Born after Loss: The Invisible Child in Adulthood

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Early childhood literature suggests children born after the loss of an infant sibling are at risk for attachment disorders, yet there continues to be a lack of intervention available to support the parents of these children during their pregnancies. The stories of these adult subsequent children give meaning to why attachment disorders can result and provide a strong case for intervention around infant loss and the subsequent pregnancy. Contrary to other studies on this topic, these participants summarize healing and hope. KEY WORDS: Infant loss, subsequent pregnancy, child, sibling loss, invisible. loss fully recognized and grieved liberates us. J. M. Schneider, 1994 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this article is to present the recurring theme of feeling invisible identified by adults who were the in their family born after the death of a sibling. The significance of this study comes from the literature suggesting children born after the loss of a sibling are at risk for attachment disorders. The voices of these participants provide insight into what it was like for them to be this child. LITERATURE REVIEW The scant literature on children born after a loss is drawn predominantly from the view point of pathology, addressing case studies of people seeking therapy and survivors of the Holocaust (Anisfeld & Richards, 2000; Cain & Cain, 1964; Leon, 1986; Pozanski, 1972; Sabbadini, 1988). The aforementioned studies introduced the term replacement child or vulnerable syndrome, meaning parents perceive the new infant as needing special care in order to protect them from harm. In many of these studies, the adults' inability to communicate the loss and process their grief resulted in the child's intrapsychic cognitive distortion of the sibling loss (Leon, 1986). Grief has been described as the reconstruction of a new sense of normal that must be put in place so that those left behind may have a predictable and orderly world in which to function (Attig, 1991). Historically a search for meaning around infant loss has not necessarily taken place. Perinatal death was considered neither a significant loss nor a sad part of a family's history (Leon, 2001). It becomes a silent loss that others are not comfortable talking about (Bennett, Litz, Sarnoff, & Maguen, 2005). Societal pressure was to move on: Take heart. You can have another, minimizing the significance of the child's life and death to the parents (Powell, 1995). There was, and still is, a taboo against discussing the sensitive subject of death. Certainly it was not appropriate for parents to share any details of the loss with siblings or children born thereafter. When death occurred during pregnancy it was doubly unmentionable. The cultural denial of pregnancy-loss as a significant issue is believed to continue in one form or another today, partly because of the absence of cultural scripts for how to behave in such circumstances (Layne, 2003). A recent study further complicates how parents should be supported at the time of their loss by suggesting the practice of mothers holding their stillborn babies may have a negative influence on the development of depression and anxiety in the subsequent pregnancy (Hughes, Turton, Hopper & Evans, 2002). When denial happens or society does not support embracing a baby who has died, a disenfranchised grief can occur; a grief either not acknowledged or acknowledged but with discussion forbidden within the family (Doka, 2002). This ultimately can cause the who has died to become the ghost in the family (O'Leary, Parker, & Thorwick, 1998). Rando (1983) questions the common sense notion that the passage of time heals grief, believing that the child's life and death need to be acknowledged and carried into the future. Three tasks for families who have experienced a perinatal loss are to 1) recognize the loss (O'Leary, Parker, & Thorwick, 1998), 2) acknowledge the unique grief experienced by each family member (Jordan, 1990; Walsh & McGoldrick, 1991), and 3) make meaning of the loss for survivors (Lehman, Wortman, & Williams, 1987; Parkes, 2002; Rando, 1986; Rubin, 1993). …