Mom Forced to Choose Sons During Tsunami

Amazing story, just had to share with ya.

Mom Forced to Choose Sons During Tsunami


By MERAIAH FOLEY, AP

SYDNEY, Australia (Jan. 2) - When a massive wall of water shattered Jillian Searle's idyllic tropical holiday, she was forced to make a horrific choice no parent should ever have to face: which of her two young sons to save.

Her split-second decision tore the family apart - only to be reunited hours later.

As the Searle family settles back into their every day life in the city of Perth in Western Australia state, how they discuss their terrifying experiences will shape their future, psychologist Richard Bryant said Sunday.

Jillian Searle was near her hotel pool with her two sons Lachie, 5, and Blake, 2, when a series of tsunami waves swept over the Thai resort island of Phuket.

"I just heard a terrible roaring, a loud roaring sound and I turned around and I just saw masses, masses of water coming for us," Searle told the Nine television network this week. "I straight away thought: How am I going to keep my two children alive?"

As the first wave surged over them, Searle realized that she could not keep the three of them afloat and was forced to choose which of her boys to hold on to, and which to let go.

"I knew I had to let go of one of them, and I just thought I'd better let go of the one that's the oldest," Searle told Sky News.

Amid the churning water, Searle noticed a young woman clinging to a nearby post and begged her to take hold of 5-year-old Lachie. As Searle pried Lachie's hand from hers, he pleaded for her to keep him safe.

The tsunami's force swept away people, houses and parts of buildings in Indonesia.

"I could feel him squeezing me," Searle said. "And he said to me, 'Don't let go of me mummy.' But I knew I had to."

As the raging currents wrenched them apart, Searle looked back at Lachie - who had not yet learned to swim - believing she would never set eyes on him again.

"I remember looking back at my 5-year-old boy thinking that will probably be the last time I will see him alive," she said.

Meanwhile, Searle's husband Bradley was watching the terrifying scenario play out from the hotel's first-floor balcony. He tried to rush to his wife's assistance, but the rising water had blocked the doors.

"The water level was so high you couldn't open the doors," he said. "Then I found a bar on the ground and I tried to get that into the door and lever the door open."

Once he reached the ground floor, a second massive wave crashed over the beach, forcing him to seek refuge on top of a bar.

When the water finally subsided, Bradley Searle was reunited with his wife and youngest son, and they began a desperate search for Lachie.

Frantic, Searle told her husband: "You have to find him because I let go of him. I gave him to somebody else, and I let go of him... And there is no possible way I can live my life knowing that I took his hand off mine."


For two hours, the Searles searched.

Their frantic calls of his name were drowned out by car alarms that had been set off when vehicles smashed against buildings by the waves.

Finally, the Searles found their son with a Thai policeman. The boy had survived the rushing waters by clinging onto a hotel room door.

"I cried for mom for a long time and then I was quiet," Lachie later told his father.

With mud and water marks up to his ears, his first words to Bradley Searle were: "My hands are all dirty and I need to wash my clothes."

Richard Bryant, the head of the post-traumatic stress disorder unit at the University of New South Wales, said the traumatic situations experienced by the Searles - and countless others - do not always result in major psychological damage.

After a terrifying event, only about 25 percent of the population tend to develop the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, including nightmares, panic attacks, insomnia and other mental disturbances, Bryant said.

"I think it's important to understand just because those events happen, it doesn't necessarily mean that people are going to be adversely affected psychologically in the long term," Bryant said. "We need to recognize that people are predominantly resilient."



The way people like the Searles respond to their experiences will depend on their mental disposition before the event, he said, and how well they can communicate their feelings afterward.

"If somebody wants to think and discuss with a child realistically about what happened, and what seemed at the time to be the right thing to do, then hopefully that could be resolved easily," he said.

For their part, the Searles say they feel extremely fortunate to have survived their nightmarish ordeal. Thai authorities say around 5,000 people were killed in the tsunami, and as many as 6,000 remain missing.

