On Quality of Life: A Eulogy

On Quality of Life: A Eulogy

It steadies me to tell these things.

From “Settings,” by Seamus Heaney

Today began with some rearranging of Ronan at four in the morning (by Rick), and a baby that slept until – wait for it – eight o’clock. Now I’m having coffee and Ronan is in his bouncer. Later today there may be a visit with P’s new dog, Bakiri. I want Ronan to touch as many animals as he can in his brief lifetime – later this week we’re visiting a hospice care facility for animals (of all kinds, even ducks!) south of Santa Fe.

This week Ronan was exactly 11 months old, although he’s essentially the same baby we knew at six months. Before we learned what was wrong I used to rush home every day, hoping that he had crawled or said an early word like “Da Da,” anything to reassure me that he was on a “normal” track, anything to unclench that fist of instinctive feeling in my stomach. Now, of course, we have no expectations, which is both oddly liberating and horribly torturous. It’s no fun to watch for decline instead of progress. (I now feel as though I have nothing to say to mothers with babies Ronan’s age: I don’t want them to pity me, but I am not interested in hearing about what their kids are doing.) “Things start to change around their birthdays,” other Tay-Sachs parents have cautioned us. Yet another tiny cruelty of this disease: it picks what would normally be a celebratory milestone to expand its deadly reach. But yesterday Rick made him giggle wildly, the two of them laughing so hard it gave Ronan the hiccups.

A friend of mine recently wrote to me: “Ronan knows more than we do.” She’d had a dream about Ronan. He was swimming underwater for a long time, without help. He was happy. Safe. Seal-ish, as befits his name. I imagine him treading water that shifts from dark blue, to New Mexico-sky-impossible “there’s no color like that in the crayon box” blue, to ink black, to the wildly contented blue of the sea one summer along the coast of Ireland (yes, Ireland) where we felt like we were vacationing in the Bahamas – warm breezes, sweet grass, fat bees tumbling past our picnic blanket, drunk with summer. The idea of staying in one place, of getting stuck, makes me sad, but why? Why do we assume that no progress forward, away, beyond, from where we are now, means unhappiness? And what do we mean by progress anyway? Why are we so eager to get somewhere (and, as parents, to have our children “get there” – wherever “there” is – a developmental milestone, a spot in a swanky preschool, etc.). Where exactly are we going and what do any of us know? Well, we know that we’re headed one place for certain, although we’d rather do anything but think about it. (“Hold your breath!” my brother and I used to say to one another when we passed a cemetery.)

A character in Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain notes that, “Ah yes, life is dying – there’s no sense in trying to sugarcoat it.” (Whenever I send an email or a text or make a phone call to one of the Tay-Sachs moms, they’re sure to tell me, and usually in these exact words: “I won’t sugarcoat anything.”)

What was life? No one knew. It was aware of itself the moment it became life, that much was certain – and yet did not know what it was. Consciousness, as sensitivity to stimuli, was undoubtedly aroused to some extent at even the lowest, most undeveloped stages of its occurrence; it was impossible to tie the emergence of consciousness to any particular point in life’s general or individual history – to link it, for instance, to the presence of a nervous system. The lowest animals had no nervous systems, let alone a cerebral cortex, and yet no one dared deny that they were capable of responding to stimuli. And you could anesthetize life, life itself, not just the special organs capable of the response that informs life, not just the nerves. You could temporarily suspend the responses of every speck of living matter, in both the plant and animal kingdoms, narcotize eggs and sperms with chloroform, chloral hydrate, or morphine. Consciousness of self was an inherent function of matter once it was organized as life, and if that function was enhanced it turned against the organism that bore it, strove to fathom and explain the very phenomenon that produced it, a hope-filled and hopeless striving of life to comprehend itself, as if nature were rummaging to find itself in itself – ultimately to no avail, since nature cannot be reduced to comprehension, nor in the end can life listen to itself.

