I've had a similar situation to the writer of #1. My grandmother had dementia, to the point where she would often forgot family members' names. She would greet me by my mother's name (her ex-daughter-in-law) and ask me how my folks were doing. By "folks" she meant my mother's parents, because she would refer to them by name. I would say they are fine, but I'm not Jane, I'm Dick & Jane's daughter. She would ask me how Dick (my father/her son) was doing. My father died 5 years ago, but she didn't remember that. My uncle did not bring her to the funeral because he thought it would be too upsetting to her, and also too difficult as she is wheelchair-bound and can't move on her own. I was always upset with that decision, and still hold it against my uncle.
Fast-forward to last year. My 18 year old cousin and his girlfriend were expecting a baby. This same uncle instructed the family not to tell my grandmother that my young cousin was expecting a baby and she was going to have another great-grandchild, because he was not married and this would bring shame to the family. As she would be ashamed that her grandson was having a baby out of wedlock, and this would upset her. My aunt put her foot down this time, and told him that no, we are not hiding her great-grandchild from her. She ended up loving the new baby, and didn't care one wit about marriage of their marital status.
Moral: Close family doesn't always know best.
5
On the question of the worker at home an important point was missed by Kwame, which is surprising because he is so attuned to nuances in these questions. The writer says they all work more than 40 hours. My guess is that they are not getting paid for the extra hours and that is not part of their work agreement. If you are hired to do 40 hours of work and you do that, you are fulfilling your responsibilities. If others work 50-60 hours that is their choice, but it’s not your fault for choosing not too work more hours for free, it is a direct result of exploitive management. I worked for 30 years in software where 60-80 hour weeks are the norm even if you are on a 40-hour salary. Management loved to exhalt the ‘hard workers’ and shame those working the hours they were paid for and explicitly pitted one group against the other to make it a worker vs. worker issue instead of a mgmt vs. worker issue. If the worker in this story is getting her 40 hours done during the week she has every right to run some errands from home, although she should make every effort to ensure those trips don’t cause her to miss work mtgs and other commitments.
15
Boundaries, people. LW 1: Someone asks, could you not tell my mother about the death of yours? You, being a thoughtful and skillful human, say, "No, but I will do my best to avoid that conversation. If we do meet and she asks, I will have to tell her the truth." You are respectful to the wishes of both people. But it's your responsibility to have integrity and kindness in all of your relationships whether you "fear confrontation" or not (and I suspect not, since this was a confrontation with your aunt.)
LW 2: Telling your brother about the letter is a very passive/aggressive act. I'm surprised that you are not aware of this. You don't have any idea what this letter indicates. Leave this alone and don't be cruel.
LW 3: You are angry about the leeway your co-worker has. Your can talk to HR about how you feel that this work at home policy impedes your work without mentioning your co-worker. Obviously, anyone can misuse their time, not just this woman. I can guarantee that lots of the people there do this, they're just not telling you about it. There is a more skillful way to address this, and leave your jealousy out of it.
As for comments that lying is always wrong...no, it's not. Rigidity is the habit of small minds. Logical and compassionate solutions take effort and time and the practice of taming emotions, but in my experience it's worth it.
12
The assumptions made about the letter "about" the unborn middle child are pretty aggressive (based on what is disclosed), and by no means allow for confident conclusions. That the mother's friend refers to the unborn child by the subsequent daughter's name does not imply that she was so sure the baby was a girl that she already named her. It may imply that she had a name picked out for a girl, but it is not uncommon to have names picked out before the child is even conceived! It's not unreasonable that she would have shared the names with her close friend. Given that the desire for a daughter was known, the friend may have been wishing for the expectant mother. Also, being "so sure that the baby was a girl" does not imply desire for a girl (though it may reflect it). I was quite sure my former boss was calling me to tell me I didn't get the job when in fact he was calling me to offer me a job (I obviously desired the latter).
Also, what about the rest of the letter? Is it about the unborn child in any way beside referring to it by its name if it were a girl? There seems to be too little context to make anything of it besides what is wanted to be made of it.
5
The third letter reeks of the pervasive stereotype that women with children don't work as hard, don't take their jobs as seriously, and take advantage of "benefits" they receive. There is not a shred of concrete evidence in the letter that this woman is shirking her responsibilities by doing her work at different hours of the day, and LW3 is only guessing that her alternative work arrangement after her maternity leave ends is going to be a problem. If LW3 can point to specific instances in which her colleague failed to complete her work, wasn't available during working hours and needed to be, asked others to complete her work, or others were working late in order to complete assignments that she was responsible for, LW3 wouldn't have an "ethical" dilemma. S/he could easily go to her boss and say the work isn't getting done and that it is a burden on the department--without it having anything to do with the colleague being a working mother.
As for LW2, she should have written to Social Qs. She would have gotten a more insightful answer.