"We are just so lucky to walk away with the small children I have got," Jillian Searle told Sky News. "I just can't believe they are still here."

Bradley Searle said his family had been blessed with the best possible outcome.


01-02-05 16:37 EST

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

I've read this article twice now. And twice I am still confused about how this article is meant to be read. It's not a tragedy because everything turns out okay; it's not a story of triumph because, frankly, she let the kid go, and the story is not about the kid finding safety. It's sort of a discouraging article to me. I think if I was in her position I would cling to both of the kids ride the waves to wherever they led us. I don't think I could willingly sacrifice my own son knowing he asked me not to seconds beforehand. This article baffles me, sorry for my rant; just gets me very rant-ish.

(Hope I didn't step on anyone's toes through these opinions.)

I see some sibling rivalry down the road if both kids remember (or find out) what happened. When the old "Mom loves me best" debate ensues, the held-on-to kid will rub it in that "Mommy picked me and let you go"

Having been a voluneer fireman for years, I have run into this a few times.

Usually the comment from the parent/adult/whoever-let-go-of-one child says something along the following lines, "I had to choose between saving one or all three of us dying." Note that the thought expressed does not involve saving oneself.... rather it was saving one of the children. The "savior" is merely the vehicle of that effort/the means to ensure the desired outcome.

If you can't "calculate that sum" then you will never understand. If you can, then you probably have either "been there" or are especially empathic in my book.

I read this story yesterday and it nearly bought me to tears, I know in the end its all good, and both mother and children were ok, but having a child myself I cannot imagine having to make a choice like that, and it would haunt me for the rest of my life.

I saw this report on the BBC's World Report, which is broadcast in the USA in the wee morning hours. This was a heart-wrenching story. The young mother was still, quite clearly, in trauma. She was shaking during the interview, and her toe-headed son was sobbing convulsively. The mother explained how tormented the decision was, but she lost her strength and knew she could only save one. She chose to let go of the older child, who thank God, managed to survive.

I sincerely hope that this family receives both immediate and long-term care to help prevent PTSD or other such outcomes.

Though I understand your viewpoint, it is impossible for any of us to understand this young woman's choice. She did the absolute best she could under the most unfathomable circumstances. If she would have held both children and lost her strength only to drop them both, what would folks think of her then? Without the time to sit and ponder the outcome, she was forced to make a decision. I stand in awe of her for being able to think at all while staring down a tsunami wave. In the end this is a story of tragedy, being involved in the tsunami is tragic enough; this is a story of triumph, she kept her wits about her enough to save herself and her child, her eldest son was also triumphant in that he had the fortitude and will power to hold on to his own life and it is a story of courage. Each and everyone of the people involved have shown remarkable courage in light of this tragedy. To think of this woman's decision as the willfull sacrifice of her son is remarkably vulgar. No other word for it than vulgar.

I also did see the interview with her on the television. Luckily, the older boy was able to climb on to something and be safe. With having two daughters, 1 is 11 and 1 is 3. Clearly, if I had no choice but to let go of one it would be the older one. But there is a big age difference between mine and hers. I would hope to never be put in her situation, but she obviously made the right decision that worked out to be life saving for all of them. If she would have held on to both she may have caused them all to drown.

This woman used her motherly instincts and it worked out. Everyone is different and honestly none of us truely can know what we would do until you are in that situation faced with a split second decision.

Half my family is volunteer firefighters as well. Although I have never been forced to make the type of decision, I could never imagine doing so. The woman who had to decide in this case, was VERY fortunate. God was with her... or something.

"In the end this is a story of tragedy, being involved in the tsunami is tragic enough; this is a story of triumph, she kept her wits about her enough to save herself and her child, her eldest son was also triumphant in that he had the fortitude and will power to hold on to his own life and it is a story of courage."

