We continue with the series of entries dedicated to the overprotection Shelling out the questions of a test on this topic that can help us see that we protect our children too much or help us reaffirm our position as parents and educators.
Today's question is related to the loss of a loved one, in this case an animal, and analyzes the way in which parents explain these situations to our children. There goes the statement of the question:
Your pet, a dog that your four-year-old son has lived with since he was born, suffers from an incurable disease.
And here I leave you the possible answers:
a) You take the dog to the vet before the child sees it. When he asks about him, you tell him that he has gone with his previous owner and that you will never be able to see him again. b) You explain that animals, when they get older, tend to fall ill and suffer many ailments, and that when doctors can not cure them, then they die to go to another place where nothing will hurt them anymore. c) You let the child attend the disease process and explain what animal euthanasia consists of.
The first option: that the child knows nothing
The first option of the three is the one in which we decide not telling the child anything and inventing an excuse. It is fine as a method to avoid suffering to children and in fact it is a technique widely used by people even when a relative dies: eyes that do not see, heart that does not feel. The problem is that children are not stupid (although many want to believe so) and it is not so easy to fool a child or not so recommended.
Telling a child that his dog, with whom he has shared so many moments and whom he loves so much, has left home to leave with his previous owner is like telling an adult that “no, your wife is not dying, what what happens to him is that he has gone with his ex and has left a note saying don't look for her, he will never come back. ”
That is, if you want to invent something there are much less tragic and more "love" stories that do not have to sound treason. Personally I would not choose it because I like the second option more, but depending on the child's age, if I think he is not able to understand the disease and pain, could serve (but with other stories, as I comment).
I know that many of you will be thinking that this would not be the option you would choose, but sometimes you have to be in the situation to be able to respond knowingly. An acquaintance explained to me one day, in tears, that a year ago her sister and brother-in-law had died in a car accident and that she had not yet been able to explain it to her son, with whom they had a very good relationship. As he told me he had said that they had a lot of work and many things to do and that they couldn't go see him. The problem is that the boy did not understand that heartbreak and asked him "why they never came to see him".
The second option: the truth, but adapted
A four-year-old child is not able to understand the concept of life and death, of illness and of not seeing someone again in the same way that we understand adults and for that reason it is always recommended to treat these issues carefully , adapting the message to its capabilities and being available to resolve any doubts that may arise.
That is why the best option is b), because with it everything is explained to the child, who will end up knowing that his dog, who still loves him (has not left with another), will stop being with them because he dies, because He will no longer be with anyone, but in another place where he can be, somehow, happy. It is not the whole truth, but it is not the whole lie either.
The third option: the harsh reality
The last option brings them. It is talking with children giving too many details. I usually sin to explain too much to Jon (I think when he asked me about the origin of the children I explained more than I should), but this time it seems exaggerated to explain to a child what animal euthanasia consists because most likely, with four years, don't understand that your parents know that they are going to kill their dog and do nothing to avoid it.
As we have said in the previous point, the most logical thing would be to explain things as they are, but adapting the language to the child's abilities and without going into details that can do more harm than good.
Fourth option: get a dog
This option is not as a possible answer, but I wanted to add it because many people, when they lose a pet, decide to stop the possible suffering of children quickly replacing the animal with another. It is something we usually do when something is broken ("oh no, my phone has broken ... I will have to buy another one before") and that some parents also do with their children's pets, when it is not the same.
One thing is a material good, a more or less practical or more or less useful object and a very different one is an animal, because animals are loved, loved, and that feeling is reciprocal. Things must not be loved, but take care of them so that they do not break and take out the juice they can offer us. That's why when they break, they are replaced, period. But an animal, a loved one, cannot be substituted just like that (there are parents who even look for a pet that is physically similar, so that the child does not suffer), because it would be as if, after our partner died, we appeared two days later With another couple, so happy. No one would understand, so as parents we can not make our son see normal losing a dog and having another almost equal days later in plan "forget the dog, you already have this one".
