Obituary of Kathleen Dehmlow; Redwood Falls Gazette article about Kathleen Dehmlow
Kathleen Dehmlow’s obituary appeared in the Redwood Falls Gazette in 2018, it immediately rose to prominence as one of the most contentious and extensively debated obituaries in contemporary history. In stark contrast to the customary obituary, which honors the life and accomplishments of the departed, Dehmlow’s obituary was quite different. Instead of heartfelt memories, it was characterized by scathing critiques, private complaints, and an honest depiction of family strife. Because of this, it generated intense discussions about the morality of writing obituaries, how to communicate grief, and the intricacies of family relationship.
Born on March 19, 1938, in Wabasso, Minnesota, Kathleen Dehmlow, née Schunk, was the daughter of Joseph and Gertrude Schunk. She has two kids, Gina and Jay, with Dennis Dehmlow, whom she married in 1957. However, her obituary’s headline focused on the darker parts of her personal life, which she had mostly kept hidden from the public, rather than her achievements or contributions to her community. Instead of giving the usual account of her birth, marriage, and the pleasures she would have experienced with her kids, it concentrated on the more contentious and upsetting episodes that had taken place over many years.
Kathleen had an adulterous romance with Lyle Dehmlow, her husband’s brother, according to the obituary. After the romance resulted in an unplanned pregnancy, readers were startled to learn that Kathleen left her two children to be raised by her parents in 1962 as she left her family to begin a new life abroad. The obituary’s language also suggested that Kathleen never came back to support or reestablish contact with her kids.
A recitation of these incidents was not the end of the obituary’s severe tone; it continued in its concluding remarks, which were very scathing. She died in Springfield on May 31, 2018, and she will now be judged, according to the obituary. The world is a better place without her, and Gina and Jay know that they will not miss her. These statements established the tone for a sharply divided public response and offered little opportunity for interpretation.
The obituary received an immediate and extensive response from the public. It spread online and sparked contentious debates on news sites and social media as it swiftly became viral. After decades of desertion, several individuals felt that the children had every right to vent their sadness and anger, especially those who had been through or understood the anguish of having a parent forsake them. For them, the obituary symbolized the end of a protracted period of unresolved grief and the profound emotional wounds brought on by Kathleen’s deeds. For Gina and Jay, it was a way to vent their emotions and find catharsis after a lifetime of what they saw as neglect.
On the other hand, many critics found the obituary harsh, inappropriate, and unprofessional for a public forum. These critics argued that, regardless of the complexities of Kathleen’s life, obituaries should serve as a respectful tribute, not a space for airing personal grievances. They questioned whether it was ethical to use an obituary—a traditionally solemn space where families come together to mourn—to publicly shame and condemn a person, especially after their death. Many felt that the obituary lacked grace and the decorum typically associated with honoring the deceased.
The Redwood Falls Gazette, where the obituary was initially published, faced significant backlash from readers and the broader public. Many questioned whether the newspaper should have allowed such a personal and unforgiving obituary to be printed in the first place. In response to the uproar, the newspaper ultimately removed the obituary from its website, but the controversy had already taken hold. The debate surrounding the publication of the obituary continued to grow, with readers, journalists, and family members weighing in on the appropriateness of the content.
As the controversy continued, extended family members and others close to Kathleen spoke out. Some family members claimed that the obituary was misleading and didn’t reflect the full complexity of Kathleen’s life. A cousin of Kathleen’s stated that, while the obituary painted a picture of a woman who had abandoned her family, it failed to mention that, in her later years, Kathleen had spent time in a nursing home and had reconciled with certain relatives before her death. The cousin and other family members pointed out that, like many people, Kathleen had evolved over time, and the obituary didn’t acknowledge her attempts at reconciliation or the complexities of her life in her final years.
This insight prompted the debate of whether an obituary should aim to describe the whole scope of a person’s life or if family disputes or unsolved problems should define their entire legacy. Did it seem right to judge someone only on the basis of their previous transgressions, particularly when there may have been an opportunity for healing or atonement? Many people still struggle with this problem, particularly when dealing with intensely sensitive family relationships that aren’t always easily captured in a few words.
Kathleen Dehmlow’s obituary stands as a striking example of how deep, unresolved grief can manifest in a public way. It also speaks to the complicated nature of family relationships and the emotional complexities that come with them. The obituary is not just a story about a woman’s life; it’s a story about anger, regret, and the lasting effects of personal choices. In the case of the Dehmlow family, the obituary became the forum for a very personal statement about abandonment and the emotional toll it had taken over decades.
The obituary not only exposed private family matters but also spurred crucial conversations about how we deal with anger, grief, and the need for accountability following a death. Is this a place for unvarnished honesty, or should obituaries always be written with respect? Should obituaries highlight a person’s legacy’s good elements or should they provide a comprehensive account of their life?
Major ethical issues were brought up by the Dehmlow obituary, which is still used as a point of reference in discussions over how to honor the deceased while striking a balance between candor and compassion. It reminds us that how we treat people we leave behind shapes our legacy just as much as how we live. A person’s legacy may be negatively impacted for a long time after they pass away due to the lingering bitterness of desertion. But for others, healing and reconciliation are achievable, and the obituary, by definition, is unable to capture the whole scope of a person’s journey.
The ethics of Kathleen Dehmlow’s obituary will be a topic of ongoing discussion, but one thing is for sure: it will go down as one of the most notorious and talked-about obituaries in recent memory, permanently commemorating a period when unresolved family difficulties came under public spotlight. No matter how one feels about it, the Dehmlow obituary is nonetheless a sobering reminder of the intricacies of familial relationships, the lingering consequences of individual choices, and the ways in which we remember and evaluate the dead.