Mann, of course, in this very serious-sounding, vaguely scientific passage, was influenced by Hegel’s phenomenological theories (things become what they are during the process of becoming what they are; in other words, all life forms are forged in the fire of a never-ending, tumbling-forward-and-behind-and-sideways process – they don’t just land at an end point, whole and complete, and they never stop changing. They never arrive). Over a decade ago I sat in a sun-filled classroom at Harvard and wrangled grumpily with Hegel, and what his elaborate system of thinking (which required whole pages of charts and graphs to sort out) had to do with theology, life, or really anything at all. (Anyone who has ever trudged through one of Hegel’s muddy, dense – but brilliant – passages of prose will know what I’m talking about.)

And yet Mann and Hegel were on to something. What the hell is life? How do we recognize it, protect it, and finally, as we are all asked (forced) to do, let it go? Can it just be life without knowledge of its life-ness? And, in our case, mine and Rick’s, how do we let life go for someone else, for our favorite person, for our child?

Tay-Sachs directly affects the brain and therefore all of the systems that make us “human.” The degeneration of the brain tissue means a gradual disconnect from the faculties and abilities that make life what we might describe as life: movement, vision, taste, touch, sound. But how do you quantify a life in a person who never was able to cognitively state “This is my life?” Has quality of life (at least in the United States) simply come to mean successful (read: rich), carefree and happy? Right now, Ronan wants for nothing. Whether or not he realizes that he is safe and loved doesn’t change his experience. Or does it? (Right now he is batting at the blue frog in his bouncer and coo-ing, not wondering “when will I no longer be able to stop batting at my blue frog and coo-ing?”) What we do know is that, in many ways, he will die before his heart stops beating, or his senses, at least will die, and that’s death. Right? Maybe? How do I understand this? How does life listen to itself when it’s not constantly scrambling for meaning? How is life lived for a being, like Ronan, who is not scrambling for meaning?

Hegel to the rescue! Who would have thought? Yes, Hegel was talking about the development of consciousness from a definitive “I” perspective; of a being that is conscious that he or she is a distinctive being, one with a clearly posited Self (I once went on a horrible date with a fellow theology student who insisted that, whenever the word “self” was said, it must be qualified with this phrase – “self with a capital S.” Okay. There was one date). Ronan has no sense of an “I,” but Hegel also had a larger vision that, at least for me, departs from Judeo-Christian notions of self and agency and even salvation; he talked about “Spirit” (a kind of stand-in for the notion of God and/or the Holy Spirit, although not exactly), as an animating force that exists within every living thing, a force that is not just about forward motion, but about spiraling, doubling back, mucking up our notions of time, our understandings of development and progress. Spirit itself has a process of coming to know itself independent of where it is housed/dwelling. In this way (prepare for your grave roll, Hegel), this ambitious thinker with a big, square head (In my mind, all of the 19th century German philosophers look like Martin Luther and therefore have hulkish heads) was kind of…Buddhist. Yep. In a word: life is life is life is life. Your task is to live inside it, change within it, be radical in your acceptance of shifts and alterations. Life: There is no quantifying it or stopping it (but alas, the various graphs and charts would try to make some logical, intellectual sense of it; you’ve got to admire the guy’s eagerness and intellectual tenacity.) Everything has an essence (in Buddhism, a “Buddha nature”). Ronan’s process is, in a word, short and terrifying, but it’s his own, although we are called upon (and here’s the heaviest burden) to literally determine that process as much as that’s possible. (Ten years ago if you’d told me that I’d be using Hegel, of all the brainiac and difficult philosophers I was reading during that time, to try and sort out the logic and feelings around determining the end of my infant son’s life, I would have given you the hairy eye and trotted across the sun-dappled quad with my latte in one hand and a Greek lexicon in the other. There might have been a hair flip, too.)

