S-T. D. Fredriksen and T. Svensson who are closest to them (Løgstrup, 1999). Simulta- neously patients experience personal, embodied life suffering by being forced to make decisions against a strong desire to be with those who are dear to them and who matter most to them. A situation, in which the patient places the needs of their loved ones before their own, may ultimately create an existential con- dition in which bodily presence*with all its contra- dictions*becomes the confirmation of being there for the other (Martinsen, 1993). Interaction confirms relations, but interaction also confirms the impression of the self and/or supports life (Martinsen, 1996). ICU patients confirm the importance of communication and that talking to their loved ones on their cell phone was positively significant. Talking face to face, however, could have the opposite effect. When they were not asked for opinions or included in discussions, they felt re- jected. Serious illness is in itself an exclusion from community according to some patients. Inclusion in a relational community is confirmed by an ethical presence as well as actions within the relational community (Løgstrup, 1999). When ICU patients experience closeness when the physical distance to their significant others is vast and vice versa, it becomes a dimension of relational ethics; since being seen, heard, and understood lies beyond the borders of physical presence. True reception embraces the other and includes the other in the relationship. The contradiction appears when significant others make plans without including the patient or making the patient’s opinions, actions, or presence heard or seen in the relationship. Since the patient is critically ill and bound by limitations, the span between being present in the relationship or not becomes a conflict and existential pain instead. Additionally, when relational interaction is substituted by life suffering, the situation may become a threat to the ICU patient and to life itself. Clinical implications Relational proximity, in this case the ICU patient’s experience of bodily presence of their significant others, can be registered in physical responses, affirmative responses, the perception of significant others’ responses to the patient’s illness, and the community patients/significant others share. Knowledge based on the reflected body’s expres- sion provides intimate access to understanding the reality of patient experiences. This knowledge repre- sents an unusual form of insight into life from the perspective of a challenging situation, in which the bodily presence of significant others is vitally im- portant to the patient’s life. This form of insight poses a different challenge to ICU staff by adding a 8 (page number not for citation purpose) different perspective, philosophy, and knowledge. It forces ICU staff to reconsider their own experiences and knowledge of the patient/significant others inter- action and the phenomena they observe*in essence a physical meeting. Without information on how the patient experiences physical presence of their significant others, important elements of patient assessment may be lost and affect improvements towards ICU patients’ relational needs. The staff is usually responsible for facilitating meetings between patients and their significant others in the ICU unit. It is therefore essential that they apply their knowledge. This is not only sig- nificant when it comes to practical actions within the health professions in the ICU units, but also raises a question of what educational strategies need to be chosen, what knowledge is essential, and what themes should be included in national educational strategies. Conflict of interest and funding The authors have not received any funding or benefits from industry or elsewhere to conduct this study. References Alvarez, G. F., & Kirby, A. S. (2006). The perspective of families of the critically ill patient: Their needs. Current Opinion in Critical Care, 12(6), 614 618. Andrew, C. M. (1998). Optimizing the human experience: Nursing the families of people who die in intensive care. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 14(2), 59 65. Benner, P., & Wrubel, J. (2001). Omsorgens betydning i sygepleje [The Primacy of Caring]. Copenhagen: Muunksgaard. Chaboyer, W. (2006). Intensive care and beyond: Improving the transitional experiences for critically ill patients and their families. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 22(4), 187 193. Curtis, J. R. (2000). Communicating with patients and their families about advanced care planning and end-of-life care. Respiratory Care, 45(11), 1385 1398. Farell, M. E., Joseph, D. H., & Schwartz-Barcott, D. (2005). Visiting hours in the ICU: Finding the balance among patients, visitor and staff needs. Nursing Forum, 40(1), 18 28. Fredriksen, S. T. D., & Ringsberg, K. C. (2007). Living the situation stress experiences among intensive care patients. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 23(3), 124 131. Fredriksen, S. T. D., Talseth, A. G., & Svensson, T. (2008). Body, strength and movement*Intensive care patients’ experience of body. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 3(2), 77 88. Hardicre, J. (2003). Meeting the needs of families of patients in intensive care units. Nursing Times, 99(27), 26 27. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time [Sein und Zeit]. New York: Harper & Row. Kelleher, S. (2006). Providing patient-centred care in an intensive care unit. Nursing Standard, 21(13), 35 40. Kvale, S. (1997). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju [Interviews. An introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing]. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal. Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2010; 5: 5120 - DOI: 10.3402/qhw.v5i4.5120