It's a curious notion that one can conflate two totally separate experiences. The boy died because he chose to do something stupid that killed him and also killed an innocent young woman. The daughter died because a young man did something stupid. The idea that the two losses are in any way similar from a psychological perspective is at best self-deluding and at worst desperate denial in operation. It is hardly surprising the grieving mother of the dead daughter has an utterly different emotional burden to bear and it is shockingly obtuse of the writer to hide under tedious cliches about forgiveness and "choosing to live" - especially as that choice was stolen by her son from the young woman who was killed and who no doubt would very much have "chosen to live" had she been given the option.