donnell began chemotherapy treatments in February 1995, underwent two surgeries, including a mastectomy, and finished her chemotherapy in August 1995. She is now considered cancer-free. She and her husband call that a miracle and say they know how lucky they are. "We had the same goal," Mrs. O'Donnell says, "to keep our family together."
Her survival came at a price. Mrs. O'Donnell, now 51, has chronic health problems arising from her cancer treatment. Just six weeks after her last chemotherapy session, her heart failed -- a side effect of the drugs used to eradicate the cancer. She underwent a heart transplant in June 1996. That, in turn, caused other problems. The medications she must take every day to ensure her body doesn't reject the heart have weakened her bones, causing spinal deterioration and making her walk with a slight limp. In the past 18 months alone, she has endured shingles, double pneumonia, kidney disease, and two incidents when clots blocked her pulmonary arteries, causing her to be hospitalized. She never stops wondering if the cancer will return someday.
The cancer and related health problems have put the O'Donnells' marriage under siege. "I ponder sometimes how much has been lost ... as a consequence of sweet Lizzie's illnesses," Mr. O'Donnell wrote in 1999 in a journal he keeps. "Her breathtaking good looks; her shapeliness; her breasts; her lovemaking; her lovely tummy; her walks with me; her ability to be counted on for X or Y; her hair on her head; her not needing to shave; her constant need of medical care; her silence when sleeping."
These "all have been 'little deaths,' " Mr. O'Donnell added, "that have powerfully tugged me to despair and grief."
Thanks to advances in medicine, more people are surviving cancer these days, creating new kinds of personal challenges. Even as attention is starting to focus on the many physical and emotional issues cancer survivors face, marriage remains a topic that makes many uncomfortable. "We tell patients that if they had a strong marriage before cancer, they will have a strong marriage after cancer," says a spokeswoman for Living Beyond Breast Cancer, a support group.
Michael Glantz, an oncologist who treats brain-cancer patients at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester, recently conducted a study looking at whether couples divorced or separated more frequently after a cancer diagnosis. Among 214 couples in which one of the partners had a malignant brain tumor, the rate of divorce was six times as high as the control group. The vast majority of divorces were in cases where the wife was sick, not the husband. This led Dr. Glantz to conclude that "being a female diagnosed with cancer is a risk factor for divorce," and to call for more study.
The question of whether cancer is a factor in divorce is controversial, because the overall divorce rate is high and this is still a new area of research. Some centers, including Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and the University of California San Diego Cancer Center, are experimenting with ways to help couples. New programs mark a shift from focusing on the individual patient to looking at "how the couple is faring as a couple with cancer," says Karen Kayser, a professor at Boston College Graduate School of Social Work in Chestnut Hill, Mass.
Summer Getaway
Despite the steady decline in Mrs. O'Donnell's health, every summer the couple spends several weeks in the Catskills. They come to the home in Elka Park, N.Y., owned by Mrs. O'Donnell's family, where she spent summers as a girl. Staying in the house, filled with the same furniture and paintings that have always been there, allows them to remember a time before cancer transformed their relationship. This is where they met in 1967. Mrs. O'Donnell, then 14, was painting sets at the local theater where she met Mr. O'Donnell, who had the lead in a summer-stock production called "Fancy Meeting You Again." He was a 19-year-old college student working as a tennis instructor. They had their first kiss in her parents' kitchen after he brought her home from a dance. They married four years later, in a church down the road, when she was 18.
After more than two decades of marriage came Mrs. O'Donnell's cancer diagnosis. The couple had just moved to Huntington, Ind., from an affluent Boston suburb. Mr. O'Donnell had given up a banking job to teach economics at Huntington College, a 1,000-student Christian school. The Victorian house they bought near the main campus had a tarp on the skylight and no running water in the kitchen when they moved in.
At first, they tried not to let cancer overwhelm their relationship. When one of them felt frightened by Mrs. O'Donnell's treatments, they asked the other for a "cancer free" period. It could last an hour or a day, but during this time, they agreed not to talk about anything related to her health crisis.
On the two-hour drive to Indianapolis for chemotherapy treatments, Mrs. O'Donnell, an avid gardener, drew sketches, designing an arbor she asked her husband to build for climbing plants. A stay-at-home mother, she tried to ensure her sons' lives continued as normally as possible. She arranged for neighbors to take the boys to school and sports practices. Her mother moved in for a while to take over cooking and cleaning.
The couple soon discovered they had extremely different coping styles, and this became an area of contention. Whenever someone asked Mrs. O'Donnell how she was doing with the chemotherapy, she gave a relentlessly positive answer -- even if that someone was her husband. Mr. O'Donnell began calling her "Svetlana," saying she reminded him of a communist-era newscaster who put an upbeat spin on any news and gave out no real information.
