Disease and death in children vs. adults

[Function]

Hello everyone

 

I'd like to discuss something concerning our thoughts on disease and death when it comes to age.

 

Today, I was in the operating room, witnessing a biopsy of a brainstem tumour in a 12-year old girl, predicting not much good.

 

One of the interns told me: "I always find it terrible to [have to] perform surgery on a child. You know, especially when you have kids yourself ... I always try to do that little bit more for a child."

 

And I have a fundamental problem with such statements. It is common in our Western society to believe that the death and suffering of a child is more severe, more emotionally touching, more radical, than that of an adult. And yes, I do have a problem with that and I do hope that there are people here sharing my visions, in more or less way.

 

I don't have any child (I find that not so astonishing since I'm 19 years old), but allow me to state that that makes me less biased in my opinion than parents on these forums.

 

So here it is: no, in my opinion, a child's life is not worth more than that of an adult. To me, it is not worse when a child dies, compared to when an adult dies. When an adult dies, it's equally (potentially) a child's mother or father that passes away, as when a child dies, it's a parent's child who passes away. And yes, psychologically seen, considering the points of view of young children concerning death, it may seem, and that I am convinced of, that the younger the child, the less negative impact the death of its parent should have (or am I wrong? Weird to say, but I'm convinced that I have been lucky that my grandmother died when I was only like 4 years old).

 

And of course, when a child dies, everyone experiences it as devastating, especially the parents. Rightly so, of course.

 

But does that make it worse when a child dies, compared to when an adult dies? "A child has a whole life in front of him", is the most common argument I hear. True, but that doesn't mean the adult's life is over, or even fulfilled in that way that it satisfies that adult; in his/her eyes, he/she may have wanted to accomplish lots of things and he/she may think that he/she hasn't acchieved anything, leaving the remaining (let's say) 45 years to do so.

 

Consider four families. Both families consist of a maried couple (sorry for being traditional, but for the sake of simplicity, let's say husband and wife) and one child, let's say a boy of 12 yeard old.

 

In family 1, the husband is terminally ill, let's say from a very agressive brain tumour (e.g. GBM), and you know he'll live for about 1 month.

In family 2, the child was hit with a car, has severe internal bleedings, including cranial and brain damage, and you know he'll live for about another hour.

In family 3, the child is terminally ill, let's say from a very agressive brain tumour (e.g. GBM), and you know he'll live for about 1 month.

In family 4, the husband was hit by a car, has severe internal bleedings, including cranial and brain damage, and you know he'll live for about another hour.

 

You're a health worker involved in the devastating misery of all families. But, you're new to the department and you don't know any of the families and just happen to hear about them on a staff meeting. Which case affects you more? Which less? Why? Consider in all occasions the impact it may have on the mental well-being of the family members, in particular the mother.

 

What's your vision on statements such as "it's worse when a child dies/has cancer/a tumour", and "I try to do more for childs", and "A child has a whole life in front of him, making him more valuable than an adult".

 

That makes this thread an interesting discussion, rather than a Q and A thread. No opinion is wrong, and I'm very willing to hear your thoughts on these problems, as well as on my points of view.

 

Thanks.

 

Ta-ta,

 

F.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Function

[StringJunky]

What a cheerful title!

 

I don't think it should be dismissed, the common sentiment that a child has lost more potential than an adult. You're 19 and just starting out. Your life is precious to you and you are seeing your life from the perspective of a young person; you have little history as an adult. When you've lived another couple of decades, or three, you'll have a different perspective and will empathise more with that common sentiment.

[Prometheus]

There will come a time in your career when you have to tell an 80 year old, and their relatives, they are going to die. There may also come a time when you have to tell a 9 year old, and their relatives, they are going to die. Which do you imagine will be harder, and why?

 

I've been with many adults as they've died, only one kid (never worked in paeds), so it's hard for me to compare, but i have found that at least some adults are emotionally equipped to face their deaths with equanimity - i'm not sure the same is true of children, given they are generally less emotionally developed.

 

As for the 'I try harder on kids' comment, i do find it unprofessional. If the patient is deemed suitable for surgery, then the best potential outcome must be sought every time, regardless of age.

 

On a side note i think pastoral care for those dying in hospital is appalling, if at all present and is something that requires attention.

