The third largest group were those who had lost a child or children, followed by those who had lost siblings. The remaining groups included grandparents, in-laws, and cousins. Respondents who suffered multiple losses (for example, who had lost both a husband and children) are included in the 6% to 8% denoted as other in Figure 1. Figure 1. Relatives’ relationship to the deceased, as indicated by the relatives Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical in each of the seven questionnaires. Results Figure 2 shows how the relatives rated the care they received. The ratings were classed into 3 categories (negative, positive, and in-between).

In each survey, there were more people who judged the care they received as negative than those who regarded it as positive. Remarkably, the group that rated the care as positive decreased after the first year. Up until the firstyear anniversary of the sinking of the Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical Estonia they had a more positive outlook in regard to the help they received. Thereafter, care tended to be increasingly rated as negative. In addition, many participants Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical complained that the help they received ended too soon. Figure 2. Ratings by relatives of their experience of the help and care they received after the disaster. Another item in the questionnaire asked if subjects would still like to receive help (Figure 3). Yes replies

eventually decreased in number, but 3 years after the catastrophe, still slightly more than 20% of the relatives wanted to continue receiving help. ‘Ihosc who were Src inhibitor unsure (don’t know) showed a tendency to

increase and numbered 30% after the third year. Figure 3. Relatives’ answers to the question of whether they would like to continue receiving help. Opinions were split, among Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the relatives, about how to deal with the Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical bodies of the victims and to dispose of the ship. The relatives have sometimes felt themselves to be overlooked by the decisionmakers and claim that no one listened to them. For us, at Ersta, it was very important that all opinions and all feelings in this matter should be allowed to be voiced. We did not agree that the relatives should not be asked to express their opinions and wishes. We thought it important for them and to feel involved, to be seen and heard, even though everybody’s wishes could not be fulfilled. Figure 4 shows the responses to the question: Do you think that the authorities, before coming to a decision on December 15, 1994, should have consulted the victims’ relatives regarding the salvaging of the Estonia? This question was not included in the first questionnaire, which only contained questions relating to health and disaster emergency relief. The majority of the relatives clearly wished the government had asked them for their opinion, and, as can bee seen in Figure 4, there was a noticeable increase of yes-answers with time. Figure 4.