In September 1995, about a month after Mrs. O'Donnell had finished her last chemotherapy treatment, Mr. O'Donnell brought her to the emergency room. She had a cold and felt weak; they wanted to make sure nothing was wrong.
The doctors admitted her for tests and that Sunday, when her husband came to visit, he found her lying in an intensive-care unit, hooked to a heart-monitor machine. Mrs. O'Donnell handed her husband some documents explaining the condition doctors had diagnosed. The drugs that killed her cancer tumor had also severely weakened her heart muscles. Without a heart transplant, she would die.
Mr. O'Donnell read the information in a panic, his eyes welling up with tears. But when he looked up, he was shocked to find that his wife had a smile on her face. "Jimmy," she said, her voice upbeat. "I don't have cancer."
The pity and sadness he felt seeing her lying in the hospital bed quickly gave way to another emotion: anger. "Why are you smiling?" he recalls demanding, his voice rising to a yell. "You have heart failure. You could die."
Looking back on it now, Mr. O'Donnell, 56, says his outburst occurred because "I felt managed by Lizzie, when what I wanted most of all was her honesty about her fears."
Mrs. O'Donnell remembers that moment differently. She says her greatest fear had been a recurrence of cancer, and she felt relieved to learn that she had heart problems instead. "I had grown to respect and fear cancer as a pernicious and sneaky enemy," she says. "I felt the doctors knew a lot more about how to treat heart failure."
They realized their journey as a couple had suddenly diverged. They lived through the same events but experienced them in completely different ways. "We had always said we were in this together," says Mrs. O'Donnell. "But we weren't moving through it the same way."
If Mrs. O'Donnell was a half-hour late from a shopping trip, her husband feared the worst and lost his temper when she returned. He kept asking doctors questions at appointments, long after Mrs. O'Donnell felt there was a need. By April 1996, when Mrs. O'Donnell was admitted to the hospital to await her heart transplant, she no longer told him when the doctors would be coming to see her. She gave him only the broadest outlines of what the doctors said.
Once, Mr. O'Donnell learned that his wife had seen a gastrointestinal specialist only after he saw an unfamiliar name on a bill. When he asked her about it, she told him that one of the consequences of her weakened heart was that other organs were starting to shut down. "I picked and chose what to tell him based on what I thought the toll would be to him," she says. "In preserving Jimmy, I was also preserving myself."
Holding Back
Mr. O'Donnell constantly wanted to talk about what was happening. But his wife held back, because she started to feel that talking about it was a waste of time and too depressing. "Jimmy was always aware and ready to discuss what everything was like," she says. But how could she explain how it felt to have their youngest son, Jonny, then 7, visit her at the hospital, and her pain at having to say goodbye, unsure if she would ever see him again? "I don't think he could understand what that was like, leaving the children," she says. "I thought even if I talked and talked, there was no way he could ever know what that was really like."
Mr. O'Donnell says he was overwhelmed. "I wish for relief," he wrote in his journal in 1996 while his wife stayed at the hospital awaiting the transplant, "but it doesn't come." A born-again Christian like his wife, Mr. O'Donnell continued to go to church and keep up with a Bible-study group they had joined. But he found that his faith -- not only religious faith but also in his marriage's ability to withstand such chronic stress -- were being tested.
"There was never an issue that I would be unfaithful to Lizzie in finding someone else," he says. "It was an issue of being unfaithful by not being loving."
At the time of her mastectomy in 1995, Mrs. O'Donnell worried that the loss of her breast would affect their relationship. "I knew the adjustment would be hard," she says. But Mr. O'Donnell had an even more difficult time accepting the dramatic body changes that took place following Mrs. O'Donnell's heart transplant in June 1996.
Within weeks after the heart transplant, she gained more than 60 pounds. The high doses of steroids she was given to prevent her body from rejecting the new heart caused hair to grow all over her body. She says she had "so much hair on my arms that I could braid it, and rolls of fat on my back." The sudden transformation, she says, "was horrifying to me."
Mr. O'Donnell says he often watched their son Jonny play with his mother, oblivious to the fact that she looked completely different. "It didn't matter to him how his mother looked, that her face had grown round like a moon because of the steroids," he says. "He loved her and was blind to those changes and I was not. It is not something that I am proud of."
Since Mrs. O'Donnell's cancer treatment, Mr. O'Donnell's own health had started to deteriorate. He couldn't sleep at night. During the day, he felt his heart racing. He was anxious all the time. In 1997, he fell asleep at the wheel, drove off the road and ended up in a swamp. He emerged without a scratch.
