.... To be totally honest, I have no idea why some people think it is a good idea to have just ONE child. I can understand not being able to have more than one, but making a conscious choice that your child shall grow up bereft of the love and support of siblings is frankly beyond me. Not least because an only may be even more reliant on their parents than others, and might find it harder to deal with the death of their parents as then they truly DO have nobody. Sorry, but that is just my opinion....
I was going to in response to this, but there are so many things here which need to be questioned.
Why do people think it a good idea to have just one child? Because that is what works for them. I am not one of them (luckily) but there are women on MN whose birth experience was so horrific that, even though they could go through it again, they have chosen not to. Why disparage their decision? Or anyone else's? We all make decisions that seem baffling to other people.
Only children bereft of the love and support of siblings? Well, obviously they don't have siblings, but they are by no means bereft of love and support. They get it from other, diverse sources. Besides, since when has having a sibling been a guarantee of love and support? It could just as well be a guarantee of rivalry, jealousy and strife. I recommend a reading of King Lear.
Only children, on the death of their parents, have nobody? Only if they have been living as a hermit and have formed no other significant relationships which (I would suggest) is on the whole less likely than it is for people with siblings, as the lack of siblings encourages only children to engage with the wider world.
I hope OP can find peace after the pain of her bereavement and can make a decision which is right for her and her family. But I also hope that - until she is sure of what she wants - she won't feel pressurised or browbeaten into having another baby by people peddling a rather retrograde notion of the family as two parents + 2.2 children.