Nearly 2 million people in the United States and many more in the world are impacted by divorce each year. There have been a variety of studies that have hinted that divorce may be linked to the increased chance of an early death, but overall the evidence has been mixed.
David Sbarra, Rita Law, and Robert Portley from the University of Arizona recently published a study to summarize the evidence on the link between divorce and early death. They gathered data from 32 studies involving more than 6.5 million people in 11 countries that included 755,000 divorces and 160,000 deaths.
In general, the researchers found that adults who were divorced were 23% more likely to die younger than their married counterparts. Men had almost twice as high a risk of early death compared to women. People younger than 65 years of age were more at risk following divorce than older people. This pattern was consistent regardless of what country people lived in.
The next question asked by the researchers was whether divorce "caused" death. Now this may seem obvious, but even with prospective data, it is not always the case that correlation mean causation. One important consideration is a selection effect that accounts for both divorce and death. The authors write, "social selection holds that some people possess characteristics that increase risk for both separation/divorce and poor health outcomes. Hostility, depression and substance abuse are just a few examples of the many processes that can increase the likelihood of future divorce...and are unique predictors of early death..." In other words, some common characteristic is causing both divorce and death. These data do not allow us to test the selection hypothesis and therefore, we cannot rule out this selection effect.
The authors conclude their study with a thoughtful analysis of the mechanisms through which divorce might lead to early death. Their first idea is that because divorce often reduces the financial status of both husbands and wives, this may impact health. In general, we know that individuals with lower economic means are more at-risk of health problems. Another consequence of divorce is that people's social ties are disrupted. Divorced men and women are less likely to maintain ties to neighbors, churches, clubs and so forth. Again we know that strong social relationships benefit health and well-being.
Another possible way in which divorce influences well-being is through health habits. There is some strong evidence that following divorce, women in particular are more likely to resume smoking. There is some evidence to suggest that eating habits and sleeping patterns are also disrupted.
Finally, there is the possibility that the stress of divorce disrupts biological functions which puts people more at risk. In a previous study, Sbarra demonstrated that divorced people who reported more difficulty handling their emotions following divorce had higher blood pressure. This finding suggests that stress-related difficulties brought on by divorce may contribute to poorer health.
Despite the general finding that divorce increases the risk of early death, the authors urge caution in the interpretation of these findings. They note that many people remarry and this was not taken into account in this study. They also suggest that until more work is done that controls for selection factors and includes the various mechanisms, it would be unwise to base too much on the findings of this one study. Although the findings from this study remain open to further exploration, the analysis by these authors is a welcome reminder of the complexities of understanding the effects of divorce.
Brahm D. Siegel: Is Divorce Getting Nicer?
It will if divorce causes you to lose your health insurance.
Collecting data and analyzing it using statistics and other techniques has improved our understanding of the world in ways even a fantastic writer like Twain could never dream of. Without statistics you can't prove that gender or racial discrimination occurs, that seat belt lawsave lives or that smoking causes lung cancer.
It's a catchy saying, but it has limited validity. Statements that intuition and so-called common sense classify as lies, statistics reveal as truth.
A family that prays together stays together.
If somebody isn't happy and wants to move on, that is their inalienable right. But is it their right to force the other person to move on, leaving behind the most valuable product of any marriage -- children -- and yet continuing to provide financial support to the one who wanted out? For women, the answer is, yes, you usually can do just that: keep the kids, keep the house, keep the income, just get rid of the partner who wasn't making you happy enough. Very few women seem to be miserable enough to actually leave a marriage. But if their unsatisfactory partner is the one who is forced to leave, they don't seem to have much problem teeing up a divorce.
Your own-everything position, telling the female she can leave, and leave her children behind, harkens back to an era when women had no rights and no choice but to stay.
And really, you need to take a tour of some abuse shelters to see that clearly women have no qualms about leaving the marital home, with nothing.
The question your post seems to be leading to, other than the material things, is who "owns" the children? Women used to get full custody, but now there's a lot of joint, which is fine. For babies and toddlers, I don't see how you would shuffle, though. Like it or not, women are still the primary caregivers for children, today. They go the 9 months, they have the prolapsed bladders as a result of it, and the breastfeeding. They are usually the ones to go without sleep, deal with sickness, and take a lower paying job to accommodate the children. They are a natural fit for the assigned location of primary residence after a divorce. However, if the male in the household is the primary caregiver, then he is likely the best candidate. I look at my cousin and this is exactly the case. She works, he's home, and cares for a toddler. However with other family members, that is not the case. They are the exception.
separated from your children? More importantly, what did you do to contribute to your past situation and the disintegration of the marriage? What have you learned are you now doing to promote your own health and well being? The honest answers to these questions should be more relevant to you and more helpful to others than continually asserting the fairness or unfairness of your plight. I hope this helps