15
What about the admission that "when she works from home, she is actually running errands and taking care of her kids and that she will sometimes work at night to make up for it"? The key word is "sometimes" - does she occasionally slack off or occasionally make up for her distractions. I'll also note that simply being in the office doesn't mean that one is productive, either.
3
#2. All middle children feel they are the least loved. To assume that a woman who planned to give her child a girls name and then was delivered of a boy, does not love that boy with her whole heart is preposterous. Back in the day, when people did not know which gender their child was going to be, this happened all the time. The sister sounds a bit vindictive, even suggesting thats what the letter means. And to present that notion to her brother serves no pirpose but to say, youre right, Mom did nlove me better.”
20
You're walking down the street. A guy comes up to you, puts his hand in his pocket like he has a gun, says "gimmie your money." You have a $20 in your front pocket. Before you headed out you put $500 in your sock.
You hand him the $20. He says "is that all you got."
Do you lie or fork over the $500?
4
I am shocked at the advice regarding LW #2. It completely contradicts the advice The Ethicist gave when he responded to my letter, when I found the old love letter written to my mother who is suffering from Alzheimers. He said "a letter is the property - first and foremost - of the writer, and then of the recipient." Based on that logic, and this column is based on logic, WHY would the sister share potentially hurtful correspondence with her sibling? Furthermore, it was just a point in time. The letter was not written to either her or her brother. It is certainly not hers to share.
20
I note that LW1 doesn't mention how her aunt reacted to the letter she wrote to her after first informing her of her ex-sister-in-law's death. That might tell you something right there. The daughter would seem to be in a better position to judge her mother's mental state, reaction to such news, etc. Then LW1 tells us that she is a person who avoids confrontation, but she directly contradicted her cousin in front of the cousin's mother when she ran into the two of them. She quite literally imposed her will on her cousin. Sounds pretty confrontational to me. "I wished her a good life and walked away" sounds even more so.
9
To letter writer1: Newsflash. You do not avoid conflict. Your cousin has a 92 year old mother who's still alive. She doesn't want her to have unnecessary mental or physical pain, maybe for her mother's sake, maybe for her own.
You say your cousin is selfish and that in a "compassionate way" you told her mother her sister in law was dead, she'd missed the funeral, and that her daughter had been lying to her.
What possible good came of this? You didn't want to lie about your mother. When asked how she was, you could have said "pretty much the same" which would true.
I agree with your cousin.
24
We, and the Ethicist, only have LW1's assessment of the mental status of his aunt. Notably, we do not have the input of her daughter based on experience and, perhaps, professional medical guidance on sheltering the aunt from troubling news. LW1 ignores the concept of "lucid interval" that is a meaningful expression of how the elderly can appear lucid occasionally when much of the time they are not. LW1 wrongfully appropriated a decision better left to the family member who was closest to the aunt.
6
Is the 92-year old woman's daughter her guardian (or whatever the proper term is)? If not, then she is probably of sound enough mind to make her own decisions and accept the news of someone's death. As such, the daughter has no authority to control the flow of information to her mother. Unless the 92-year old woman is not of sound mind, then it is wrong to lie to her.
2
Re the youngest child/only daughter: she makes the assumption that because a friend of her mother refers to the unborn brother by the eventual daughter's name, that mom was so certain that the baby would be a girl that she had already named that child. It's just as possible that the mother had picked both boy and girl names and that the friend, being teasing or trying to support a hope of the mother for a girl, chose to use the girls name, i.e., that mom was not as fixated on the baby actually being a girl as the daughter assumes. If she shows the letter to her brother & shares her assumption, she will re-enforce his 'mom loved you better' position ('validating' it in her mind), but that could well be a distortion of how mom actually felt during the pregnancy.
Additionally, a letter from a friend during a pregnancy says nothing whatsoever about how a mother feels about the child once it actually arrives. It is not at all uncommon for some sibs to feel that mom loved the youngest better, regardless of gender matches. That does not mean that it is accurate.
16
Did you seriously just tell someone to snitch on an overworked co-worker for trying to balance her schedule (which seems like kinda the purpose of letting them work from home one day a week) and because this busy-body is "afraid" that this co-worker might not "pull her weight" after she returns from maternity leave? Are you SERIOUS? What a shock professional women feel like they get treated unfairly when they have children. And did you stop to think that this person telling the HR department or a board member that a co-worker, who sounds like she may be a lawyer, is breaching her ethical responsibilities to clients might be actionable defamation? What happens when the woman on maternity leave gets fired because a co-worker has decided to make her the scapegoat for being overworked? Wow.
