I have a friend whose son got a critical illness. One of the parent has to stop work to look after the sick child full time. As a result, the lost of income is the financial lost. If the parent earns $5000 per month, then staying out of work for 10 months is equivalent to a financial lost of $50,000. If it is 20 months of non-working, the financial lost is $100,000. Also the chances of being re-employed to the similar occupation having similar pay as the previous job decreases rapidly as the person stays out of employment for too long. Many parents think that having a critical illness coverarge for children is a waste of money. I think that's a wrong thinking. When the child is critically ill, parents will personally take care of the child themselves. Outsourcing to in-laws and maid is out of the question. For male whose wife is a full-time housewife should not have the thinking that their spouse can take care of the sick child by themselves. Already a full time housewife can barely cope with "normal" children, it is impossible to hold the fort if their child is critically ill. The sole-bread winner of the household may have to reduce their workload by changing to a less stressful job (which usually means lesser pay) or even quit totally to help their wife defend the fort at home. Thus all these means a significant lost of income which usually adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Therefore, having the child insured with critical illness coverage that pays a lump sum on diagnosis of such critical illness will hedge against such large financial losses.  Give your comments