She has since had a healthy baby and is usually beaming.
But, from personal experience, I would not assume that she is anything like "over" losing the other child.
My own problems with seasonal / occasional depression have resembled something of a bell curve- not bad at first, then really bad, then not very bad. The threat of depression never really goes away, but the likelihood of having bad days generally dies down over time, especially if the gap from what you were missing (IE child, job, spouse, sibling, family, pets) gets filled by something else.
May peace be unto you.
(Ping me if you want info about an organization called "The Compassionate Friends" specifically for bereaved parents.)
That night his son passed away silently in his sleep - Not even 12 hours since we talked at the viewing about how surreal losing a child would be. Their baby simply stopped breathing. We’re all still in some level of shock.
Hug your little ones and appreciate the time you get with them. You never know when your life can go the other direction.
Please be good to "Paul", and do not expect him to "get over it" anytime soon. It doesn't work like that in my experience.
If he and family are ready for it, perhaps mentioning The Compassionate Friends -- along with its link I've posted elsewhere in this page -- might be gratefully received?
My local chapter is wonderful, and has kept my wife and I as sane as we are after losing our (only) son.
May peace be unto "Paul".
If you don’t mind my asking what part of the world are you in?
BUT what's the limiting principle behind 'forcing' companies to provide 'a great deal of leave' for this?
I certainly agree that it's reasonable for an employer to offer bereavement time for the loss of a close family member, but why should this be made into law?
Your argument can be turned on just about any labor law. "It may be reasonable for a company to do this, but why should they be forced?" The answer is without reasonable minimum standards, some people will exploit their employees.
What I have seen for actually grieving is that either people go back to work or they go to a doctor and get diagnosed with acute stress or depression because of the situation. I suspect that if the case in the article had occurred in Sweden then that is what actually would happen and the person would have got a few months to recover.
When employers provide this social good they will inevitably call some of the shots; why should their voice have influence on this matter?
To me, this is similar to the public coming to the feeling that digital public spaces are worthy, but then the conversation turns to whether Facebook should be the one doing it...
My preference would be for law makers started with laws that forced companies to give theirs workers a fair days pay for a fair days work.
Because hypothetical employers who are actually benevolent are forced to compete with those who aren't, absent regulation? AKA a "race to the bottom".
When corporations send me stuff in writing every day saying that they can only do the minimum mandated by law in respect to any ethical matter, I have to wonder whose opinion it really represents to say that minimum standards aren't necessary.
This shouldn't be limited to losing a newborn child. Losing a child at any stage of life is devastating.
No. The society should help you out, the company shouldn't be forced to do that.
Individuals can buy this sort of life insurance for themselves without the help of their employers. Given that it is, as you say, "cheap" there isn't an economic burden either.
Why would we want employers intruding into yet another aspect of individual's lives? We're all well aware of the problems that come from having employers responsible for health insurance.
Also, consider for a moment how you'd feel being given a huge payout for a lost child. The money can't fix anything, but it's kind of nice to have money, and then you start feeling guilty about that, and it's a whole quagmire of badness.
Businesses aren't your parents. They shouldn't be involved in stuff this personal.
Whether leave is paid or unpaid, this should be treated in the same way as any disability or health related leave. IMHO it would be cheap for companies to simply buy infant life insurance for all employees and pay out $25,000 or so if this horrific thing comes to pass. That would help everyone at a reasonable cost since infant deaths and still births are so rare these days.