41
Has it occurred to anyone that the disgruntled worker LW 3 might actually talk to the coworker she finds to be potentially slacking? She, and we do seem to consider this a woman, though maybe not--seems to be in the confidence of her target, if that's not too loaded a term. So discussing the problem with her, though sticky, would put the "friend" on guard that she's being watching from close at hand. And that she can expect trouble, in addition to her newborn baby and those responsibilities, should the coworker be unsatisfied in her, or his, requirements of effort. That would at least be honest about the actual feelings of the LW, and his or her own nature.
6
Frankly, death is part of life, and those that hide it miss a part of life. It’s good to tell about death, and no, liars do not deserve to be treated kindly. It was the right decision to tell your aunt and cousin that your mother died. No, your cousin did not deserve advance notice; you did right. If your cousin does not speak to you again, good ridance, frankly.
5
The many well-intentioned people here who think lying is okay if it achieves some mildly good end, such as sparing an elderly person a bit of sadness, are a great illustration of why the country is in the trouble it is.
Repeat after me: lying is bad. Truth is good. Facts matter, and people deserve to have access to correct information that is important to them. This is always true, barring very, very, very obvious exceptions having to do with life or death situations. The case in LW#1’s question is clearly not one of those obvious exceptions.
Everything else is just a distraction. There will always be endless excuses and rationalization for why we should fib a little (or a lot) when reporting on the reality of Santa, “I’ll be there in 10 minutes” (yeah right, more like 25), or otherwise bend the truth to our selfish daily needs and insecurities. We must resist the temptation to resort to dishonesty. The change starts from within - if you want your politicians to tell you the truth, start by making it a point to be a truth-teller yourself.
6
1) Ageist to think a 92-year-old cannot handle the truth. The letter writer did the right thing. Following the directions of your mother's "ex-sister-in-law's" daughter to lie about your mother would be . . . absurd.
2) People have a right to information about themselves. I agree with Kwame: "Let him see the letter."
3) Sounds like a creepy place to work. Agree that an anonymous letter to the board could help. Meanwhile, imho, you should look for a better job, one where you're paid for the hours you put in and where special friends of the bosses get no special treatment.
5
Usually, it strikes me that Mr. Appiah’s insights are sound. But here, I believe he fumbled two of the three questions.
As to #1: The old woman was the mother of the first cousin, and under the cousin’s care, not the care of the letter writer. There might have been circumstances where it would have been at least excusable to blurt out the fact of the letter-writer’s mothers death. But this was not that time.
The cousin had clearly indicated, by telling the white lie, that she had determined, in her role as the caretaker, that the death was best undisclosed. It was entirely inappropriate for the letter writer to usurp the cousin’s role; interpose her own judgment with respect to a person for whom she does not have caretaking responsibilities; and expose the cousin as a liar in front of her mother.
As to #2: The letter was not written to her brother. The letter writer had no obligation to show it to her brother. Whatever the other more potentially “benign“ interpretations that the letter writer and Mr. Appiah might suggest, the one of the brother will most likely come away with is the most elemental one: “See, mom really did love me more than you!“
18
No Greg, regarding #1, you are wrong. This woman is capable of deciding for herself how to handle the knowledge of a loved one's death. By withholding that information, you deprive her of the reason why she hadn't heard from her sister-in-law. You deprive her of that love and connection. It's a betrayal of the woman who died, and of the woman who still lives.
4
What's a "white lie?" A lie? The letter writer was not required to lie just because someone else told her to.
And where does it say the cousin is the aunt's "caretaker?"
And why was it "entirely inappropriate" to tell the woman of the other woman's death? If the cousin did not want to be exposed as a liar, she shouldn't have lied. Directing her cousin to join her in the lie compounds the offense.
As to letter 2, the letter writer should give her brother the letter that was about HIM. Arrogant of an adult to conceal information about another adult.
While the write-up (letter no. 1) does not specifically say that the daughter was the caretaker, it’s a fair assumption that the daughter’s responsibilities for her own mother far exceeded those of the letter writer/cousin. Indeed, the cousin concedes that he/she did not even see the old woman again for another “few months.“
The cousin was, at best, inconsiderate and self-centered. He/she violated the request made by the daughter (never apparently warning the daughter that she was planning to do so), and did so in a way that caused maximum hurt and humiliation for the daughter.
Moreover, the cousin seem motivated more by his/her own feelings (“I felt bad and angry“) than any consideration for the welfare of the old woman. The cousin had no way of knowing if, for example, the old woman had confided in her daughter how devastated she would be if her sister-in-law died. It was reckless of the cousin to assume that this knowledge would in any way comfort or benefit this 92-year-old woman.
As for letter no. 2, you say it’s “arrogant for an adult to conceal information from another adult.“ What if the mother had expressly told the younger sister that she was the favorite child and that the mother frankly disliked the second son? Is that also information that, in fealty to some abstract principle of truth-telling, must be disclosed to her brother? What about kindness and compassion?
