Grieving the pre-illness self: a developmental task, not a phase

The standard grief frameworks do not quite fit chronic illness, because the person who has been lost is also the person sitting in the room. The pre-illness self is gone, the current self is here and is also the mourner, and neither gets to leave. Three frameworks fit this shape better than the five stages do: ambiguous loss, biographical disruption, and chronic sorrow. Together they describe grief as developmental work rather than a phase, work that gets lighter to carry not because it shrinks but because the self that carries it grows.

Written and reviewed by Natalia Cajide, Registered Psychologist (AHPRA PSY0002474316). 5 min read. Published 7 June 2026. Last reviewed 7 June 2026. Next review 7 June 2027.

Need help right now? Crisis 000 · Lifeline 13 11 14 · Beyond Blue 1300 22 4636 · Suicide Call Back 1300 659 467

Ambiguous loss

When I started seeing more clients with chronic health conditions, I noticed that the standard grief frameworks did not quite fit what they were describing. Grief, in the way most of us are taught about it, has someone who has died and a person who is grieving. In chronic illness, the loss is real but the person who has died is also the person sitting in the room. The pre-illness self is gone. The current self is here, and is also the mourner. And neither of them gets to leave.

That is an awkward shape for grief to take, and it is why the standard five stages, or the anniversary reactions, or the closure metaphors, do not quite land. What is needed are frameworks built for this kind of grief specifically. There are three I keep coming back to.

The family therapist Pauline Boss wrote about what she called ambiguous loss in chronic illness, and it captures something the standard models miss (Boss & Couden, 2002). Ambiguous loss is a loss that does not resolve, because the thing being lost is still partly there. The pre-illness self is gone, but parts of her come back on a good week. She can be glimpsed at a wedding, or recognised in a photograph. This is not closure. It is not supposed to be. The grief sits alongside the rest of life, sometimes louder, sometimes quieter, but it does not go through stages and out the other side.

Boss noticed that one of the hardest parts of ambiguous loss is that the people around you often want it to be clearer than it is. They want you to be either over it or in it. The ambiguous middle, where you are managing well enough to go to work and still grieving on the drive home, is harder for them to hold. Some of what feels lonely about chronic illness is this: the grief does not look like grief, so the support does not look like support.

Biographical disruption

The sociologist Michael Bury wrote in 1982 about what he called biographical disruption, and the phrase has stuck because it names something true (Bury, 1982). A person's life has a shape and a story. The story has a sense of where it is going. Chronic illness, when it arrives, does not just add a problem to manage. It cracks the story. The future that the person had been walking toward is suddenly not the future that is available. The work of grief, here, is partly the work of writing a new story without yet knowing what it is.

This is one of the reasons I am careful with the word "acceptance" early in this work. Acceptance, as it is used in popular culture, often means a kind of peaceful arrival. The real work is more like rewriting. And the rewriting takes time, and several drafts, and a willingness to put down what the old story had promised before knowing what the new one offers.

Chronic sorrow

The third framework, which I think is underused, comes from Simon Olshansky in 1962 (Olshansky, 1962). He was writing about parents of children with a disability, but the concept extends. Olshansky observed that the grief in these families was not a phase. It returned. It returned at predictable moments, like birthdays and milestones and anniversaries, and at unpredictable ones, like a song or a smell or a stranger's child. He called this chronic sorrow, and he made a point I find clinically useful: chronic sorrow is not pathological. It is an appropriate response to a loss that keeps being relevant.

In chronic illness, chronic sorrow shows up when something brings the pre-illness self into the room again. A friend mentions a trip. A photo album surfaces. The body does something it used to do effortlessly, and the contrast is sharp. The grief that follows is not a relapse. It is the loss being current again.

Why this is a developmental task

I have been calling this developmental work because that is how it sits clinically. It is not a phase that ends. It is a piece of work that becomes part of who someone is. Williams (2000) extended Bury's framework to argue that for many people, illness is also continuity, not only break. The story does not end; it widens. Some of what feels like grief, looked at over years, turns out to be the slow widening of the story to include what the illness has asked.

This does not make the grief smaller. It makes it useful.

The shape of the grief work

When I am working with someone on this, the work is not about getting through the grief. It is about giving the grief room to be present without taking over the rest of life. We name the pre-illness self. We mourn her. We notice when she shows up in the present, in feelings, in expectations, in resentment of the body. And we slowly build a relationship with the current self, who is also worth knowing.

There is not an end-point I am working toward. There is a way of carrying this that feels less heavy over time, and that is what we are after.

If you are someone who is carrying a grief that does not quite have a name, what I most want to say is that the grief is real, and the work it asks is real. The pre-illness self is a person you knew, and she has not died in the usual sense. She is mourned without a funeral, missed without an anniversary, and remembered without permission to grieve aloud. That is hard work, and it is being done in a body that is also doing the work of being unwell.

The frameworks I keep coming back to (ambiguous loss, biographical disruption, chronic sorrow) are not labels meant to package the experience. They are names that already exist, that other people have already needed. You are not making the grief up. You are not failing to move on. You are doing a piece of developmental work that the standard scripts did not prepare you for, and that does not have a neat ending. The carrying gets easier over time. Not because the grief becomes smaller, but because the self that carries it grows.

This content is general information only. It is not a substitute for individual psychological or medical advice. Reading this does not establish a therapeutic relationship with Equal Psychology or any of their clinicians.