This week we met with Team Ronan at the Children’s Hospital at the University of New Mexico: a marathon day of one pediatrician, one neurologist, three hospice nurses, one hospice doctor, and one physical therapist who will begin coming to our house next week to do cranial sacral treatments and general physical therapy. Our mighty crew. Rick was nervous and talked a lot; I was thirsty and starving but almost gagged when I tried to drink the lemonade that seconds before I’d been desperate to drink. Between meetings we fed Ronan in the hospital cafeteria, picked at a few stale bagels, and looked out the windows at people in the courtyard: nurses eating salads and pointing plastic forks at one another to make a point; a drug company representative (his briefcase was an advertisement) talking to a beleaguered looking doctor; another depressed looking family like us with a six year old – and then we looked away. (I’m now on a first name basis with the barista at the coffee bar in the pediatric wing, and he sometimes slips me a free scone with my coffee.)

We spent the whole day discussing Ronan’s “end of life” options. (For the next few days I talked with three different mothers who did not use feeding tubes; yesterday I finally turned off my phone minutes before a scheduled phone chat; I wanted to take a nap, eat one of my husband’s fabulous dinners, go to the lovely N’s 30th birthday part and drink too much sparkling wine. All of which I did.) We can only do for Ronan what we would do for ourselves: Rick and I don’t want tubes even waved around in our vicinity; with that in mind, we try to make these absurd decisions for our son.

Is it Christianity that has made this discussion about death such a chore? For some, the concept of heaven is a comfort. This doesn’t work for me: I can’t picture Ronan floating, cherubic, into the arms of the grandmother and grandfather I’ve never met, or hugging and kissing all the people I’ve loved who have died, as if I could determine a room full of my loved ones and magically place him there: Ronan Ex Machina. Who says those people would even enjoy being in close proximity to one another in heaven or anywhere else? Does heaven have rooms, or puffy cloud condos or stringy cloud strip malls or what? Is there wallpaper? Carpet or wood floors? How does Jesus have time to see everyone? No, heaven for me is a projection, a desperate wish, and not a comforting one. Buddhist theories discuss death as the final gateway of life, a threshold (I like this image; it helps me to imagine that Rick and I can accompany Ronan right up to that mark, that line, even if we cannot cross over with him.) In this country, in this culture, we are exceptionally good (I nearly wrote “very,” but was reminded by one of my students that “very” is not a useful or vital adjective. Too right) about “saving” lives, but we are “rubbish,” as Other Em would say, in terms of understanding what the hell that means. What are we saving and why? Who gets to make the choice?

Case study: the neurologist/pediatrician/geneticist versus the hospice care nurses and doctor. The first three believe that not to insert a feeding tube for a child with a “terminal illness” is “ridiculous.” Some other (in all fairness, solicited) advice: “I wouldn’t want to starve to death.” “We don’t let babies starve to death in this country.” “Feeding tubes are easy.”

“But,” I countered, “we’re not talking about a starving child living in some country where food is not available and that’s why they’re starving, are we?”

“No.”

Exactly my point. When I worked for a relief organization I met women whose children had died from malnutrition, diarrhea, typhoid, war-related violence, meningitis, malaria, botched abortions, fevers and the flu. In Ronan’s case it’s not an issue of a growling stomach, a bloated belly, or the development of a disease that is a direct result of living in squalor and poverty.

“So, if the body is no longer able to eat, it’s kind of like an animal who stops eating and then goes out under a tree and dies,” I said. “It’s a sign. It’s nature stepping in.”

“But we’re not talking about dogs, we’re talking about people, and a feeding tube is easy.”

“But we are talking about life.” (And we were having this appointment at a place called, ominously, “the Mind Center.”)

“Yes,” he said quizzically.

But are we?

A feeding tube is “easy.” It can extend life by six months or longer, but this often paves the way to other, more serious interventions that Rick and I will not consider, because all the while the brain is fading, fading, fading, and then it is gone. We have to decide when his quality of life has diminished to the point where letting him go is the more humane option. That may coincide with the option for a feeding tube or it might not. No crystal balls, sadly. When he can’t interact or hear or feel us, is it just a beating heart we’re saving, and why? (When my memoir first came out I was asked to comment on the situation with Terri Schiavo, who was on life support at the time and whose condition galvanized a national debate about quality of life issues. I got huffy and offended, because how dare they ask a disabled woman, just because she’s disabled, about a woman who is in a vegetative state, as if these two situations are equivalent? Now, of course, I’ve got plenty to say.)