8
In the first response, I am surprised that no one noted the undue burden placed on a grieving adult child. No cousin had the right to coerce a person into pretending his or her mother has not died. That was most unkind.
23
With respect to the non-profit employee concerned about her peer working from home and not pulling her weight: The writer reported not having made any attempt to resolve the issue internally through normal HR channels because the employee in question is friends with one of the managers. This does not justify her going above management's head straight to the Board of Directors. It is not, in fact, the role of the board to intervene in the operations of the organization based on ad hoc staff complaints and certainly not anonymous tips. Nor is it fair to the executive team to be blindsided in such a way, with formal escalation paths being circumvented. Whistleblower policies and laws exist to protect employees from retaliation. Boards of Directors hire executive to run organizations and should only intervene in a crisis. You are essentially advising this person to avoid the discomfort of a difficult but orderly grievance management process and inviting the board to scrutinize its senior management out of turn.
15
Re: LW#2. I really thought about this one because I'm not sure there's a clear answer. I think if it were me, though, I would opt to just get rid of that letter and let sleeping dogs lie. With both parents gone, the brother has an opportunity on his own to work through and deal with his feelings about his parents, specifically whether he was less valued than his sister. The letter MIGHT help him by confirming his suspicions, but I think there's an equal chance it would simply hurt him greatly, with no recourse. I think I'd leave it alone, rather than risk making a painful situation worse.
14
Would you want other adults to decide to conceal information about you from you?
1
Potentially. It depends on many factors. Honesty is usually the best policy- but not necessarily when it hurts someone for no reason. It might also depends on how stable or fragile the brother is.
Like I said, I'm not sure there's a clear answer, and not telling him might be a mistake. If he ever found the letter and realized his sister had kept it from him, he might be very angry. I don't think there's always a way to know for sure what is the ethical thing to do. The sister is interested in not hurting her brother, and that's an important ethical concept as well. Ethical dilemmas arise when two or more ethical principles conflict. Honesty isn't the only ethical principle that exists, and it doesn't somehow trump all other ethical principles by default, in my view.
1
The letter writer’s aunt is 92, but based on the information in the letter, she appears to be capable of getting to the park on her own. If so, there is no evidence that she has dementia or any other cognitive issues that would make it necessary to lie to her.
Remember former President Jimmy Carter is 93, and he has an active travel schedule and has appeared on tv recently. Warren Buffet is 87, and still manages billions and dispenses advice to major corporations. Many elderly people aren’t in such good shape, but those who are should not be patronized.
11
As is often the case, the questions published in this column are thought provoking. Ditto, the comments, including those of the Ethicist.
"Managed access to the truth." A well turned phrase to highlight something that
is frequent in society.
Her first thought was to go to management which is the correct course of action. I disagree with your recommendation to go to the Board or write an anonymous letter. This is not a board issue, it is a management issue. The writer did not say how large the organization was. If there is no HR department, then the first step is to go to the paid head of the organization, the President or executive director, not to the Board. If the issue is not resolved, then perhaps to the board. If the writer were to go directly to the board, the ED/President is undermined, may be blindsided by an issue he/she was not aware of and may lose credibility with the board. We had a situation on a board I serve on where we received an anonymous letter raising issues that had not come first to our President. It was an ugly board meeting, the President was unfairly criticized and we subsequently found that the allegations were not true. Many of our board members live in the community and know staff personally and there is always gossip. We made a board policy that if a staff member brings a problem to a board member, the board member's response to the staff member is to take it to the President first. There is a staff policy that that any issues/complaints/ problems should come to the President if they are not addressed by the staff member's supervisor. Once the writer raises her concerns with management, she has handled the situation correctly.
10
I had a similar problem as to whether I should let a senior senior citizen know of another senior senior citizens death. For me it boiled down to what the impact of knowing would have on the senior senior citizen. When someone reaches the ripe old age of 90 most of your friends have left this earth. In my situation the person still alive became very sad with each notification of someone's death. She began to feel that there was almost no one left - All the friends were scattered living near the ownir relatives and they spoke to one another only occasionally and saw each other very infrequently. I chose not to tell making this woman feel bad and dwell on her mortality under the circumstances I felt served no good purpose. I wanted her to look forward to life not backward toward death.
7
Did you tell them that their friends were still alive or simply not inform them of their friends' deaths (i.e. bring it up)?
1
Will you be willing to let another adult decide what you should be thinking about when you are at the "ripe old age of 90?" What about 89?
9
Regarding the first case, to deny someone the truth when they are capable of handling it is a power move often aimed at serving one’s own defense system against life’s inevitable suffering. It sounds like the cousin may have been trying to protect herself. Be honest with the elderly. And, respect the reality of intuition. The aunt knew intuitively that something was amiss.
