On 1-Aug-08, at 4:15 PM, Firebird wrote: > Martin Goose wrote: > >> Recognising the possible sensitivities of descendants/relations. > > Surely, if you've shared your research with your family they will > already know the causes of death for those ancestors. If you haven't > then it's irrelevant. I imagine everyone on the mailing list has come > across just about every possible cause of death there is. > > Another consideration is that if you give the cause of death, it can > actually help someone with the same condition. For instance, my > husband didn't know his father's cause of death until I told him. > When I did, it made sense of a condition he has. > > Amongst the causes of death given for some of my ancestors and sundry > other relatives include hanging (did kill himself), carbon monoxide > poisoning, drowning, syphilis, TB, consumption, heart disease, Act of > God, coronory thrombosis, brain tumour, cancer, nephritis, murder (by > strangulation), diabetes, anasarca, epilepsy, haemophilia, RTA and > drug overdose. > > Being sensitive is one thing. Being hypersensitive or over-sensitive > is another. It's better to let your relations and descendents decide > for themselves what they want to know, rather than decide for them. > If given a chance, they might just be interested. > > Sorry, but I can see no reason why family historians or genealogists > should be coy about causes of death. Nor do I see any reason for a > blanket ban on giving causes of death on list either. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Perhaps there is a middle ground. I recently shared some information about causes of death of a common ancestor with a cousin. . . whose mother had just died of the same illness. The information came too late, certainly not at the right time. Well, it confirmed things after the fact. I found the information helpful, but I do realize that it is not helpful to every one of my distant relations. Perhaps it would be easier, on these lists, if people establish a connection, to share such information privately; at least it allows people to make judgment calls. . . fwiw Carolyn

Carolyn Perkes wrote: > Perhaps there is a middle ground. > > I recently shared some information about causes of death of a common > ancestor with a cousin. . . whose mother had just died of the same > illness. The information came too late, certainly not at the right > time. Well, it confirmed things after the fact. I found the > information helpful, but I do realize that it is not helpful to every > one of my distant relations. > > Perhaps it would be easier, on these lists, if people establish a > connection, to share such information privately; at least it allows > people to make judgment calls. . . This is why I say there shouldn't be a blanket ban. If people want to give out CoD then fine, but if people don't, then that's fine too.