The couple could no longer do the things they had always enjoyed -- walks around the neighborhood after dinner, trips abroad to explore gardens, spontaneously deciding to go out for the evening. Mr. O'Donnell started taking on household chores his wife no longer had energy to do: making beds, washing dishes, laundry, vacuuming and grocery shopping. He dropped Jonny off at the bus in the morning and was there to pick him up in the afternoon. Sometimes Mrs. O'Donnell would feel better and be able to return to some of her old routines, but "it was always unpredictable," says Mr. O'Donnell.
He felt guilt, he says, about his inability to cope with all the changes. He even wondered if stresses he had put on her had somehow contributed to her cancer. But what he felt most, he says, was fear, that his wife would die and he wouldn't know how to carry on. When he pressed her to write letters about her wishes for her children that he could give to the boys if she died, she refused. She says she felt that doing so would have been admitting she was giving up. "You're going to slip away and I won't know key things," Mr. O'Donnell told her.
Four-Page Letter
Over the years, he kept pressing his wife to talk more. In March 1999, he wrote her a four-page letter outlining how overwhelmed he felt by taking over household chores, while continuing to work. He felt they needed to talk more about how their lives had changed, and that knowing how she felt might help him deal with his own fears. She thanked him for the letter and said they would discuss it. But when two weeks passed without her raising the issue again, he took matters into his own hands.
The couple had been attending Bible-study sessions every other Sunday night with male professors from the college and their wives. The couples met to discuss a particular passage and share events in their lives. At an April 12, 1999, session, Mr. O'Donnell brought up his communication problems with his wife. He asked the group members to pray either for the couple to communicate better or for Mr. O'Donnell to accept their level of communication as it was.
Mrs. O'Donnell was shocked by the unexpected public airing of their difficulties, even among people she considered friends. She ran from the room crying. When they got home, she spent the night in the bedroom downstairs and refused to discuss the incident. "I felt at that point that there had been enough talking," she says. "Things are a mess," Mr. O'Donnell wrote in his journal that night.
From time to time during Mrs. O'Donnell's illnesses, she slept alone downstairs. Sometimes she stayed there when side effects from her chemotherapy treatments kept her in the bathroom all night long. Before the heart transplant, she was simply too weak to climb the stairs to their bedroom on the third floor. But even after the transplant, she began sleeping downstairs more often.
Talking about the physical changes in Mrs. O'Donnell's body didn't seem to alter the tension. "I remember telling Jim, 'I can't help what's happening,' " she says. "It didn't make any difference to Jim. I could see the look in his eyes." Yet, there were times, she says, when she understood her husband's difficulty adjusting. When she looked in the mirror, she didn't recognize herself. "It struck me over and over afresh every morning, just like it did Jim," she says. "I was not blind to what was happening to my body. Neither of us liked it."
When Mr. O'Donnell was invited to a function at the college, she would spend considerable time dressing up and fixing her hair. "I did absolutely the best I could, and there was no comment, no 'you look nice tonight,' " she says. "There was nothing. It was a great sorrow that I carried." Mr. O'Donnell doesn't dispute the hurt he inflicted. "I was a monster," he says.
Each evening, Mrs. O'Donnell would suggest that she sleep downstairs so she wouldn't disturb her husband. Sometimes he would protest, but in the summer of 1999, he stopped. Mrs. O'Donnell snored at night, most likely due to physical changes from the medications she was taking. The medications also resulted in her having uncontrollable leg spasms at night, causing her to kick him. For three months, they didn't sleep in the same room. "I was giving up," he says about that period in their marriage.
But Mrs. O'Donnell insisted they find a way to be together. She suggested giving up their queen-size bed and buying two twin beds. Mr. O'Donnell resisted, saying they had to sleep in the same bed or in different rooms. Hoping to save their marriage, he eventually agreed to the change, and they started sharing the same room again. He bought ear plugs and a sound machine to deal with the snoring.
He also spoke with a doctor about his constant fears, and was taking medication that helped lift his depression. Mr. O'Donnell says he began to accept the idea that "there is to be no closure."
In some ways, he says, his prayers at the Bible-study session that caused his wife to cry had been answered. Mrs. O'Donnell tried to talk more about her feelings. And he began to realize that her refusal to endlessly discuss her fears was one of the ways she kept going. "I started to wonder if by pushing her to cope in a different way, I might be hurting her, maybe even shortening her life," he says.
While their communication has improved since then, the issue still comes up. A few weeks ago, Mr. O'Donnell wanted to talk again about all they had endured. Mrs. O'Donnell demurred. "These are the good times," she told him. "Everything is fine."
Both of them have spoken about their experiences in efforts to help others in similar situations. Earlier this year, a collection of Mr. O'Donnell's letters about his wife's cancer diagnosis and heart transplant, called "Letters for Lizzie," was published by a Christian publishing house. The letters chronicle the vicissitudes of Mrs. O'Donnell's illnesses and some of the difficulties they faced in their marriage.