A "tragedy" is a story where a person's flaws bring them down in the end. This story was not a tragedy, but it will be, if what she has done is ever considered a flaw, which I'm not sure it was. Next, for the woman, this is not a story of triumph; she dropped the boy, she gave something up--this was a story of sacrifice, she did not triumph over the tsunami. The eldest son was triumphant over... the tsunami? He may be a hero in his own right because he is a five year old who kept /his/ wits about him in a time of desperate crisis, but I'm not sure what he 'triumphed' over. He was, admitted, astoundingly resilient. In the end, it's a story about a woman who has a very fortunate second chance to be with her son, though will that story end in complete happiness no one can ever really know. It's easy to say, "Finally, now they're together, at last," but will their family ever mend over this--will the boy be able to look at Mom the same way ever again? This is why the story is strange to me, or strange that they are publicizing it so much. And I hope my opinions aren't berated, here. But I think that if I was that boy who survived on his own, I would first and foremost be thankful to be alive, but I certainly wouldn't be thankful of my mom. It would take years and years and years to recoup after that happened. The family is together and alive, but there's a lot more broken now; trust is of huuuge importance to young children when it comes to their parents.

And for the record, I gave my opinion of what I thought -I- would do in that situation, but I never judged her actions--I can't say if she did right or wrong.

I guess I'm the only one who feels this way about the article, though--but hey, forums are used for discussion, right? So there's my .02.

trag·e·dy Audio pronunciation of "tragedy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trj-d)
n. pl. trag·e·dies

1.
1. A drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances.
2. The genre made up of such works.
3. The art or theory of writing or producing these works.
2. A play, film, television program, or other narrative work that portrays or depicts calamitous events and has an unhappy but meaningful ending.
3. A disastrous event, especially one involving distressing loss or injury to life: an expedition that ended in tragedy, with all hands lost at sea.

I do not have to remind you how many lives were lost in this tragedy...they were lucky in that they survived the tragedy but the tragic element remains

4. A tragic aspect or element.
tri·umph Audio pronunciation of "triumph" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trmf)
intr.v. tri·umphed, tri·umph·ing, tri·umphs

1. To be victorious or successful; win.
2. To rejoice over a success or victory; exult.

I would call the survival a success over tragedy and they have many reasons to rejoice

3. To receive honors upon return from a victory in ancient Rome. Used of a general.
n.
1. The fact of being victorious; victory or conquest. See Synonyms at victory.
2. A noteworthy or spectacular success.
3. Exultation or rejoicing over victory or success.
4. A public celebration in ancient Rome to welcome a returning victorious commander and his army.
5. Obsolete. A public celebration or spectacular pageant.

Sorry if I believe these definitions befitting of the situation. It is easy to sit on our laurels and delineate the could haves and should haves of the situation. But then you were not the one faced with a 20 ft wall of water. All that I am saying is that it is a bit <edited> to insinuate a right or wrong in this situation. Let's look at it this way: A man is pointing a gun at your two children and you have the option of jumping in front of one of them. Which child do you choose? Do you choose neither because the one who is shot will never forgive you for not jumping in front of him? She was facing a threat that, hopefully, you and I will never face. But to say that her decision was somehow wrong without first proving that another decision would have brought about a "better" outcome is a tad on the <edited> side.

This is a tough story to read; I hadn't seen it before.

As the parent of two children, ages four and five, I think I would have held onto both of them rather than letting one go. However, since I wasn't in that woman's shoes at the time, I can't accurately second-guess her decision.

If survival depended on staying afloat in water and not drowning, then only having one child to support would certainly be much safer for the mother to manage. However, it seems that the survival of many people in this disaster depended on their being able to cling onto something. If I were able to assess that this was the case, I think I would have looped my hands through my kids' clothing and around their bodies and held onto whatever was available, telling them to do the same thing. Of course, regarding the age of my youngest, a four-year-old has a better ability to assist with this than a two-year-old (whose age really isn't much past the baby stage), so it's hard to truly compare. It would definitely be more logical to ask a five-year-old child to look out for himself than a two-year-old.

This terrible disaster has certainly helped me realize I need to get my kids to swimming lessons this year.