Three hours later, in a well-lit room, we were handed this competing worldview from the hospice doctor: “When the body can no longer feed itself, sometimes it is uncomfortable to provide nourishment. It’s the body’s way of shutting down.”

“It is not cruel?” I asked.

“It is not,” he said, and then, looking at me, and knowing I needed to hear it, he said again, “it is absolutely not. It’s what the body does; it knows what to do.”

Hospice care refers to terminal illnesses as “life-limiting” diseases. The head nurse wore a velvet skirt and blonde bangs. Another gave Ronan a blinking light that we now call his Ronan-1-Kenobi life saber. We’d met with the same nurses at the Mind Center earlier, in a windowless room with an old computer and a white noise machine (?) in the corner. In this new room in the pediatric wing, the sun lined their faces; they wore IDs on lanyards that made me think of my years as a camp counselor and the way I once sternly instructing the kids in my charge: “Don’t. Swing. Your lanyards!” – and I had a sharp pang in my gut, wishing Ronan would grow up to be on of those slouchy, grumpy kids on the cusp of adolescence. Liberated from the sharp angles and cold tile floors of the Mind Center, the energy here was muted, respectful, solemn but also wildly celebratory in a way that was almost euphoric. There were circus posters on the wall and padded chairs to sit on. The physical therapist gave us a blanket made by some Lutheran women in Albuquerque (I can picture them sitting around a long table in a spic-and-span church basement that smells of bleach and sugar, eating krumkaka and sipping weak percolated coffee, chattering away); we had to change Ronan right there on the table and everyone admired his chubby little legs and his pooping prowess. Nobody said, “I’m sorry.” What they did say: “This is a journey, and we are proud to be on it with you.” I believed them.

We also learned that kids are dying all over the state. From leukemia, other metabolic disorders similar to Tay-Sachs (and horrible in different ways), bone marrow cancer, liver and kidney disease. Kids and babies die, but in our world of the “miracles” of modern medicine we don’t expect it, we say it’s “wrong,” we kick and rail against it. (In Texas we lived next to a small cemetery shaded by live oaks. It smelled of urine, pot, and damp dirt. My dog liked to nose around in there; there was a spot at the back full of children who had died in a flu epidemic: babies that were two days old, six months old, four years old. Martha, Bernice, Ruth, Mary, Jane, Alice. At the Tenement Museum in New York City, you can learn about hundreds of babies who died of “swill milk” – rotten liquid sold cheaply off carts in the Lower East Side in the 1800s.) And kids and babies live, too. Last night, watching ten-year-old L do a successful magic trick, I found myself overcome with gratitude for his life, his face, his crazy hair, his sweet intensity. I don’t believe in God but found myself thanking God anyway, for his existence in the world.

“We know,” the doctor continued, “how to help babies with life-limiting diseases.” Is life-limiting just a silly, euphemistic way of saying terminal/about-to-die? Are these tweaks in language similar to the discussion of differently abled versus handicapable versus handicapped versus crippled versus disabled? Is it just semantics? Maybe, but I liked the idea that “life” was at least acknowledged in the hospice version of Ronan’s condition, even though these folks are the ones who will be helping us prepare for his death. Life and death together. The ultimate pairing; truly, the only one.

“We have to ask, at every stage and every intervention,” the doctor went on, “what is this for? What does it lead to? What kind of a life is he living?” In other words, if the life is truly limited, when there is no cure, then what are we prolonging? He was wearing a blue shirt. His hands were square and strong, builder’s hands. A doctor – a man – who helps people die. Can Ronan hear, can he touch, can he taste, swallow and see? His job is to help us answer these questions.

