Kubler-Ross Stages of Grief - A myth..

[Maccer]

I feel the need to highlight some of the myths associated with the Kubler-Ross stages (KR) or stages of grief based off of my own professional experience and research as it has been a subject of discussion and the possible association to hair-loss as a model.

 

The biggest issues with the KR stages are that it is not a product of scientific research, therefore lacks any credibility of fact. Much of what of her research is based off of her 'own' views on death which is a very blinkered view. She even states in her book 'On death and dying' , how do you do research on dying, when the data is so impossible to get? When you cannot verify your data and cannot set up experiments? Her way of testing the stages was to study terminally patients. This was simply set-up as an interview and observation project whereby several of her student colleagues were observing. They would then collate and discuss all their observations and and personal views. KR also stated that by interviewing a lot patients, that they would 'get a feeling' from the terminally ill. 'Getting a feeling' is quite revealing and can only suggest that the results would be of a personal nature and structured by her life long unresolved grief. (her own personal grief story was highlighted in her book 'On grief and grieving'.)

 

In 2007 the journal of the American Medical Association published the results of the Yale Bereavement Study (YBS), first of all, the study makes an assumption that the stages of grief even exist and then attempts to use that assumption to prove that they do actually exist. This to me is simply flawed before it began, no scientific evidence to even validate the accusation. The YBS then concludes that the notion that a natural psychological response to loss involves an orderly progression through distinct stages of bereavement has been 'widely accepted by clinicians and the general public'. Again when did 'widely accepted replace scientific study or even equal scientific fact'?

 

The stages themselves could actually cause more harm than good as they are implying that time is the component (word 'stage', implying time). Lets start with DENIAL, this can only limit a person psychologically as it would stunt them into inaction and bury their feelings waiting for time to make the stages pass. Which in turn would cause issues later on in therapy trying unearth deeply hidden emotions. ANGER, basically there is no action for the griever to take action to end it. Basically it is suggested that they must stay angry for as long (time again, so no resolve) as it lasts. This is very damaging and if felt for too long will evidently take effect and ruin relationships and health. BARGAINING, this will simply create a sense of victimology and a feeling of being disconnected to everyone else making you feel even more isolated, this can only cause professionally induced harm, as the persons feelings become validated and again time will stagnate all positive resource. DEPRESSION, to suggest that all grievers are clinically depressed is overly stated, as it is quite normal for grievers to feel emotional turmoil when a loved one passes away as there is a natural bereavement process . Grief is a normal reaction to death but clinical depression is abnormal and requires treatment. The line between grief-related depression and clinical diagnosed depression is definitely very blurred. ACCEPTANCE, this is an odd term to use as anyone that had experienced the death of a loved one had to accept that death had occurred. So slightly confusing..

 

I think grief is unique to everyone and everyone deals with grief in different ways, there is simply no way of defining one persons coping mechanism against someone else's without scientific study. If we look at different cultures we will note that death is dealt with in so many different ways, some even celebrate, so the above is simply not even evident. So really dealing with death can only be determined by the society or cultural background of the person....