At the back of the book there is a picture of a much younger Mrs. O'Donnell, holding Jonny as a baby. Her dark hair is cut in a fashionable style, and there's a wide smile on her face. It bothers her, she says, to hear her husband talk at book readings about the toll her illnesses have taken on the way she looks. She says it makes her feel he's implying, "I was once so beautiful and then poof." He says he doesn't feel that way.
When she is feeling well, Mrs. O'Donnell now volunteers 20 hours a week at a hospice where she was once a patient. Mr. O'Donnell says he is moved by her commitment. He recently nominated her for an award recognizing exceptional volunteers who work under challenging circumstances. Mrs. O'Donnell won the award this year for Indiana. Sometimes, Mr. O'Donnell says, he wonders "if she tells the patients things about her sickness that she won't tell me." Mrs. O'Donnell says that isn't the case.
As the years have gone by, they have increasingly found themselves alone. Their older sons, Nick and Andrew, have finished college. Nick is married. Jonny is now 16 and has his first girlfriend. He didn't want to come to Elka Park this summer with his parents. They realize this may have been the last summer he'll spend with them.
In the past few months, there have been what the couple calls "moments of grace." Mrs. O'Donnell has felt better and had more stamina. She is taking fewer steroids these days, so the side effects are less severe. Earlier this year, she suddenly started losing weight. At first, she thought the cancer was back and had her doctor run full body scans. All the tests were negative. Doctors don't have an explanation for the weight loss but it has marked a change in their relationship.
"I don't feel beautiful to myself," she says, "but I recognize myself again. I look more like the way I imagined I would look at the age of 51." Mr. O'Donnell has been more relaxed and affectionate, she says. Mr. O'Donnell acknowledges the weight loss has made a difference. "I regret feeling put off by her. I knew it wasn't right," he said. "I look at what is happening now as a gift."
Last month, Mrs. O'Donnell's sisters came to visit. They sat on the porch with the couple and recalled the two years when Mrs. O'Donnell had cancer and then a heart transplant as a nightmare that had thankfully ended. But for Mr. and Mrs. O'Donnell, it is never over.
Mrs. O'Donnell says she is always aware that the average transplanted heart lasts 10 years and that she has already had hers for eight years. If the medication she is taking to help her kidneys work loses effectiveness, she faces the prospect of dialysis or a kidney transplant. They don't make long-term plans. "I never think about what we'll do together when Jim retires," says Mrs. O'Donnell. She says the furthest out she has planned is this Christmas, when her son and daughter-in-law will visit.
They also try to see themselves as any middle-age married couple. On a recent day, Mr. O'Donnell, dressed in khakis and a blue polo shirt, brings out lemonade and they sit next to one another on wood chairs painted the same lime green as the porch, their feet touching under the table. Last month, they celebrated their 33rd wedding anniversary. They still like to take long drives together, explore old homes and find a new restaurant to try.
Last summer, Mrs. O'Donnell was too weak to walk in the hills surrounding the house in Elka Park. Her husband, sons and daughter-in-law hiked to a monument erected in 1868 by a grieving husband whose wife died in childbirth. Mr. O'Donnell wanted to take a group picture at the top for the family's Christmas card, and Mrs. O'Donnell was upset she couldn't go. This year, she and her husband walked there together. She climbed to the top, looking out at the trees and mountains, "and saw a view I thought I'd never see again," she says. The next day, she was so weak she spent the entire day in bed. But she believes, "If Jim and I didn't have these tiny moments together, we wouldn't make it."
A few weeks ago, Mrs. O'Donnell was in the kitchen of their Elka Park home when Jonny suddenly asked her, "Mom, do you think that someday I will be happily married?"
The question caught her off-guard. She thinks the issue was on his mind not only because he has a girlfriend but also because of what he has seen his parents endure during the past 10 years. She says she didn't hesitate with her reply. "Yes, Jonny," she told him, "I think you will be happily married."
Does she consider herself happily married? "Yes," she said. "I do."
Mr. O'Donnell's reply was more cautious. "In an imperfect world, I am as happily married as I think anybody can be," he said.
A look of surprise seemed to flicker across Mrs. O'Donnell's face. The plate of pasta she cooked and was about to serve remained suspended in her hands as she considered what to say next. "That sounds like a qualifier to me," she said, her voice calm and soft. "But I think I know what you mean." Then another meal together got under way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
J - 09 Sep 2004 00:04 GMT > September 8, 2004 > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > qualifier to me," she said, her voice calm and soft. "But I think I > know what you mean." Then another meal together got under way. I wonder what the OP wished to accomplish with this. To be sure, the husband has a right to his feelings, but he sure seems superficial to me. Whatever happened to for better or for worse?