A few years ago I was in New York City when I opened the New York Times one cold morning while standing on line at Starbucks and saw that my mentor, Nancy Eiseland, had died. (I always read the obits in newspapers – the narratives, the small details, those few summed up paragraphs of their entire lives print into you the way newspaper ink rubs off on your hands.) She published books, guided countless students, helped me run a workshop for disabled women in Geneva, mothered, loved, lived. The experience of living in a difficult body informed her life and work; in short, her body made her a visionary, and it also, eventually, killed her. Yes, she was not 85, her death was lamented as “untimely,” but all of our bodies will kill us eventually, even if we’re super fit, super smart, super famous, super rich, and super loved.

Laura, a former student of mine and later, a friend, died in November. She, too, was brilliant, although she made people uncomfortable. She used a breathing machine, had a full time care attendant, and was paralyzed. She was also the smartest student I’ve ever had – the most committed, the most mature, and the most generous and insightful in workshop. She traveled all over the world, thought deeply and wrote dazzling prose, and she understood that she would not live the proverbial “long and healthy life” (she was in her 40s). I vividly remember an essay she wrote for me in which she described the moment, in the library, when she looked up her disease and learned that her body would “slowly fade away.” It was, to date, the best student essay I’ve ever read: tightly written and organized, “about” something significant, and an emotional and intellectual experience beautifully rendered. No pity, no Hallmark card poem moments, no soft-pedaling the reality. Just life and death, in that moment, held up together, at once. Fusion. The effect was stunning. It was, in a word, art. If Ronan could think like Laura, would I consider every physical intervention possible? You bet. What I’m saying then, is that quality of life means quality of thinking, right? Yes. So what does that mean for Ronan’s “purpose?”

Ronan’s purpose, Ronan’s life. Am I learning from him? Yes, although I’d prefer not to learn those lessons, and am just sorting out what they are, and anything I learn will not lessen the impact of his death, which will, in a very real sense, destroy a part of me. There’s no way around that. But still, Hegel’s concept of Spirit is, I must admit, at work. There’s a radical acceptance at work in me, a new and yet familiar human knowledge that life is only just chaos, and control is impossible. The fragility and terror of life, mixed up together, is starting to make terrible sense, and there’s an awful freedom in this realization. What would Hegel say? (A lot, presumably. His books are upwards of 400 pages long). He would probably most certainly caution me (he was a good Christian, after all), as the hospice doctor did, not to throw myself on the funeral pyre with my son, which I don’t intend to do.

Ronan’s purpose is not to teach me; we often say this about people who defy our notions of normal and I find it pathetic, patronizing, and a way of distancing ourselves from our own fragile bodies and lives. I don’t believe that disabled people exist to teach people life stories – that is not their purpose; it isn’t anyone’s purpose.  There’s a smugness about the idea that bugs me.  I learned a lot from Laura, not because she was brave and fearless, a mother and a partner and an advocate, as many people are, and as she indeed was, but because she was a gifted writer who took my mind to new places. I learned a lot from my mentor Nancy Eiseland, not because she was so brave to get up and leave her house every morning and have a job and a family and a life (In a wheelchair! Yes! Imagine!) but because she thought about things in a new and completely original way, because when I read her book The Disabled God her words and thoughts cut a new pathway in my brain, shifted my worldview, gave me a new lens, made me think. Just like other people living in their bodies, disabled people don’t sit around bitching and moaning because they are too busy kicking on, living and moving and thinking and breathing. Those other narratives read, to me, like disability porn for able-bodied people who don’t want to acknowledge that they too, like everyone, will one day be disabled. Those stories help keep that delusion alive for just a little bit longer.

Ronan has his own path that has nothing to do with me, although I can try to understand it in my limited way. We are creatures, growing, shifting, moving, but never really arriving. I’m glad Hegel made his nerdy, complicated graphs and diagrams about Spirit – thinking about that, and not a Disneyfied version of Heaven, the one many of us are taught in Sunday school – is helping me.

