I'd go as far as saying the person suffering will probably suffer a lot less if their attitude is one of "although this is happening to me, this isn't all about me". Acceptance of that truth helps lead to peace.
I'd go as far as saying the person suffering will probably suffer a lot less if their attitude is one of "although this is happening to me, this isn't all about me". Acceptance of that truth helps lead to peace.
If you're correct that this isn't all about the person at the heart of the crisis, and in at least some sense you are, it's still not the place to litigate that matter with that person.
And the problem with crises, health, existential, or otherwise, is that they not only bring out the best and worst in people, but they bring out the best and worst of people (as in types of people, not aspects of an individual). There are those who are drawn to an emergency out of an earnest desire to help (and in the best cases, with an awareness of whether or not they are in fact doing so). And there are those who see the same situation as an opportunity for personal gain, attention, or simply to sow chaos.
That second type includes both the deliberate and intentional and the helpless, in the sense that they simply cannot help themselves. (See Bonhoeffer on stupidity and evil: <https://bigthink.com/thinking/bonhoeffers-theory-stupidity-e...>.) Both are quite harmful, though in different ways.
(Toxic people, as with cancers, are a shared symptom complex with differing etiologies.)
But the Ring Theory gives both a guide to what to do, as well as a handy index to who is failing to do so. And those (usually in secondary and tertiary rings) can do well to serve as gatekeepers and guardians excluding those harmful types, or finding clever ways to occupy themselves in ways such as to do the least harm.
Of that last, another element of crises is that there is all manner of ordinary mechanics of life which are still required but that those key to the crisis have difficulty in accomplishing. Tasking those whose words and actions can be harmful with performing the more remote elements of this (running errands, shopping, remote meal prep which can be heated or served on site, etc.) is a good way to give them the perception of being useful (and quite often they honestly are) without being excessively harmful.
That said, having to constantly remain aware that this is required, and to shop those who cannot contribute positively in the immediate vicinity, is itself taxing and tiring.
Yeah, but that is why the example is unfortunate. If you read very closely, you'll notice that I said that too and I suspect we're in furious agreement. The problem with that example is it confuses two important issues - the right thing for one person to say, and the best thing for the other person to think.
I also think, based on both study and experience, that often it's better to simply act than to attempt to argue or negotiate.
Acting (including withdrawing your own support) doesn't require the participation or cooperation of the other party. Argument and negotiation both do. A fundamental limitation of rational interactions is the reliance on rationality by your counterparty.