conflict between proximity and distance to their significant others. Patients experience the conflict between proximity and distance with various bodily responses. The bodily presence of significant others is in principle a positive experience, however*in a situation with critical illness and the limitations it involves* patients experience the conflict between the pre- sence of significant others and the exhausted body’s need for rest and protection against all unnecessary impressions in order to survive. Significant others affect the situation and create a sense of constraint and disempowerment. Patients receive their signifi- cant others with sensuous openness, yet are unable to disconnect their sensing, since they are unable to control their own body, its place, and position in the world (Merleau-Ponty, 1994). Thus the patients open sensuous body is ruled by intentionality, their will to live, and independence on one hand, and the constraints of the demands of physical presence of significant others and its effects on the critically ill body on the other. The bodily presence of significant others also confirms patient experiences and are significant to the situation. Patients reveal how touch confirms the sense of belonging. Significant others also make demanding comments, comments the patients feel nagging, remarks that reinforce their sense of being nonproductive. This confirmation focuses on relative involvement in the situation and expectations linked to involvement*in other words how much the patient can contribute (Thøgersen, 2004). The demand for participation is a double- edged sword. On one hand it confirms a sense of community, on the other it confirms alienation because of the gap between expectations and patients’ ability to perform. The only situation where this contradiction is nonexistent is in the bond among close blood relatives, where no demands are made for performance*an unconditional demand towards giving to and receiving from the other (Løgstrup, 1999). Man always relates to a meaningful holism in his being in the world and this connects ICU patients’ experiences and relationships to the responses they receive from their significant others (Nicolaisen, 2003). ICU patients see significant others suffer in silence when they enter into the relationship with closed emotions and with bodies devoid of sponta- neous emotions. They reveal how some significant others try to seem tougher than they are, but since they know each other intimately they find it difficult to decide how to relate and how to deal with the situation. These and other statements indicate con- flicting emotions that may result in bodily reactions, reactions in the form of life suffering. When more than one significant other is present at the same time, ICU patients experiences in a situation of critical illness patients express how they must balance the differ- ence in reactions among their visitors. The patient is forced to relate to other people’s reactions and must cope with proximity and distance simultaneously. This involves how intensive care patients experience significant others’ concern, as well as their desperate hope in the situation. The strength of hope opens up an existential dilemma*the contradiction between other people’s hope and one’s own experience of the situation. This position doesn’t only create a di- lemma of proximity and distance in itself, but also an openness to or reservation against life itself, caused by the strong sensibility of the situation. This sensibility may affect the life force through the patient’s senses (Nortvedt & Grimen, 2004). Community is sharing, bonding, lineage, family, faith, or attitude for shorter or extended periods of time in a life span. ICU patients reveal that the bodily presence of significant others during critical illness is important in terms of closeness, openness, confidence, and their need to be there. Being close to one’s own, particularly one’s children, is perceived as difficult since it touches on thoughts of dying and the fear of having to leave a shared community through death. ICU patients also reveal how they feel limited in the community, since they must leave tasks and responsibilities they otherwise would have handled on their own to their significant others. At other times they are forced to renounce significant others in order to cope with their own life and the situation. On the one hand we see a form of existential confidence that serves to confirm their position in a shared community (Nicolaisen, 2003). On the other hand there is a message beyond the (fundamental) experiences in the situations where spontaneous life utterances create meaning as well as provide meaning. It is characteristic for human nature to care for someone or something, and this makes the total experience a situation of division and conflict. Existential safety and the experience of fear, create an understanding of inadequacy (Benner & Wrubel, 2001). Family relations and community involves personal and shared responsibilities (Alvarez & Kirby, 2006). By defining themselves as decision makers, ICU patients protect adults and children from additional stress by shielding them from facts about their situation. ICU patients make assessments and inter- ventions and carry the consequences and responsi- bilities alone. They represent their own illness and the situation they are in, as well as in how the con- sequences of physical presence of significant others manifests itself in their separate bodies. ICU patients seem to support their loved ones and carry them ‘‘in their hands.’’ This attitude among patients seems to create a situation that feels brighter and safer to those Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2010; 5: 5120 - DOI: 10.3402/qhw.v5i4.5120 7 (page number not for citation purpose)