And Ronan is making me think, yes, but my task is still to understand him as a person, a being, who is independent of me and yet dependent on my actions. I’m not going to do him the disservice of regarding him as an angel or telling myself that God has “other” plans for him, and for me. My plan is simple and yet impossible: to go with him as far as I can along this journey that we’re calling his life, to be with him as deeply as I can from moment to moment, and then to let him go.

13 responses to “On Quality of Life: A Eulogy

  1. Emily dear, once again your post is wise as well as touching. In parts of it, I’m reminded of Ernest Becker’s book, The Denial of Death, which a Jesuit friend passed along to me in the 1970s. Ronan’s experience is certainly expanded by the love that you and Rick pour onto him. Please know that there are many of us accompanying the three of you on this journey.

  2. oh, I adore it when babies get the hiccups from laughing!

    it’s surprising/saddening to me that you & Ronan & Rick are meeting with Team Ronan and talking about end-of-life options so early. it all seems so be moving … so quickly.

    xoxox Weber

  3. As a hospice nurse all these years, I believe in what I do, but still always find myself questioning. What is life? What is quality? At what point does each of them end? And is it before, as you said, the heart stops beating? Thanks Em…this was very thought provoking.

    You are sharing Ronan’s days so beautifully with your words…

  4. I LOVE this post. Thank you. I remember trying to penetrate Hegel at uni (and Kant, or as I liked to call him, Can’t, because I really couldn’t) and not really getting it. You’re explaining it much better than I understood it then.

    When you were talking about all the kids that are dying in New Mexico, and the Texas graveyard, I was reminded of what Bill Bryson says in his book, ‘At Home: A Short History of Private Life’ – which I was reading when I was visiting you.

    For children, birth was just the beginning. The first years of life weren’t so much a time of adventure as of misadventure, it seems. In addition to the endless waves of illness and epidemic that punctuated every existence, accidental death was far more common – breathtakingly so in fact. Coroners’ rolls for London in the thirteenth and fourteenth centureis include such abrupt childhood terminations as ‘drowned in a pit’, ‘bitten by sow’, ‘fell into pan of hot water’, ‘hit by cart-wheel’, ‘fell into tin of hot mash’, ‘trampled in crowd’ and many more in similarly disturbing vein. Emily Cockayne relates the sad case of a little boy who lay down in the road and covered himself with straw to amuse his friends. A passing cart squashed him.

    Aries and his adherents took such deaths as proof of parental carelessness and lack of interest in children’s well-being, but this is to impose modern standards on historic behaviour. A more generous reading would bear in mind that every waking moment of a medieval mother’s life was full of distractions. She might have been nursing a sick or dying child, racked with fever herself, struggling to start a fire (or put one out) or any of a thousand other things. If children aren’t bitten by sows today, it is not because they are better supervised. It is because we don’t keep sows in the kitchen….

    In Breslau [This is from the first ever study done of population, by the astronomer Edmond Halley, when he came across the figures for annual births and deaths in Breslau, Silesia, now Wroclaw, Poland, in 1693] slightly over a quarter of babies died in their first year, and 44 per cent were dead by their seventh birthday. Not until seventeen years had passed did the proportion of deaths among the young in Breslau reach 50 per cent…”

    And Halley (yep, he was the one that Halley’s comet was named after) wrote, reflecting on this: ‘How unjustly we repine at the shortness of our Lives… and think our selves wronged if we attain not Old Age; where it appears hereby, that the one half of those that are born are dead in Seventeen years… [So] instead of murmuring at what we call an untimely Death, we ought with Patience and unconcern to submit to that Dissolution which is the necessary Condition of our perishable Materials.’

    You said, “Kids and babies die, but in our world of the “miracles” of modern medicine we don’t expect it, we say it’s “wrong,” we kick and rail against it.” We’ve been persuaded that death is somehow manageable, that we have some power over it.

    This morning I heard on the radio that the funeral for a 5 month old baby is happening in Christchurch, New Zealand. He was asleep when some masonry fell on him during last week’s earthquake. And then there was a long interview with a British 76 year old, who was holidaying in Christchurch and who had survived the earthquake with a fractured skull. He was in tears as he described the bravery of the people who had rescued him from the cinema where he had been, escaping the rain. Why should he have survived and the 5 month old, died? So bloody unfair. But it just is.

