"Yes, you did kill your mother," by equivalent permission from Prudie's "You did not kill your mother. The letter had nothing to do with her death."

How does Prudie know this? And how does she justify asserting it contrary to Sad Son's evidence? Everyone knows that old folks succumb to illness more readily when depressed, as we all do, and one of the more depressing things is to perceive yourself a burden on others. Those general facts are far from controversial. Another that bolsters my harsh conclusion is that Sad Son likely knows his mother and can read her, knows his family and can read them--he as much as says so. If he thinks she was hurt by their posture regarding her financial needs, she probably was.

So, Prudie, if admitting a problem is necessary before fixing it, why did you preclude the possibility of fixing it for Sad Son? Is it so horrible that writing those letters pushed her into an early grave? You could have helped him by noting that at that fragile stage, there's precious little we can do to prevent our parents suffering some unhappy blow; they're going to get depressed as aging destroys them, and we with limited means aren't going to be able to protect them from ugly realities like being a financial burden.

It helps to remember we're going to travel the same road, and to judge ourselves by what we expect when it's our turn.

As I was reading her response, I felt strongly that Prudence was--perhaps transparently, but kindly--sparing the LW's feelings. Although I almost weekly take issue with some of Prudie's advice, I cannot fault her for this kindness, no matter how disingenuous. The mother is dead, and the son's wallowing in abject guilt will do nothing to restore her to him. (Although, without guidance of the type you suggested above, the son might go on and blab emotionally upsetting information to other frail elderly people).

You make a good point ... and your parenthetical at the end is the comment the whole thing was screaming for.

Disagree. He didn't kill her. The cause of death wasn't listed as death by letter. He may have depressed her, but that isn't a death sentence. Depression is a factor - but many old people die right after the holiday season, trying to make sure that they allow the family to enjoy the season. It's as equally as likely as his letter depressed his mother to the point where she died of embarassment. Had his mother taken better care of her money, or if some of the other siblings were helping her out all those years, he would have never been put in that situation anyways.

He had worked two jobs to support her for many years, he sent the letter out of love, not to embarass his mother, he deserves to be free of guilt.

I actually agree with the larger point you are trying to make - about taking the long view. I just don't see the need to blame anyone for someone passing away in this sort of circumstance...

It's as equally as likely as his letter depressed his mother to the point where she died of embarassment.

Well, that's sort of what I meant by 'you did kill your mother'.

We can blow out a candle by not moving it from the window while knowing a breeze is coming up (to take a classic example from the middle ages). You don't need to use your hands to kill someone, and of course, writing the letters was at most a mere contributive cause, and a weak one at that.

I don't think Sad Son should feel especially bad (a connotation of 'blame'); I think he should recognize he erred in writing the letters, should get a better counselor, and should see this otherwise minor mistake in the light of his 20 years of financial support ... it's not like he was mean or aloof.

I guess the only point i disagree with was that he erred in writing the letter. If the choice was asking his siblings for help supporting her, or letting her starve - it really isn't a choice. He probably did make an error in telling her afterwards instead of before - but maybe this is one of those "it's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission" deals.

This is crazy talk!! As far as I can tell from the letter, this man did absolutely nothing wrong. He wanted to care for his mom, but could no longer do so financially - so he wrote to his siblings to see if they could help. He told her about the letter - probably so as not to do anything behind her back, which would have been disrespectful. If he hadn't told her, it would be far more like "geez, what are we gonna do about mom? I can't carry her anymore." He was trying not to treat her like a burden, and it doesn't seem like he ever felt she was one.

He was looking out for a loved one! And doing it the best way he knew how. Prudie's response was right on.

Or, he could have told the mom so she'd know he was going to find another way for her to be cared for. I really don't see any mistake here, or any "lesson to learn."

We all feel guilty and like we need to do more for our elderly relatives. But the point is that they are going to die, and if we are loving people, we will never, ever feel like we did enough while they were with us. That is likely why this guy is beating himself up over this.

I agree.