Certainly husbands mourn the esthetic losses due to cancer and/or treatments, but so too the wives of husband's with prostate cancer and not every marriage survives (in either group), but when I read the women's posts on the prostate cancer newsgroup, there's rarely, if ever a word about their men's enlarged breasts and mood swings (due to hormone treatments), large stomachs, urinary incontinence and impotency. If anything, the women patiently help their "man" with the latter two. (I won't get into graphics here but they do on their newsgroup)
He doesn't deserve her. Sad statements about males in general, the more things change, the more they remain the same. (selfish, self-absorbed, looking out for #1) Or is it an even sadder statement that women choose or have to put up with that (for financial reasons)? IMO J
sorabji@sonic.net - 09 Sep 2004 01:27 GMT In alt.support.cancer J <limit@privacy.net> wrote:
> I wonder what the OP wished to accomplish with this. > To be sure, the husband has a right to his feelings, but he sure seems > superficial to me. > Whatever happened to for better or for worse? It's the me, me, me society. Sad.
> Certainly husbands mourn the esthetic losses due to cancer and/or > treatments, but so too the wives of husband's with prostate cancer and not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > anything, the women patiently help their "man" with the latter two. (I > won't get into graphics here but they do on their newsgroup) One has to wonder <why> folks like that marry.
> Or is it an even sadder statement that women choose or have to put up with > that (for financial reasons)? Well, it <was> in the WSJ!
Gene Fuller - 09 Sep 2004 01:42 GMT > In alt.support.cancer J <limit@privacy.net> wrote: Snip
> > Certainly husbands mourn the esthetic losses due to cancer and/or > > treatments, but so too the wives of husband's with prostate cancer and not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > One has to wonder <why> folks like that marry. Like what? Like all morals who are subject to disease and symptoms thereof?
Snip
Chinook - 09 Sep 2004 02:51 GMT <snip>
> He doesn't deserve her. > Sad statements about males in general, the more things change, the more > they remain the same. (selfish, self-absorbed, looking out for #1) > Or is it an even sadder statement that women choose or have to put up with > that (for financial reasons)? > IMO Somehow I doubt you're married - and if you are and it's irrelevant to you if your wife/husband loses their attractiveness, keeps you awake all night and presents to you the haunting face of mortality day in and day out - then I think there's a key in your back that someone has to wind up on a daily basis.
Self righteousness is the ugliest of human qualities and honesty is never it's companion. Cancer is scary BECAUSE it changes everything. Why would a marriage suddenly become exempt from problems just because one of the partners within it become sick? Is the primary patient the only one who is allowed to grieve, to feel loss or anger? Must the patient be put into a cocoon of love and protected from everyone else's reactions? How condescending.
It's a fact of life that we human beings yearn to feel physically attracted to our partners and while you obviously feel somewhat threatened by that notion, it's a fact nonetheless. If you watch someone lose that because of a disease process you're allowed to have feelings about it - and while I feel for the woman more in this scenario and the "great sorrow she carried" - I feel for him as well.
You are the shallow one here to summarily relegate this marriage to one of financial convenience. What do you know about it, exactly? Have you been through this, or are you simply an armchair moralist (which I suspect is the case).
God, I hate people sometimes.
L.
> J Emily - 09 Sep 2004 22:17 GMT limit@privacy.net said...
> > Mr. O'Donnell's reply was more cautious. "In an imperfect world, I am > > as happily married as I think anybody can be," he said. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > superficial to me. > Whatever happened to for better or for worse? I too wonder what the point of the post was, but I don't agree with your assessment of the husband. It takes a lot of courage to be as honest as that and to admit to feelings of guilt. Most men wouldn't want to be that open and transparent in public and I think Mr O'Donnell has been through enough without being villified here. He has, after all, only really proved himself to be human. It is obvious to me that he really cares for his wife, and I think it would be remarkable indeed if the situation as described put no strain on the marriage at all. He and his wife have very different ways of coping - is that so surprising? They are a married couple, but they are still two individuals. Being married doesn't turn a person into a clone of the other one, and nor should it. The marriage in question has survived this far and may well continue to do so. Many marriages have already failed for much lesser reasons than the ones cited; many will do so in the future. I still wonder what the original point of the post was; however I found it strangely uplifting and refreshing in its honesty and openness.
Chinook - 10 Sep 2004 10:54 GMT > limit@privacy.net said... > > > Mr. O'Donnell's reply was more cautious. "In an imperfect world, I am [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > post was; however I found it strangely uplifting and refreshing > in its honesty and openness. Emily, I loved the post - it was fascinating to read and I was moved by it. Then I got all into a snit to see it relegated to "he's selfish and vapid and she's in it for the $$*. I should've just left my own reactions alone and protected / respected them instead of feeling the need to lash out to what I felt was an unfair and weird characterization. I'll know better next time :)
I think that the components of cancer are twofold - there's the physiological stuff, what happens to the body, and then there's the emotional stuff which involves the primary patient and all of those that surround him/her. The emotional stuff is very powerful and can be surprising. For example, my parents moved far, far away some years ago and when we (sisters) were informed of a recent health crisis with my dad, all of us felt some anger. Jesus, we can't even go over for tea and touch his shoulder, you know?