    Maybe we all need to come with a health warning, stamped on to our buttocks, a bit like the British packets of cigarettes that now declare on half the pack, ‘Smoking Kills’. The health warning should say, “Made of Perishable Materials’.

  5. Hey Emily,

    Thank you. I found this post really helpful to get a handle on my own situation. My Dad is at the other end of the cycle, dying with Alzheimer’s disease. We’ve seen him deteriorate from a man who devoured books and got a degree after he retired to a man who no longer recognises me or Mum. We’ve had the conversations about feeding tubes and the second most emotional three word sentence in the English language – “Do Not Resuscitate”.

    I’m not smart enough to quote Hegel, but the Counting Crows line “she steps out the front door like a ghost into the fog” pretty much describes the loss of the person I knew as my Dad. The body’s there, it’s just that everything that I’ve ever associated with him, life, spirit, call it what you will, has slowly drifted away leaving a shell.

    I’ve found it really difficult to find the place where I just accept what’s happening but this post has really helped me to see that it’s part of a bigger process. The manager of my Dad’s care home talks a lot about “dignity”, and helping the residents to live with as much dignity as possible. It’s not about giving in. It is about doing what we can, when we can, where we can, and having the wisdom and strength to recognise when the world just doesn’t work the way we want it to. It sounds very much like your hospice team have the same view and that’s a wonderful thing to know.

    My thoughts are with you xx

  6. Emily, you know we had to face this decision with my 48-year-old sister which I know is very different than facing it with your beloved son. However, we came to the same conclusion. Feeding tubes may lead to other interventions and it becomes a cascade of futility–the equivalent of shaking our fist at the moon and telling it to go away and become day. Only you and Rick will know the right thing to do. If it is any comfort to you, all six of us siblings came to the same conclusion about the feeding tube without ever consulting each other. When we consulted each other, we found we were already in agreement and knew hospice would work for us, and hopefully for her.

    The other questions here… you attempt to answer them better than I ever could. But I think loving and then letting go is the only thing that might keep a person sane when they face a loss of this magnitude.

  7. On losing my sister, I realized, with horror, that all the bromides and terrible, terrible things people say to the effect of “I can’t imagine, I just couldn’t handle it” are designed to make grieving people weaker. I have no idea why this design, when it seemed to me that what you need is more like this. This is the only thing that ever helped me. I’m sure you know it.
    Thanks, Emily for another unforgettable post.

    A Kite for Michael and Christopher
    All through that Sunday afternoon
    a kite flew above Sunday,
    a tightened drumhead, an armful of blown chaff.

    I’d seen it grey and slippy in the making,
    I’d tapped it when it dried out white and stiff,
    I’d tied the bows of newspaper
    along its six-foot tail.

    But now it was far up like a small black lark
    and now it dragged as if the bellied string
    were a wet rope hauled upon
    to lift a shoal.

    My friend says that the human soul
    is about the weight of a snipe,
    yet the soul at anchor there,
    the string that sags and ascends,
    weigh like a furrow assumed into the heavens.

    Before the kite plunges down into the wood
    and this line goes useless
    take in your two hands, boys, and feel
    the strumming, rooted, long-tailed pull of grief.
    You were born fit for it.
    Stand in here in front of me
    and take the strain.
    –Seamus Heaney

  8. This is beautiful, Emily, heartbreaking and wise. Such fierce intelligence and honesty you’re bringing to this time and to Ronan’s days. My thoughts are with you.