Regarding the third case, this is a management issue not a Board issue. Talk to the CEO confidentially.
2
The CEO--what?! Tell on your coworker who's about to have a baby to the CEO of your company because you think she might be working less than you think she ought--- Wow. That takes finking to a whole new level. If I were the CEO, I would advise you to go through channels as other disgruntled coworkers do. I would suggest that trying to cut off a new mother's income and insurance was unworthy. And I would mention to your supervisor that you might be happier somewhere else. I'm astonished at the people cheering on a trouble-maker at such a pitch.
8
Agree that old people, like middle-aged people and young people, deserve the truth.
2
LW 2: Do not show your brother the letter. It isn't "proof" that he was loved less, although he may interpret it that way. The letter wasn't even written by your mother. I know the name I would have had as a boy, and I was (and am) loved by my parents.
32
Whether the letter about the brother proves anything or not, it's about him, and he should be given any and all information about himself.
Just as in adoption cases, it's cruel and arrogant to withhold information from adults about their history.
1
Is it really about him? It contains a reference to him (or the unborn child that would up being him), but there's not much more than that disclosed.
2
I disagree with the last advice. Someone else’s work arrangements are not anyone else’s business.
If the co-worker pulls her weight, it shouldn’t matter to her colleagues. If she doesn’t, it will be evident and you can raise the issue then, when it is affecting you and the team.
A co-worker that readily admits they don’t work to another won’t last long.
15
It would be very nice if everyone in the work place pulled his/her own weight or and if not, was honest about the deficit and If they didn't speak up, was noticed for having contributed less, and therefore disciplined or dismissed. None of these things can be fully expected, in my experience of the workplace.
4
With regard to the first letter: The inquiry should, I believe, begin with the question of what good the LW would be trying to accomplish, whether by revealing the death or withholding the information. It seems to me that he or she made the wrong decision initially (to withhold), then compounded it with another wrong decision (to belatedly reveal). In both cases the error arises because LW acted from a wrong motive, that is, his or her own 'righteousness' rather than the welfare of the elderly aunt. One can justify, for the aunt's sake, not telling her; she's 92, and the secret won't have to be kept much longer. But once so decided, stick with it, or you lose the good you sought, of sparing her, and make yourself look like a self-righteous jerk, as well as a patronising liar -- which, arguably, you are now both, and have succeeded in making your cousin look bad and putting her in a bad position. That's some hat trick you've scored in the bad-decisions department.
20
To the last writer,
Do us all a favor and report this abuse of the system via connections. Report it right to the board if need be. There is enough dead weight in the workplace without the free-ridership of people taking “work from home” to mean take a day off.
11
Why would that be a favor to "us"? It sounds to be like that worker is all up in her coworker's business, and given that the coworker is working nights to make it up, and has arranged the maternity leave, etc., we only have the LW's "fear" that the coworker may not do her share. IF the work isn't done, the bosses will notice, and if it's the coworker's job, then she's in the line of fire, so to speak. But the LW here is talking about one day a week, which she is also allowed, and casting a very busy eye, a very jaundiced eye, all over her coworker's life. And at a time when that worker really does have a lot on her plate, as even company policy, hardly noted for a soft touch, takes into account. The coworker should be aware that this LW is NOT a friend, and that her confidences belong elsewhere, in my view.
24
Don't be so uick to grant the coworker the benefit of the doubt. If she is " often unavailable when she is supposed to be working", then - assuming LW3's being truthful - she's holding up the resolution of issues that have arisen with clients that it's her job to fix, so that the rest of the team has to scramble to cover for her. (It would be another thing if she made herself available wherever she was during work hours on her smartphone.)
I've known people who goof off when claiming to work from home - with one worker I supervised, I had to put an end to it and insist that she come into the office.
5
The letter was one of many of the late mother's "old papers." Put them in a box and ask your brother if he wants to review. He may have no interest; he may want to review everything; he may want a keepsake sample of your mother's handwriting. I would not curate your mother's received correspondence and hand one piece to one child. By the way, my name would have been Christopher if I were a boy and my brother (not a Christopher) would have been Irene if he were a girl.
26
About lying vs. telling "painful truths." Unless we are the parents of young children--in which case this role is ours whether we want it or not--we are showing people great disrespect when we "decide for them" what truth is "good for them"; and great disrespect for ourselves when we let others decide for us that we should lie.
There may be reasons why an aunt should not be told of an illness or death (e.g., "The last time we told her your mom was ill, she stopped eating and tried to kill herself"), so such information should be sought from any one requesting a lie. Absent such an extreme reason, truth wins: tell the aunt the truth, and tell the brother you have information if he wants it.
The work question sounds like jealousy. However, fairness dictates that other employees--including men--should have family leave after a child's birth and be allowed to work from home for a specified period; and that job evaluation should be performance-based, not friend-based or rumor-based.
