Let me answer that with this analogy. If you have one member who's ill with post-traumatic stress disorder and living in a family of four, you're treating one-quarter of the problem if you're not dealing with the rest of the family members. The nature of mental health issues is systemic, and the whole system is involved. As treatment is taking place there needs to be a psycho-educational process, certainly for the spouse, if not, depending on age, the children.
The mandate to provide funds for that, of course, becomes a really significant problem, because as I'm aware, this is not an inexpensive proposition. However, on the other hand, if you're treating only one-quarter of the problem, this is one of the things for which we have to bite the bullet and find a way to do that, find a funding process to help those families.
The ongoing needs of surviving spouses will change with age and time and capabilities, as they do for any other person over a period of 25 years, with child care and so on. At the end of the day, they may need a different kind of vocation in order to cope with the changed environment of their time. Do we really want to say, at a certain point, “Your skills are no longer required—even though we put you in this place, and had your spouse not been killed, you would not likely be in this impoverished state or position in which you cannot work”?