  9. This is my favorite post yet out of so many. I just want you to know Francisco and I read them every day and you always take our breath(s?) away. I’ve been working on meditating with Pema Chodron, and the state we are trying to attain in meditation seems to be the one Ronan accesses. I don’t always like Wayne Dyer, since he often regurgitates existing wisdom in more marketable form, but I do like the way he talks about the state we should be seeking is a state of “No Mind” and no attachment or connection to other beings in a thinking sense…forgetting even our senses to the extent that we are no longer commenting inwardly on experience and feel no separation between s(S?)elf and other, object, or sensation. I love the book The Emerging Mind by Karen Shanor–there is a chapter on new findings in physics on Unified Field Theory and the notion that our consciousness may actually be physically connected to it with or without our bodies–though I’m remembering very inaccurately. Unfortunately it is in a box in the basement otherwise I’d actually do my homework before posting a comment about it, but the states you are illuminating so beautifully from Hegel and Buddhism seem similar to what I read, but from a scientific perspective. I also keep meaning to tell you about my favorite radio program formerly known as “Speaking of Faith” but now known as “Being” (http://being.publicradio.org/). They have had some amazing programs on end-of-life issues, science of mind, religion and science, etc., with people from incredibly diverse backgrounds. If you haven’t listened already all past programs are online and I always feel like I’ve feasted on knowledge during each program (which I promptly forget, of course). I love you, Em, and Ronan and Rick. Thank you for bringing us into your lives and interior life every day. Aside from learning something from your blog every day, or reaching some new insight, I must admit I love the little laugh you gave me thinking of you trotting at Harvard and giving a hairflip. Pure Emily.

  10. Jason Leddington

    Dear Emily,

    Thank you for sharing this. It is really lovely to read, and so thoughtful and wise.

    Very best wishes to you, Rick, and Ronan. I look forward to seeing all of you in just a couple of weeks.

    Jason

  11. Donna and I have been reading aloud C.S. Lewis’s “A Grief Observed.” My sister sent it around Valentines Day as a gift and in response to our parents dying this past summer/fall–but, unlike Ronan, at a ripe, very old age, sated with good life, but ready to try another stage in the drama as their physical bodies and minds emptied. In the third and final chapter of Lewis’s observation, he wrote something very much in line with what you’ve posted this time. At least, that’s how I was struck even though he is speaking about losing his wife. It goes like this:
    “And then one or the other dies. And we think of this as love cut short; like a dance stopped in mid-career or a flower with its head unluckily snapped off–something truncated and therefore, lacking its due shape. I wonder…. for both lovers, and for all pairs of lovers without exception, bereavement is a universal and integral part of our experience of love. It follows marriage as normally as marriage follows courtship or as autumn follows summer. It is not a truncation of the process but one of its phases; not the interruption of the dance, but the next figure. We are ‘taken out of ourselves’ by the loved one while she is here. Then comes the tragic figure of the dance in which we must learn to be still taken out of ourselves though the bodily presence is withdrawn, to love the very Her, and not fall back to loving our past, or our memory, or our sorrow, or our relief from sorrow, or our own love.”

  12. What a wonderful post. Sadly, i’m just getting around to reading it. My 18 month old keeps me far to busy to do thing like reading blog posts. Yours, by the way, is the first I’ve ever read.

    After my son died while I was giving birth to him (almost three years ago now) I was given so many platitudes that did nothing but annoy me. I just wanted to say thank you for so eloquently putting words to feelings that I myself haven’t been able to, or been able to as well.

    “Ronan’s purpose is not to teach me; we often say this about people who defy our notions of normal and I find it pathetic, patronizing, and a way of distancing ourselves from our own fragile bodies and lives.”

    And

    “I’m not going to do him the disservice of regarding him as an angel or telling myself that God has “other” plans for him, and for me.”

    I attempt to claim as often as I can that my son was a PERSON and NOT an angel, that not knowing him is heartbreaking, but imagining him in a perfection to make me or someone feel better seems quite the “disservice”

    Anyway, thank you.

    I read on tonight and think of Ronan and what will be his short but sacred life often.

  13. I’m a stranger to this blog. I found my way here by googling for eulogies for children with disabilities or disease. I just want to thank you for writing this and putting it out there. I wish you blessings and comfort, whatever form that takes for you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s