What would you do?

[Chavvy]

Scenario:

Someone I know (by six degrees of separation) has acute pancreatitis and has been given 5 years (max) to live. He has a wife and 3 kids to support. What would you do given this situation?

Would you:

a) Continue working at your (highly) paid job in the interim and thus provision for them something to live off for the rest of their lives.

OR

b) Quit the job, sell what you can (within reason) and spend as much time as possible with them.

?
___________________________________

I would do b) purely based on the fact that it is somewhat pointless leaving a legacy if your children can not appreciate who left it to them. They are your only consideration in life and will be provided for after you die by, at a minimum, the state whereas the time you spend with them before you die cannot have a price put to it.

I can understand the point made by a) as you would want them to be looked after and not to have to suffer financially as well. Another point to consider is that the loss will be easier to take if the children aren't as attached to you as the mother.

So, guys/gals/thingies, what are your thoughts? I will elaborate if there is any ambiguity where possible but consider that sometimes life is not always so clear cut. :)


if this goes well i may well continue the thread to other 'lose/lose'/what if scenarios

[McFrenzy]

I would continue working, maybe reduce the hours a little becuse five years is a long time in medicine and if a cure or new treatment came about but came with a price tag your friend could do well to afford it.

I also think that selling everythning means a family of four (those left behind) would have nothing, and nothing is a high price for a fading memory no matter how good.

Just my opinion.

I would also take a read of this link; http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/pancreatitis/

[Angel@heart]

I think that if it was me i'd explain the current situation to my employer and ask what he/she thought was best to do.
It is a very unlucky situation and i send out my best wishes to anyone in that situation.
You've got to make the most of the life you have.

[Thomp]

I'd work for a year, really really hard to earn some cash. Then I'd spend it wisely on my family, as you need to spend time with them and give them memories of you :)

If I had to choose a) or b), it would be b)

[GorillaBearBear]

The real kicker is that it's not certain to be five years. Could be one, could be 20, whatever, so it's hard to say. If it was me I'd try and work something out with my bosses where I can work fewer hours, so that you can continue to prepare for any eventuality but still get time with your family.

[moovok]

A few years back I would have taken out tons of loans, but nowadays it goes to the spouce to pay it all back, so I would probably cut the hours but spend about 6 out of 7 days with my family, maybe all that cash I was saving up would go to help them out, I would have been killing myself since I didn't get life insurance and try to plan for their future and hopefully let me wife be alright.

There's a person I know who has cancer on her spine, terminal, can't remove it, she'll die within the next year or so, I know she trundles on like nothing happened, working, etc. and she spends equal amounts of time with her husband. She's looking better, so who knows... that person could have a longer life as well...

[da-geezer]

I'm going to buck the trend and call a).

Things are different in my scenario though, as i'm a police officer, and I'll be helping people every day of by working life. I'd much render assistance to those who are in immediate danger or who are requesting urgent help. Sure, it's nice to spend time with the wife, kids, and whatever and I really would use the time I had with them. But, I feel that other people would be in worse situations that my family and I, and I'd do my damndest to try and help.

That said, spending time with the family would be a excellent thing to do, simply because you'll be able to enjoy the finer points in life. But even so, I'm easily pleased; my ideal holiday is tucked up in bed for example. Nah, I don't think I'd change anything, and continue on as normal until i'm physically unable to do so (where plan b would come into effect anyway) or until I conk out.

Bottom line: it's a pretty shitty decision to make.

[argh]

I'd work, but try for fewer hours, or see if there's any way I could work from home some. I'd also definatly take my vacations and go somewhere as a family, not as a family where everyone splits up as soon as they get there. I just think that fewer really good memories is better then a lot of mediocore ones.

[SPACKlick]

I'd work, as much. And depending on the age of the kids i'd do different things. With children over 8 i explain to them the situation and try and lessen the blow for them with preparation. With children under 5 i try not to be a major factor in their lives except financially so that when i am gone they are not adversley effected. with the 5-8 year olds it dependa on the kid which one i do.