Of course, we love our father but we feel a little bit robbed by his geographical absence. It's his life and all of that but I'm glad I have my sisters to talk about these feelings with.. instead of feeling ashamed of my natural feelings I get to feel that essential "I'm not alone in this" connection.
People are complicated - long live complexity!
L.
MB - 10 Sep 2004 07:36 GMT You know, J, we would all like to think that we would behave in an honorable manner and continue to be loving, supporting, and do the right thing.
I HOPE I would if I was in that situation. But, none of us are perfect and we all have our flaws. I believe possibly the MAJORITY of men would have similar reactions to the one in the article.
While perhaps women by nature are more nurturing, there are MANY cases of women being unable to handle the stress of a spouses sudden problems and leaving.
I would not be so quick to condemn his behavior. While I would like to think I would do better, I am just not sure. I guess none of us really knows until that time comes.
Mel
>> September 8, 2004 >> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > IMO > J russ - 10 Sep 2004 23:14 GMT > You know, J, we would all like to think that we would behave in an honorable > manner and continue to be loving, supporting, and do the right thing. [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > J > > my father was in a farm accident 6/01.he was paralyzed from the neck down and has slowly over the last years gained the function of his limbs back.my mom has watched over him,feed him,washed him,even changed his diaper when he didnt make it to the bathroom in time.yet i can'nt believe that she puts up with the all crap he gives her,even though she does all these things for him.
my wife and i found out at the same time that she had cancer.she went through the treatments,spent some time in the hospital,went through the rest of the treatments and was finally done 9/01.she was constantly at me about all sorts of things even though i was helping her all the time.
4/02 i was in an accident and lost my leg and spent 20 days in the hospital.now my wife was talking care of me and i started picking at her for things.
that when we both realized that it was the people that we loved the most and knew that they would never leave us that we took our frustrations out on.
once we figured that out,we found what was unconditional love,something that not every couple gets to share.so when she laid in our bed,with me sitting in my wheelchair and holding her hand.her last words before she died were.
"i love you"...............you have to go there to know
pete - 09 Sep 2004 03:39 GMT >September 8, 2004 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >in the ICU >A Truce Over Twin Beds To me that is not a marriage. It is more of a convenient arrangement and quite a sad one at that from both sides:-( pete
Tim Jackson - 09 Sep 2004 06:58 GMT > The 42-year-old mother of three boys was diagnosed with > advanced breast cancer and told she had only a 5% chance of surviving [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mastectomy, and finished her chemotherapy in August 1995. She is now > considered cancer-free. NO NO NO NO!!! How many times?
She did NOT prove the doctors wrong. She just exceeded their expectations.
There was nothing WRONG about estimating she had a 5% chance of surviving a year. That just means that only one person in twenty would survive, not that she would not. Why bother quoting a percentage if you then go on to assume zero in the next sentence?
She could only prove the doctors "wrong" by obtaining a statistically significant group of patients with the same diagnosis and showing that significantly more (or less) than one in 20 survived a year. How big a group depends on how close to 5% you feel the need to be, to be "right".
Tim Jackson
Emily - 09 Sep 2004 22:19 GMT tim@tim-jackson.co.uk said...
> She could only prove the doctors "wrong" by obtaining a statistically > significant group of patients with the same diagnosis and showing that > significantly more (or less) than one in 20 survived a year. How big a > group depends on how close to 5% you feel the need to be, to be "right". Ah, but that wouldn't make such 'great' sensationalistic journalism as 'proving the doctors wrong', would it.
Tim Jackson - 09 Sep 2004 07:45 GMT > September 8, 2004
> Michael Glantz, an oncologist who treats brain-cancer patients at the > University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester, recently [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Karen Kayser, a professor at Boston College Graduate School of Social > Work in Chestnut Hill, Mass. I think it works like this.
Cancer puts marriage under stress, as do other chronic traumatic situations. Both parties have to change to suit the situation. In our culture men are taught to be strong and unyielding. This makes it harder for them to adapt to an unstoppable force. If you can't bend, you break.
When you are the patient, it is acceptable to abandon your responsibilities. When you are the carer you are not only expected to cope with the unexpected changes in your own life, but also to take on the responsibilities formerly handled by your partner. So the carer is the one who has the most changing to do. The patient can remain in denial, but the carer has no choice but to face the realities.
So when the man is the carer, his cultural upbringing makes him far less prepared for his role than does a woman's. So it is hardly surprising that a larger proportion seek escape or fail to perform.