I think the son had two better alternatives (missing them is a moral error, but perhaps forgivably subtle); one is to get the sibs together with Mom and talk about her finances and what they can do. That's what a non-disfunctional family does. The other alternative is to go to the sibs and remind them of their responsibility in private. On the latter choice, telling Mom after the fact puts the whole thing on display; how will she comport herself now around her children? They all sound like such dolts that none of them were going to break the silence and discuss it openly. It's a shame but it's probably all too common.

I have nothing but compassion for the son who worked 2 jobs for twenty years so he could help support his mom. What I couldn't understand is why the rest of the family wasn't doing the same thing for her!

If his siblings had all been doing their part, he wouldn't have had to take a second job and the mother probably would have been happier to know that all of her children were contributing to her support, not just one son.

Seems that the letter writer is the only one who really cared about the woman. I'd like to know why. Also, he never stated how his siblings reacted to his letter. My guess is they ingnored the hell out of it.

He has absolutely nothing to feel guilty about. I hope he realizes that asap.

Also, Prudie's response to this letter writer was spot on, for a change.

I have

I totally agree, Eudora, this IS crazy talk. The other posters here are nuts. The son is a kind, caring, generous man, more so than 99.9% of people in this world, including, apparently, his multiple siblings who he obviously felt so uncomfortable with that he couldn't even talk to them face to face about their Mom's financial situation, he had to write them letters.

The Mom was probably silent when he told her because none of the siblings had chosen to help her out. He shouldn't have told the Mom about the letters if he felt that the situation was such that it was possible that none of her other children had chosen to help her - if this is what happened I am sure that she was crushed. But that is a minor quibble. Against 20 years of love and support, it doesn't even signify. But this is a lot of speculation and should have, would have, could have.

Ultimately, his mother was elderly and ill and she died. He didn't neglect her, he didn't poison her, he didn't starve her to death. He is not in any way 'responsible for her death' you nutcases. He may feel he didn't do everything perfectly in her last days to help her out and he feels guilty. I know this feeling well. But he did the best he could. It is all any of us can do.

I must vehemently (and respectfully) disagree that any moral mistake was made - if any mistake was even made. "Moral" would imply that the son believed ahead of time that the mother would react poorly and went ahead and did it anyway (again, assuming he did anything wrong at all, which I don't). What you may mean is a mistake of etiquette, if anything. Although, again I must say that it does not sound like the son tried to do anything other than 1) make sure his mom was well-cared for, and 2) let her know how he planned to do so.

Also, I do not think calling a family meeting would have made the mom feel any less on display - in fact, I think then she really would feel on display. At the end of the day, she was old and possibly ill and sad in the way that many elderly people are, because it can be a very lonely time of life. The son should not feel he did anything wrong - wherever she is now, I'm sure she understands.

I appreciate your civility. I don't mean to rile you, but I think negligence in matters of etiquette become moral matters if they're important enough. From Sad Son's description, I think he exhibits a moral failing in not recognizing the predicament he put his mother in. That such a predicament likely depressed her and sent her to an early grave is his own judgement on pretty good evidence he presents. What's missing is his sharing out the blame to where it more substantially belongs: the silent, unhelpful sibs without which his clumsy honesty would have meant nothing.

So, this guy has helped support his mother for 20 years, and then he is unable to do so, and then a therapist tells him to write letters to his siblings asking for their help. Most people think that therapists know a lot more than they do about relationships and stuff. Wouldn't most of us follow what the therapist recommended? It seemed like a reasonable response at the time. Perhaps, as some posters have said, it might have made her feel even more depressed, but one thing wouldn't make someone go instantly downhill and kill her in five or six weeks. I just can't buy that. Perhaps her depression was very severe, and this was another straw on her otherwise heavy mental health.

I will have to make a comment about supporting your mother when you think that no one else is helping. We bought a cheap house for my MIL where she lived for more than 20 years before her death, and thought that none of the other siblings were contributing to her support. Years later, we found letters that made us realize that her daughter was sending little household things to help her out. Actually, now that I realize it, MIL was an alcoholic, and if the brothers had sent any money, would she have told us? She always made us think that we were the only ones that ever gave anything to her. The alcoholism could have consumed a lot of her finances, leaving her looking like she was just making it financially.