Sent you a PM, Isis.

Certainly a horrifying situation. The one part I can't understand is, if the father was watching from the balcony, why didn't he jump?? I would to save my children. He also states that he couldn't open the second floor door because the water level was to high, but then he went downstaits to the bar? Confusing.

Good point. All I can say is, "Thank God for maternal instincts!" If it were left up to us guys, we'd kinda just shrug and scratch certain remote body parts.

i think the story says that he couldn't get to them, the waters raised too high and traped him where he was/

Meheheheh.

Owned.

Paulo posted :
"Good point. All I can say is, "Thank God for maternal instincts!" If it were left up to us guys, we'd kinda just shrug and scratch certain remote body parts"

You are so absolutely, totally wrong in this, there is nothing I can say, except that you are obviously not a father.

Well..first it said he watched from a second floor balcony, which means he could have jumped or hung off the balcony and dropped. And then he says he couldn't open the door due to the water level being to high, but manages to pry it open and go downstairs to the bar.... But maybe he was misquoted in the story. Who knows. Just sounds like he was making excuses for not diving in.

If my son was drowning, I would jump off a cliff to try and save him. What would be the point in living if you watch your child die without an attempt at saving him/her.

I would suggest watching some of the tsunami footage on the wikipedia. Diving into that maelstrom and then swimming across all of the current patterns involved while numerous other waves knock you off course in order to reach a pre-defined target would have been impossible. This isn't a pool or "normal" tidal flow. He would have been swimming against the tidal current which would push him forward and then suck him back to sea, cross currents running parallell to the shore line and undercurrents. This was not a matter of just swimming over to save someones life. He did the everything that he could. I am baffled by those of you who so freely attack the love of a mother and father forced to make these split second decisions. They were not sitting at the bar drinking a tequila sunrise while their children were dragged out to sea.

Point taken Isis. My last post did indeed sound like I was blaming the father. And I guess, from the words in the article, I was, which was not a nice thing for me to do. I just feel very strongly about my son and would do anything, including die, at an instants notice to save his life.

I have seen the films and pictures and it was incredble, terrible and almost surreal. The accounts I've read and heard have been agonizing and heart-wrenching.

What I was originally trying to point out were inconsistencies in the article. And I said that he may have been misquoted, as happens often. The way the article came out, or was written, made the events surrounding the father seem..well..inconsistant to me.

And if my son is drowning, I promise you I won't care which way the tide is pulling me or what maelstrom is happening around me. I will try, which is all anyone can really do.

The son got washed back to the hotel and clung to a door for quite some time apparently. I would be either dead (possible), or with him (possible).

She made the logical choice, she knew in the back of her mind if any were to survive she would have to let the oldest and strongest go and have faith that he would have the strength to survive. If she would have let the younger one go, he may have died, being only 3 years old and the weaker.

Ohh I understand. But the problem is that the waves pulling in and out would create a situation where one moment the water may be 20 ft deep and the next 2 ft deep. It seems to me that the father tried frantically to do what he thought best. You may have made a different choice and the outcome could have been the same, worse or different. I wouldn't feel the same about a father watching his child drown in a lake or even the ocean sans tsunami. Yet, in this situation time was a bitch and everyone did the best they could.

And you would be absolutely, totally wrong!

I just wonder why, if she was close enough to hand her 5yr old over to this woman on a post, why she couldn't grab onto that post herself, holding onto both children by their clothes or whatever.

It would be extremely hard to think in that situation and it's definately commendable of her that she was able to think at all. If I saw a huge wall of water heading for me and my children I think a heartattack would hit me before the wave ever did. However, I'd never be able to let go of my child in the situation she was in.

I think I'd be more worried about that child's recovery from this moreso than any of the others involved. Not only has he been through this disaster, but he now knows/thinks he can't rely on his mother (or perhaps parents, in his mind) to keep him safe and secure. Hopefully he is resiliant enough or perhaps young enough that it won't effect him so badly.