I spend as little money on myself as possible and make my sole aim preparing a bedrock of support for my family when i die.

[Al]

Personally I'd drop everything and join the efforts in any way I can to find a cure for what I have. At least then I'd go out having done something worthwhile for the rest of mankind, even if I can't save myself.

[Jelibeli]

I feel genuinely sorry for this person who has to make this decision, not only because they must be suffering themselves, but they know their family is also suffering, but they can do nothing to stop it.

If I had a good-paying job, I'd go for "a". Make sure my family are financially OK, invest in stuff, pay for uni for the kids, pay the house off (unless it's insured against my death, which mine is), make sure they all have enough money behind them to not be short when I'm gone. I'd feel that I'd spent my last years doing something worthwhile, and I'd die content.

And make the most of every single second I am with them.

[Cjw]

Christ, that is a really tough decision to be put upon anybody.

I'd probably work enough to leave the family plenty of money to get by with, and would definatly spend as much time with them as possibile.

As for telling the kids, this is a really hard thing to advise on, as everyone reacts different to something like this. Although, i would probably tell them, just to save the mother from difficult to answer "Where is daddy?" questions.

[drivermini]

hmmmmm that's a tough 1... well since i don't have a job... lol, if i did have a job, i'd work slightly less and spend more time with the family, i'd want them to have money when i'm gone

[crab]

Well, I would jump on the bandwagon, I'm afraid, and say a) but reduce the hours, for all reasons given above.

I would also have to say a) if it was a clear-cut choice, as I'd rather provision for them than spend my time with them, and I think it was put best in this (paraphrased) quote from checkmate: "I am their past. They are my future." It's no point in giving them a past, if you can't provide them with a future.

I expect my actions would be less idealogical if I was actually put on the spot here, though.

[Cynic]

I'd have to go for choice A. I can't sacrifice my my children's future so I can enjoy my last moments. It's a cold hard decision but maybe it'll hurt them less if I'm more "Distant." The closeness I would develope with them if I took B and spent all my time with them would be very damaging.

It isn't an easy choice but situations such as this where their is no clear way to "win" are the true test of a person's character.

I expect my actions would be less idealogical if I was actually put on the spot here, though.

I agree. I read in a poll once that people were asked if given the choice they'd die and let a baby live or live and let a baby die. Most people (More than 90%) said they'd sacrifice themselves but my friends thought I was a monster when I said I wouldn't. But I wonder, how many people really would do it. For a child who hasn't got a fully developed brain and has hardly lived compared to someone in their prime or someone with a family to support? Who they know nothing about?

Personally I'd drop everything and join the efforts in any way I can to find a cure for what I have. At least then I'd go out having done something worthwhile for the rest of mankind, even if I can't save myself.

That'd be a waste. Whatever it is their are already research teams looking into it. You'd need the general Medical qualifications and well as the specialisation in that area. Then you'd need someone to fund your research which is hard to find. If it's a common condition they probably already have people looking into it. If it's uncommon it's not worth the money for them. Research takes ages as well. Your family of five can't like on a researcher salary either.

[whiskers]

work for another year, then sell his stuff.

[Discodoris]

I wouldn't be the one to have to make a decision - being female. But, if you have dependents - it is only prudent to insure yourself whilst you are in good health. If my darling husband dies, our mortgage will be paid off and I will have a small lump sum and a pension paid to me for the rest of my life. He does even better if I die, because I am more highly insured than he is (the lump sum is way way bigger). Pensions and insurance - two ways to not face the heartbreak decision. And yes, we both have critical life insurance too - if either of us is diagnosed with a fatal illness, we will have a large sum of money to spend together before we get separated.

Given that I haven't taken any of these precautions and I am male - assist wife to find job and look after children in the interim for as long as possible, thus spending quality time with kids and preparing for the future...