11
Yes. It was.
1
It is not apparent from the letter that the aunt was competent to absorb the news of her sister-in-law's passing. I would trust my first cousin's opinion.
16
Why in heck would LW 2 think that showing her brother a letter written neither to LW 2 nor the brother a good idea? I doubt that LW 2 should even have read it. And saying "why yes, you were a disappointment to our dead mother just as you feared"-- golly! Why? I try not to look too closely at motives of people who go out of their way to pass on painful information when they need not. So I won't speculate. Just. Don't. No one wins.
84
I think the headline is asking the wrong question. Subject to the standard conditions about the state of mind, etc. of the aging relative, it is NOT OK to let her believe Mx. Withheld's mother was still alive. The issue instead, is what to do about having agreed to lie to the aging relative. Save for the few months of the aging relative being misinformed, the cousin was the one who was wronged ("wronged" used pretty loosely; perhaps her just punishment for putting Mx. Whithheld into the situation in the first place).
The request should have been denied from the outset. A commitment to not bring up the topic could be offered. Once that ship sailed, the cousin should have been told privately that Mx. Withheld would not lie to her mother, not in company with said mother.
So yes, the situation could have been handled better. But I would guess there are bigger issues between the cousin and her mother.
8
Don't show your brother the letter. After my father died, I read a letter about what he thought of me that devastated me. I wish I hadn't seen it. Before I read it, I could think that it was only my imagination. Afterwards, it was fact. It still stings 30 years later.
126
A friend flipped through a few pages of one of her dad’s 68 journals after he died. There she found unflattering thoughts and feelings he had toward her. She is still very sorry she looked, years later.
24
He left 68 journals behind, knowing/hoping they would be read?
This entire column is about people that need to learn to mind their OWN business. It's pervasive " Moral Vanity ". And, it's just cruel to tell very elderly, possibly confused people about deaths. What can they change?
Nothing. Sometimes, it's KIND to lie. Just saying.
53
I agree. It's cruel. It is self-serving of LW#1 to tell the mother. I have to wonder about this person's intent.
16
Plenty of elderly people, even very elderly people, are of sound enough mind to accept news of a person's death.
By your logic, obituaries should be banned from newspapers. What can readers change?
10
I wonder about all three of their intents.
2
Alfred Adler hung a whole theory of psychology on the concept of sibling rivalry. These three letter writers fairly ooze with barely disguised jealousy. LW#1 set up a scenario where she could stick it to her cousin by humiliating her in front of her mother and then precipitated a verbal altercation; LW#2 seems to want to rub it in to her brother (although the implication that their mother always wanting a girl does not even suggest that the brother was not wanted nor loved). Adler believed that middle children often felt unloved because the eldest got more attention when he was an only child for a while and the youngest displaced the middle child. LW #2, while denying it, looks like she would like to hurt her brother's feeling. As for #3, she is so jealous that another worker gets some privilege she does not have "because she is friends with the bosses" (read "parents").
Many of the people who write to Dr. Appiah's column are so painfully naive or unaware of their underlying motives, it is sometimes embarrassing to read their rationalizations and self-justifications.
87
LW#2: Can't you tell him about the letter first, then see if he wants to read it?
7
Despite my fondness for honesty and transparency, telling a 92 year old aunt - who we are to assume, does not have the mental resources at this point to make a phone call herself - that her "ex-sister-in-law" has died, was a mistake. If her daughter - who we are to assume is involved in her mother's care - does not think it's a good idea, we defer to her. I know it is an uncomfortable challenge maintaining a lie for 10 minutes every few weeks, but who have you served other than your own vanity by defying your cousin's wishes? You "felt bad and angry" that you had lied, so for your own benefit, you were virtuous to yourself and blurted out information that was of no or questionable benefit to your aunt.
The good part of this is that your cousin, in the midst of caring for mother, can channel whatever caregiving frustrations await, into annoyance and anger at the inappropriate actions of her naive cousin.
42
With regard to the letter about the unborn baby: the conclusion about the valuing of the second child based on just referring to the fetus by the later daughter's name seems like a way overreach to me, and nothing at all like proof the second son was less loved. Yes, the letter writer should share (or at least not conceal) the mother's letters in a general way, but it seems like hurtful overreach to present this one as evidence that mom loved her brother less.
47
While I agree with you about the letter not being proof of the parents loving that son less, it will likely be taken as proof by that son.
20
Yes, I think if I were the LW and had decided to hand the letter (or all the letters) to my brother, I would staple to it a letter from me, stating any experiences/memories I had of the parents' expressing warm feelings about him, and telling him that *I* love him for everything he was as a child and became as a man.
1
Let him decide. He is likely to be delighted to find an old letter about himself. Why should his sister and a newspaper columnist make a decision about another adult?