Tim Jackson
A. P. Thorsen - 09 Sep 2004 17:28 GMT > Cancer puts marriage under stress, as do other chronic traumatic situations. > Both parties have to change to suit the situation. In our culture men are > taught to be strong and unyielding. This makes it harder for them to adapt > to an unstoppable force. If you can't bend, you break. Curiously, in this particular couple's case, the husband seems to have been the one wants to keep yammering on about his feelings, which is kind of anti-stereotypic, isn't it?
(Do you sense a little prejudice in my choice of words? <g> I'm from a quite unemotional subculture where duty and stoicism are valued . . . . one is expected to do the right thing, make the best of it, and not air family laundry in public.)
The writer may be setting us up a bit, too, consciously or unconsciously: I think the genesis of a story of this type is likely to be that they conceive a premise or find a research conclusion ("cancer and its aftermath cause marriage stress"), go looking for Real People to illustrate the point in an engaging, human-centric way, then determinedly view those real people through the lens of the premise.
No one really knows how anyone else's marriage works. (I have a theory that successful marriages hinge on complementary neuroses. Worst case example is that overbearing bleeps marry doormats, for example. Most of us have marriages that support my theory in more subtle, intricate ways . . . . <g>)
I saw this story in the WSJ yesterday, too. I started out expecting to hate the husband (especially after his writing was quoted), but actually felt slightly more sympathetic toward him by the end. Cancer s**ks. Care-giving s**ks. One is fortunate if one has a supportive, compatible partner to go through it with, from either side of the picture.
Ann T. Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email
Emily - 09 Sep 2004 22:27 GMT tim@tim-jackson.co.uk said...
> When you are the patient, it is acceptable to abandon your responsibilities. > When you are the carer you are not only expected to cope with the unexpected [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > prepared for his role than does a woman's. So it is hardly surprising that > a larger proportion seek escape or fail to perform. Agreed. This couple have been married for over 30 years. Chances are they both come from families wherein the wife stayed at home to look after the house and children; the husband went out to work and didn't help out with the house at all. My own parents were rather like that. I honestly don't know how my father would have coped had he survived my mother. In the event she survived him, but then she suddenly had to handle the financial side of things, which was as unfamiliar to her as being a housewife would have been to him. There were occasions when he did have to care for her, and he managed... but they were relatively short in duration so perhaps he was never really put to the test. Any relationship is bound to be put under severe strain when faced by chronic or terminal illness; which of us knows in advance how we will react if and when it happens to us?
Tim Jackson - 09 Sep 2004 07:48 GMT > September 8, 2004 > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a communist-era newscaster who put an upbeat spin on any news and gave > out no real information. .........
> Mr. O'Donnell constantly wanted to talk about what was happening. But > his wife held back, because she started to feel that talking about it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > thought even if I talked and talked, there was no way he could ever > know what that was really like." .......
> Since Mrs. O'Donnell's cancer treatment, Mr. O'Donnell's own health > had started to deteriorate. He couldn't sleep at night. During the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > going to slip away and I won't know key things," Mr. O'Donnell told > her. The husband is having to take on extra duties, to become in practical terms a single parent, and is also worrying about how to cope with the future should his wife's health deteriorate further or fail altogether. The extra duties may seem small things, but having your working day fragmented by such things as the school run, and having twice as many things to remember every day, can take a very significant toll on your practical ability to work.
The wife is refusing him any sort of support in dealing with his side of the equation, even denying him the support of their church. That seems to me selfish and totally inconsiderate, concentrating on her own illness and ignoring his problems. Especially as her 'coping' strategy is simple denial, dumping her problems on others.
The loss of sexual attraction is only a small part of the problem, only one of the adjustments he has to make. We all have to make that adjustment as we age, but in this situation it comes suddenly, and at the same time as everything else. We cannot deny that sexual attraction is one of the 'legs' that support marriage. It is a poor marriage if that is the only (or even the strongest) thing holding it up, but it is an unusual one if that is missing. It does make things more difficult if one partner insists that everything is still the same, even though it is patently not.
---
I am glad that my wife was not like the woman in the story, but admitted that she was likely to die, and made preparations: writing memoirs for the children, etc., and talking to them about it. As her mental faculties failed she was not able to give me emotional support that I could very much have done with, but at least she did not make things worse.
She did not insist on having me lie that her ravaged body was still beautiful. That had been difficult enough when age meant that she no longer automatically turned men's heads when she came into a room. She was my wife and I still loved her, but beauty is, in the main, not in the eye of the beholder but a consensus, and lying almost always leads to disaster. Telling her she was still as beautiful as ever had to be followed with explanations of how this can be with her wrinkles and belly, and further explanations of why men seem to be mostly looking at younger girls. Dangerous territory indeed, and "You are still beautiful to me" absolutely does not cut it.