[fiveworlds]

Which case affects you more? Which less? Why?

 

Isn't that completely in the eye of the beholder? Somebody who has lost their child will probably be more upset about a sick child but somebody who lost a parent young will know how much harder a lone parent has to work for them and all the implications resulting from that.

 

Lets say that a parent and child are injured. You can save the parent or the child and not both. The parents have a mortgage on their home. If you save the child then the second parent can't pay the mortgage and as a result the child becomes homeless and dies from exposure. You aren't god you can't judge which would be the best choice simply on the face of it.

[Carrock]

 

Isn't that completely in the eye of the beholder? Somebody who has lost their child will probably be more upset about a sick child but somebody who lost a parent young will know how much harder a lone parent has to work for them and all the implications resulting from that.

 

Lets say that a parent and child are injured. You can save the parent or the child and not both. The parents have a mortgage on their home. If you save the child then the second parent can't pay the mortgage and as a result the child becomes homeless and dies from exposure. You aren't god you can't judge which would be the best choice simply on the face of it.

It might be an idea to ask the parent, who will be better able than the child to decide the financial implications of paying for treatment and how likely the cost of treatment is to be fatal.

 

Or advise them, if they survive their injuries, to move to a country where medical treatment isn't reserved for the rich and people without money are not left to die of exposure.

[John Cuthber]

"It is common in our Western society to believe that the death and suffering of a child is more severe, more emotionally touching, more radical, than that of an adult."

Nope. We are just more upset about it because it seems more unfair somehow.
As far as I can tell, neither side of this is strictly logical.

[zapatos]

"I don't have any child (I find that not so astonishing since I'm 19 years old), but allow me to state that that makes me less biased in my opinion than parents on these forums."

 

I don't see how. You have less experience than us. You've experienced parents but not children, while we've experienced parents and children. In my opinion it is you who is more biased.

 

But to your question, I believe that on average the life of the child is worth more than the life of the adult due to the fact that they will lose so much more than the adult if they die. This is simply due to the fact that they have more life in front of them than the adult.

 

I also find it more upsetting when a child suffers due to their inability to understand their situation.

[iNow]

Adults are expected to die. As we age, with each day we get closer to the end, even when otherwise perfectly healthy. We start running out of ticks on the proverbial clock.

 

It's part of life. It's one thing we all have in common. All life ends. Nobody gets out alive.

 

We're more familiar with that life/death cycle. It happens everywhere throughout the animal kingdom; plants and insects are not immune. We're more comfortable with death by old age than death by illness or accident and we're more accepting of it because it's simply unavoidable. That's not the case, however, with children, where in all but the most extreme cases death IS avoidable.

 

In parallel, we're evolutionarily predisposed to care for the young, including those that are not our own. They're more helpless, less autonomous, more vulnerable, and this "it takes a village" tendency of adults to prioritize care of petites over peers has helped us to survive as a species.

 

We're simply wired to be more helpful to kids. Our giant skulls and barely formed brains at birth mandate it.

 

I suspect the argument about greater loss of potential when kids die instead of adults (while entirely valid and reasonable) is likely related more to our logical parts seeking a rationalization to explain these more unconscious choices and decisions of priority, unconscious decisions we make for the reasons outlined above.

[Function]

"It is common in our Western society to believe that the death and suffering of a child is more severe, more emotionally touching, more radical, than that of an adult."

Nope. We are just more upset about it because it seems more unfair somehow.

As far as I can tell, neither side of this is strictly logical.

 

Which is my point, as I found myself quite unable to formulate it that clearly.

[StringJunky]

 

Which is my point, as I found myself quite unable to formulate it that clearly.

I think iNow's answer is probably the most accurate, with a nod to evolution as well.

Edited August 27, 2016 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Adding to the evolutionary point, kids have a higher reproductive potential than adults. As adults age past certain thresholds, their fertility tends to decrease. Those with the potential/opportunity to have more offspring were more valuable to the pack/tribe as a whole. Greater numbers made the pack stronger and less susceptible to collapse when single individuals died or became ill. This is part of the reason we selected for prioritized care of the young over the old. Higher likelihood of replacing lost pack members or expanding the size of the group overall.