The third LW does not have an ethical dilemma, but a business question - and deserved an answer that makes sense in the business world.
The LW needs to talk to her immediate boss about the problem, which is then the boss's problem to solve. Do not make an end run around around your boss, much less all the way to HR or the board. This is not an HR problem; the board does not do direct supervision of employees. And HR is not your friend; they are hired to keep the company out of trouble.
The LW will not only burn a bridge with the immediate boss, but appear to have poor judgment and a taste for drama.
57
I’d focus on creating a big fat paper trail of evidence supporting your assertions that fecund colleague’s goldbricking causes more work for you. As a former boss, that’s the only information that I would have even looked at if one of my staff had brought such an accusation to my attention. Good bosses don’t “do” gossip and innuendo.
14
Yes, and not just "appear to". As the boss or a board member, I might well see the LW as a trouble-maker, or at least a poor team member. A fink is seen by many as being worse than a tired new mom, or even a worker who may (or may not) by slacking somewhat. It wouldn't be the new mom I would be likely to let go.
4
The Ethicist’s advice is a good way to make an enemy of your boss and possibly entangle you in board politics and drama. Rarely is going to the board without the approval of your boss a good idea. Having a direct conversation with your boss is a better idea. You could say, “I am having trouble getting in touch with Sally today and have a pressing matter. How would you like me to handle this situation?” Keep your focus on getting your job done, keep it professional and focus on your work. You never know why someone might have a different arrangement - making assumptions about the reason paints you in a whining light (it’s not fair!) and that’s not going to cast an attractive hue. If favoritism is involved you’re not going to fix it - only make yourself look bad.
9
"I'm telling you this for your own good"... but actually it is for my own good, in that it relieves me from having to carry on a pretense. If the sister-in-law wasn't made aware of the illness and its progression, there's nothing great to be gained by introducing great sadness into her world. Barring some unusual situation, it's ok to allow someone to assume the healthy and cheerful status of a party who is no longer with us. The urgency to share bad news is not helping the recipient; when someone reaches 92, there has been no shortage of bad news and loss. A little more energy could have been put into making the response something besides an uncomfortable, blatant lie, and the big confession (I cannot tell a lie. Mom's dead and your daughter has been deceiving you) just created tension where none need be.
41
Whether or not there is something to be gained by introducing great sadness into the world of the aunt is neither here nor there; she asks, so she wants to know and should be treated like an adult and told the truth. Death is a part of life and mourning a passing is healthy. I would hate to think that just because I'm of a certain age people around me think they have the right to decide what I should and shouldn't hear. Just because I'm old doesn't mean I'm mentally fragile or unable to process and mourn naturally the loss of someone close. Learning of a friend's death allows us to often put our own lives in perspective and think of how important that person was to us or to reach out to their family and offer support. We feel sad then we move on, because that's what we do. Surviving a loss is the rule and not the exception. Furthermore, allowing someone to assume the 'healthy and cheerful status' of those no longer with us is how we treat children. And does anyone consider how stressful it might be for the daughter to have to lie and pretend her mom is still alive?
17
Not OK, and lying to elderly is a bad policy. My Mom had Alz then cancer, I was her caregiver and I always told her the truth. Just like she did when I was a child. In terms of reading books or seeing art drawings of naked people, she would says if it means something the kid should persue it, and if they are too young they will not understand and won't.
Same thing with her older. I did occasionally have to report sad news a few times, but if it was too overwhelming it just disappeared and never come up again.
Hope you tell your kids and relatives it is expected that they lie to you at age XX.
1
Re: #3: The first thing I would ask myself is, why is it considered acceptable for a non-profit to routinely expect more than 40 hours a week from its workers? Are they being paid overtime for all this extra effort? I suspect not. If the work is getting done in a timely way, it shouldn't matter when that work is happening during the day. Presumably, all involved are responsible professionals - that is why there is the flexibility to work from home in the first place. I suspect the letter writer is resentful because they assume the one person is receiving special treatment, but it sounds like the flexibility is available to everyone. There may well be other considerations the writer is not aware of - perhaps the co-worker is actually someone the organization is fortunate to have, and are therefore more accommodating? Unless there is a direct line between the flexibility and the writer working longer hours, then leave it alone.
If you resent being made to work nights and weekends, forget the co-worker and stand up for yourself to management, and make it clear expecting a number of hours of unpaid work every week is unrealistic and unprofessional. If the writer is not prepared to stand up for themselves, then they shouldn't complain about a colleague who has negotiated different (favorable) terms.
100
I always have the impression the column does not regard labor relations with the same care devoted to other relations in our lives.
2
With regard to LW#2, there is an approach that asks (1) is it true, (2) is it kind, and (3) is it necessary, when considering whether to make a statement.
Two of the three are required.