Tim Jackson
Eva - 09 Sep 2004 11:20 GMT > She did not insist on having me lie that her ravaged body was still > beautiful. That had been difficult enough when age meant that she no longer [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Dangerous territory indeed, and "You are still beautiful to me" absolutely > does not cut it. ----------- I don't agree with your last sentence (or is it your last clause?). "You are still beautiful to me" may not have meant anything to your wife, but it means a *great* deal to flabby aging bald-headed me. Maybe that is because I was never a head-turner to begin with? However, my point is that men should not be afraid to say "You are still beautiful to me," if that's what they mean.
Eva
Tim Jackson - 09 Sep 2004 11:53 GMT > > Telling her she was still as beautiful as ever had to be followed with > > explanations of how this can be with her wrinkles and belly, and further [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > should not be afraid to say "You are still beautiful to me," if that's what > they mean. Oh indeed they should not. However such a statement would not have been adequate to -her-.
Tim
DebITRC - 09 Sep 2004 16:34 GMT I rarely read the WSJ (the editorial stance enrages me), but I happened to read this one and thought it excellent because it was serious and in depth and addressed the issues of illness that are often glossed over. Cancer 'survivors' are expected to be back to normal, minus a breast or two.
I empathized with both spouses and thought they were both heroic and quite attached to one another. The experiences and reactions were honest; although the wife is more contained. (We can't expect that everyone with a serious illness will suddenly change lifelong coping mechanisms.)
I don't think there are many fairy-tale marriages in which the issues and feelings in this article would not come up.
In ordinary aging and moderate illnesses, a couple goes in lock step, and often at least think 'he/she looks pretty good for her age.' This couple did not have that privilege. I would be chronically miserable if my body did not work, the future was full of fear, and my appearance changed radically for the worse. All the focus on appearance is not trivial, especially since there was no end in sight.
As one who had a MUCH easier time health-wise, the story reminded me of events in my own life.
I do agree that women take on the helping/caring role more readily--so men need education
Marriage til death do us part may not be a reasonable expectation, what with our longer life spans and the medical profession's ability to keep us alive, albeit with serious side effects. Deb
A. P. Thorsen - 09 Sep 2004 17:44 GMT >>September 8, 2004 >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The husband is having to take on extra duties, to become in practical terms
> a single parent, and is also worrying about how to cope with the future > should his wife's health deteriorate further or fail altogether. The extra
> duties may seem small things, but having your working day fragmented by such
> things as the school run, and having twice as many things to remember every
> day, can take a very significant toll on your practical ability to work. One would think this would be true for women care-givers equally, wouldn't one? I wonder why the cited statistics suggest spousal cancer is a divorce risk if the woman has the cancer, but not the man?
> The wife is refusing him any sort of support in dealing with his side of the
> equation, even denying him the support of their church. That seems to me > selfish and totally inconsiderate, concentrating on her own illness and > ignoring his problems. Especially as her 'coping' strategy is simple > denial, dumping her problems on others. In my subculture, wanting to air your problems with your spouse to your friends (a.k.a. your church group) without his/her full advance agreement or at absolute minimum a warning, would be pretty doggone offensive. It'd feel like a betrayal, in fact.
To me, this is less a "he's wrong/she's wrong" situation than simply a style mismatch.
In general, I think we (US/UK/others of similar tradition) initially found our marriages substantially more on starry-eyed nonsense than on rational choice (me too). Most couples never go through a stressful situation together before marriage, so the big surprise to me is that *any* of us turn out to have compatible coping styles when the chips are down. Where there's a mismatch, some couples have one partner who "goes along to get along", others break up, etc. If it works out that we're compatible, it's most frequently just a piece of luck, in practice!
Ann T. Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email
Eva - 10 Sep 2004 01:03 GMT > In general, I think we (US/UK/others of similar tradition) initially > found our marriages substantially more on starry-eyed nonsense than on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > along to get along", others break up, etc. If it works out that we're > compatible, it's most frequently just a piece of luck, in practice! ------------ In this couple's case, Mrs. O was only 14 when they met, only 18 when they married. So it's quite an achievement that they stayed together all this time, even *without* the challenges of her illnesses. If you look back and try to remember what you were like and how you saw things when you were 18....well, if you're anything like me you probably *wince*.
Eva
Coombs - 10 Sep 2004 19:18 GMT EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net said...
> If you look back and > try to remember what you were like and how you saw things when you were > 18....well, if you're anything like me you probably *wince*. <Shuffles feet> I'm like you... <runs>
Emily - 10 Sep 2004 19:22 GMT me@privacy.net said...
> EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net said... > > If you look back and > > try to remember what you were like and how you saw things when you were > > 18....well, if you're anything like me you probably *wince*. > > > <Shuffles feet> I'm like you... <runs> Me too. In spades. *Shudder*
|
|
|