To think it’s poor form for giving bad news over text?

[Ivorymoon]

DH was given some shocking and upsetting news over the weekend, which was delivered from his DM via text. He received this message just before we were going into a health appointment for our baby, so it was terrible timing. He had no idea that he was going to receive such news, otherwise he would not have checked his messages at that time.

My own DM has form for giving me bad news over text, including informing me that she had cancer and when family members have died. Admittedly I do message people more than I call them, however any potentially upsetting news I will call instead. I am mindful that someone could be at work / at an appointment/ not in a position to receive bad news, and opening a message with no prior warning can be very distressing. At least over the phone you can make sure that the recipient is in a position to take the call.

I can see how it could be easier for the deliverer of bad news to text instead as it means they do not have to deal with any emotional reaction they would get over the phone. It’s quite avoidant and lacking care and consideration for the recipient IMO.

AIBU to think giving someone bad news via text is poor form and should be done over the phone instead? Ideally this would happen in person but this often isn’t possible for a multitude of reasons.

YANBU if it’s bad news that is very likely to affect you badly and directly IYSWIM.

Got bored after a few pages.

I have. As outlined repeatedly, the news pertained to my DH not his mother. Although she would have been understandably upset to pass the message on, it is DH who was most affected. She did not need to make any other calls.

It also depends how urgently he needs to know.

If it's not "come quick, it's last chance to say goodbye" then it can be "call me when you have a chance" text.

As it didn't need to be shared right then one assumes. (Parents dying being different)

This is yet another example of how we're all different, personally I would have waited for the outcome of a medical appointment before telling relatives

Neither is right or wrong, people are allowed to be different

She does and I have the right in finding her doing so utterly selfish, as the news impacted my DH directly and not her.

I think it’s nice to give a warning by text and I feel texts are for when the news affects the sender more or it’s about someone you’re not closely related to.

I’ve had to do the bereavement calls for three family members and yes it is horrible but those recipients deserved a proper phone call. After the first couple it gets easier. There’s no way I’d want to hear about the death of a family member or close friend via text, it’s very impersonal and you have no idea what the recipient is doing at that moment

and then you say what? Okay I'll call back later and the perrosn says no no its fine....and then what? I'd say that there is no better way to do it if you can't be there in person

When my Mum died, I called: her brother (who called the rest of the huge extended family), her two best friends, her main friend in her social group (who told everyone in the group/club) and that was it. Anyone who fell outside of this, and whom I didn’t know personally got a letter (as most of them were old).

I agree with you, Op.
When giving particularly bad news to close family it is best to give it in person or over the phone if you can not do that.

In our family bad news would then be asked to be forwarded on by phone to more remote family members.

Personally if someone sends me a text or calls me with a message that implies bad news but that they’ll call me later I am just going to get them to tell me right away anyway because I am going to be immediately worried, so I am not totally convinced that your suggested way of doing things necessarily works. In your specific case though I can see that your MIL perhaps should have been more considerate.

More generally though, I think in this day and age it is sometimes more important to get the facts out in the world swiftly, because people are so connected that news spreads really quickly and you don’t want to risk information reaching people in an even worse way.

I was tasked with telling a whole raft of people that my DM had been diagnosed with cancer because I wanted to take that stress away from her, but the idea of making a dozen phone calls when I was also in distress was unthinkable. I sent messages at the best possible time I could think of, apologising for the method of delivery but asking for understanding in the circumstances. If that rubbed people up the wrong way, then frankly, fuck ‘em.

That being said, when it comes to bereavement, which is the big one, I do think that the inner circle (whoever is closest to the person, recognising that this may not always be family) should get a call wherever possible.

OP forgive me if I'm mistaken but did you have a thread the other day which was indicating there was not a good relationship between you and In laws. Is it possible that is colouring your view negatively?

I've both delivered and received devastating news. There's just no nice way or time for it to be done. You can pick apart how you would prefer to have it done but it changes nothing. If it had have been after the appointment you'd be thinking I wish she told me a different day so we wouldn't link this memory with our appointment. I hope your husband is coping alright.

Admittedly I do message people more than I call them, however any potentially upsetting news I will call instead. I am mindful that someone could be at work / at an appointment/ not in a position to receive bad news, and opening a message with no prior warning can be very distressing. At least over the phone you can make sure that the recipient is in a position to take the call.

That’s all very well, but it works on the assume that when the person has taken the call and said “Sorry, I’ve got a meeting/doctor’s appointment/train to catch” they will put the phone down, happily get on with what they need to do and then think “Oh yes, Sue rang earlier - better call her back”. It’s rarely that simple. People pick up on nuances. The recipient of the call might be able to tell from your voice that something is very wrong; they might pick up on it from the fact you’re calling in the middle of the working day; they might find it odd you’re calling at all. You say yourself that you generally message rather than calling.

My dad rang with what turned out some terrible news once, not realising I was still on my way home from work. He then refused to tell me and said to call him back when I got home. He was trying to be sensitive, but really, all he was doing was making sure I would worry all the way home instead. Is worrying what the bad news is any better than knowing what the bad news is? I pointed this out and eventually managed to get him to tell me. Yes, it was awful, but sitting on a train processing the news was actually preferable to imagining a range of horrendous possibilities.

I don’t think a text is necessarily any better, but a phone call isn’t the magic solution you think it is either.

Not necessarily. She could just have asked him if he was free to talk, he would presumably have said no, and they could have fixed a time a bit later.

It's best to phone or tell IRL I think.

Nope, not me.

Sorry

I’m not claiming it’s a magic solution. Just that it allows for more sensitivity than a text message.

You posted this. That hardly describes a mother knowing that her child and grandchild were at a very important hospital appointment.

It’s simple, just a phone call to ascertain at least where the person is before relaying bad news.

Ideally, it's better to tell people bad news in person or by phone. But things aren't always black and white. And if you phone someone to say, "I need to talk to you - is this a good time?", the recipient is probably going to guess that something is amiss. So the recipient will probably take the call anyway, even if it's not a good time.

If your MIL knew that you had a hospital appointment, she might have deliberately opted for a text message, in case you were in the middle of talking to the doctors.

Also, in this world of social media, news spreads very quickly. If, for example, someone was involved in a car crash, it's probably best to pass on that news as quickly as possible, so the people who should be informed don't end up finding out about it from the news or a local Facebook or Whatsapp page.

Op sometimes people making the call cannot hide their feelings.

Twice my DMum has called me to telling me about a death. Both times I'd guessed it was bed news just by the tone in her voice.
She didn't want to tell me the first time because I was driving but I just knew someone had died.

Yes it’s shocking but I personally see it the deliverer’s choice. Friend recently told me on email that her husband (whom I also know well) has been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, which is also why she disappeared for a bit and didn’t respond to my previous messages. She then proceeded to apologise profusely for telling me on email. I couldn’t care less how she told me, all I could think was oh, that’s horrible, I’m so sorry, and how difficult everything must be for her family. He is not even 50. I cried for her, didn’t tell her of course, but never once thought ‘why didn’t she call me.’

Sorry but I think you are being unreasonable, albeit on your DH’s behalf. Yes, it was unfortunate timing but there is no good time to receive bad news and how was his mother expected to know the exact time you were going to be called into the appointment for your daughter? You’ve not said what the bad news was but seem insistent that it did not affect your MiL. Are you quite sure? Why did she receive the bad tidings first if it was absolutely nothing to do with her?

Personally, I prefer just to be told bad news, not wait until it’s convenient for me to feel sad or upset because that time is never.

You are giving very snappy responses to all those who disagree with you so I’ll take mine as read so you don’t need to go to the trouble of typing it out. Thanks.