Handing over the letter should qualify as a statement for this purpose. I consider that it may not be true in the sense that it confirms the brother's sense of his mother's evaluation of him - one should instead look to the entirety of the relationship. Whether it is kind is also in doubt - it may cause or reinvigorate hurt. Whether it is necessary is even more doubtful - nothing can be done with it now except to (further) impair the brother's memory of his mother.
There are truly times when silence is the better approach, and this seems to be one such time.
45
#1 and #2 without #3 is just fine, but wouldn't an affirmative #3 (Is it necessary?) make #1 and #2 irrelevant?
4
#1: I agree that the well-meaning cousin should not have asked that her mother be kept in the dark. But the letter-writer, having agreed to this request, should not have broken her agreement in the way she did. Rather, she should have told the cousin that she could not continue the deception, and let the cousin decide how her mother was going to learn the news that her daughter had been lying to her.
#2 Share the letter, but make no assumptions or comments about how the brother should or might react to it. The parents were the parents of all their offspring, and one sibling does not have the right to hide the letter from another sibling.
#3 Particularly with legal work, the amount of time spent on a task often does not correlate to the quality of the end result. If the colleague is doing her share of the work and doing it well, then how many hours she spends at it (or when those hours occur) are not the co-worker's business. I suspect the letter-writer would feel less disgruntled, and the organization would be better served, if the tasks involved were thought of not as a product of x number of hours, but rather as a series of goals that need to be accomplished. That way, it would be immediately clear whether the colleague was indeed shirking - that is, goals not accomplished - or was just particularly efficient - that is, goals accomplished although in fewer hours. The latter should be applauded, not criticized.
29
Agree with your point about #2.
I totally disagree with the second answer. Just because the mother was hoping for a girl in no way implies that she was disappointed with the second son. Lots of children feel, incorrectly, that their parents didn't love them as much as the siblings (Mom loved you best). Sharing the letter would probably make the brother just feel worse and may not be exposing a truth. How would not sharing the letter be any different than if it had never been found? Here's some advice. Put the letter back where you found it and if you brother finds it, he finds it. If he doesn't, he doesn't.
115
@ Herman, and Ethicist, I would probably burn that letter and never speak of it. All it would add to the brother's store of memories is more suspicion, without any way to work out the feelings.
I agree with you that fact that the sentiments expressed in one letter - not even written by the mother - does not mean this is the truth.
If the LW believes from her own experience that her brother was treated BADLY, not differently, and this actually comes up for discussion, SHE can validate his feelings based on her own perceptions, instead of third hand impressions from an old letter never intended for her eyes.
76
Too many people think it's their "right" to know everything, especially about their parents or families, including their thoughts and feelings form decades prior. It's absurd.
27
I had the weird experience as an eventual middle child hearing my Mother telling a friend how happy she was to have me after losing the other one. [I was on stairs.]
Not only did I not know about a potential older brother, I was astounded to think my Mom was positive about me.
1
I'm sure that the cousin in Letter 1 meant well by wanting to shield her aged mother from the news of the death of the writer's mother. But the reality is that it is often the case that well-meaning measures, whether in personal life or governance, is premised on some faulty ideas and can cause more harm than good.
It is reflective of our rather negative view of seniors that such news would "be too difficult". Rather, I suggest, most older people have a far more realistic view of death and dying (and perhaps a host of other things) than younger generations, accepting it is just part of life. As noted by Mr. Appiah, absent an underlying circumstance like dementia, there is no reason to keep such information from older people. It is condescending and mean, and deprives them of some basic elements of human dignity, like being able to grieve and say goodby to a dear one.
59
I agree with the Ethicist that LW1 should have given the cousin a call to tell her that she couldn't continue to pretend her mother was alive.
I want to endorse @ George S's view that keeping bad news from elders is almost always unfair: sadness is human, sharing sadness is part of how we maintain bonds. Keeping family losses from older members isolates them more.
Dementia does make things more complicated. You have to tailor the news to the individual. One woman I know with moderate to severe Alzheimers no longer has any chronological sense of time, and her mind is fully populated now with people from her youth. That, in a way ,is her reality, and insisting that she "learn" of someone's disease or death would be distressing.
My own mother is losing memory, and the past is also mixed up but it is more as if all of the separate memories are merging in a kind of haze. Sometimes she asks me specifically where a particular person is, or if certain people are still alive, because she has been ruminating about them, and can't rely on her own mind to keep them straight - she does know she is confused. So I tell her the truth,as simply as possible, and she most always says, "I thought so."
42
That is best way to go. If unbearable she will forget. And of course as I am sure you know, no point in constant reminders that people with her are not, they are to her.
But a direct question should always be answered truthfully.
Lying to people with dementia is akin to gaslighting--and especially when so much more is uncertain in their perception.
1