My mother is hypercritical of my brother’s wife, to the point that she blames my sister-in-law for my brother’s “failings” (not getting a better job, not taking better care of his health, etc.). It has gotten worse now that there are grandchildren. My mother constantly criticizes how my sister-in-law is raising the kids, who are lovely and adore their grandparents.

Although my mother will occasionally raise criticisms with my sister-in-law and brother, I am mostly her audience.

I have a great relationship with my sister-in-law, and when my mother goes off on one of her rants, I defend her. I tell my mother how lucky she is to have such wonderful grandchildren, and point out that my brother is an adult who makes his own decisions. This just leads to an argument between my mother and me.

When I finally told my mother how much it hurts me to hear her say these things about my sister-in-law, she said that she needed to air her frustrations with someone. I want to be there for my mother, but I don’t like being put in this position. How do I navigate this?

From the Therapist: The short answer to your question is that you can navigate this by no longer engaging in these conversations. But I imagine you already know this. What you might be less aware of is that you aren’t being “put in this position” of supportive daughter, protective sister-in-law and unwilling confidante. You’ve chosen it, and it’s worth examining why you’ve signed up for a job you don’t want — and what makes it hard to resign.

Usually when we find ourselves repeatedly engaging in uncomfortable family patterns, it’s because they echo familiar roles from our childhood. It sounds as if you’re struggling with enmeshment, a relationship pattern in which boundaries between family members become blurred or are nonexistent.

Think of enmeshment as being like two trees that have grown so close together that their branches have become intertwined. While this might look like closeness, it actually prevents either tree from growing in a healthy way. In your case, your mother’s emotions and grievances have become so entangled with your own emotional life that it’s hard to distinguish where her feelings end and yours begin.

You mention wanting to “be there” for your mom even though these conversations hurt you. Many adult children who struggle to say no to their parents grew up serving as their parents’ emotional support system, or absorbing their parents’ feelings, even at the expense of their own. When you told your mother how much her venting hurt you, she responded not by acknowledging your feelings, but by asserting her need to “air her frustrations.” Her response reveals something important: She sees you as a vessel for her emotional overflow rather than as someone with valid feelings of your own. And yet, despite your hurt, you’re still more concerned about her feelings than yours.

You’re asking how to navigate this situation, but I think the deeper question is: How can you begin to value your own emotional needs?

You can start by reframing what it means to make a reasonable request, which is essentially what setting a boundary is. A boundary isn’t about pushing someone away. Instead, it’s about making a bid for connection. It’s saying: “I want to feel good being close to you, but when you do X, it makes me want to avoid you. Help me come closer.”

Establishing a boundary consists of three steps:

• State the issue and the desire to come closer (what will make this possible): “Mom, I love you and want to support you, but these conversations about my sister-in-law put me in an impossible position and make me want to avoid talking with you, which I know isn’t what either of us wants. I’m happy to talk about other things together, but in order to keep our relationship strong, I need this topic to be off limits.”

• Set the boundary (what you will do): “If you’re struggling with their choices, I’m happy to support you in finding a therapist who can help you work through these feelings. But if you bring up these frustrations with me, I’m going to end the conversation and we can talk another time about other things.”

• Hold the boundary (do what you say): A boundary isn’t about what the other person will or won’t do. A boundary is a contract with yourself. If you say you’ll end the conversation when your mom brings up your sister-in-law, you need to hold that boundary every single time. If you end the conversation only 90 percent of the time, then why would the other person honor your request when 10 percent of the time, you can’t honor it yourself? Honoring your request might sound like: “Mom, I’m going to end the conversation now because I’m not comfortable talking about my sister-in-law. I love you, and we’ll talk later.”

If you start to feel guilty, remember that just because someone sends you guilt doesn’t mean you have to accept delivery. Remind yourself that when you become your mother’s outlet for criticism of your sister-in-law, you’re participating in a cycle that strains loyalties and causes you personal distress. And keep in mind that being a good daughter means setting boundaries that encourage our parents to grow, rather than enabling patterns that harm our family relationships.

Want to Ask the Therapist? If you have a question, email askthetherapist@nytimes.com. By submitting a query, you agree to our reader submission terms. This column is not a substitute for professional medical advice.

The Biden administration unveiled a proposal on Wednesday to cut the level of nicotine in cigarettes, a last-minute push on a plan that could meaningfully cut cancer rates nationwide and extend the lives of millions of cigarette smokers.

If finalized, the proposal would require cigarette makers to significantly reduce the levels of nicotine in their products in an effort to make smoking less addictive and less satisfying. Research has suggested that the move would result in fewer people taking up the habit and would help the nation’s roughly 30 million smokers quit or switch to less harmful alternatives like e-cigarettes.

The policy is a centerpiece of antismoking initiatives by Dr. Robert Califf, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, who has recounted treating cardiology patients ravaged by smoking during his medical career.

“It’s the biggest thing I’ve ever seen in terms of societal benefit, cost saving and lives saved, and strokes prevented and cancers prevented,” Dr. Califf said.

The policy’s companion effort to ban menthol cigarettes has been set aside indefinitely after vehement opposition from cigarette makers and other opponents, including convenience store retailers.

Whether the nicotine reduction plan would survive the incoming administration of President-elect Donald J. Trump is unclear. Mr. Trump has traditionally been industry friendly and opposed to heavily regulating businesses. In addition, he has had the support of tobacco companies, including Reynolds American, which contributed at least $8 million to Mr. Trump’s main super PAC during the presidential campaign. Reynolds has already expressed its opposition to the proposed requirement.

Mr. Trump’s campaign co-chair and incoming chief of staff, Susie Wiles, is a former lobbyist for Swisher, a company that makes cigars. The rule applies to cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, pipe tobacco and cigars (though not premium cigars).

Some public health advocates are holding out hope that the Trump administration will allow the proposal to move forward, given that a previous version was considered by the F.D.A. during his first term. At minimum, officials could continue to allow the public to comment on the initiative without killing it or putting it into effect.

The F.D.A.’s proposal includes projections that by 2100, the nicotine reduction measure would prevent an estimated 48 million young people from starting to smoke. By 2060, the agency also estimates that 1.8 million tobacco-related deaths would be prevented, and that $30 trillion in benefits would accrue over 40 years, mostly from the generation that would not begin smoking.

“We do have an extremely toxic and addictive product with cigarettes that remain on the marketplace, that still kills almost a half a million people a year,” said Dorothy Hatsukami, a tobacco researcher from the University of Minnesota who has studied low-nicotine cigarettes for about 15 years. “So it’s really kind of an unfortunate situation that we haven’t really done anything dramatically about it.”

In 2022, Dr. Califf released an updated proposal to lower nicotine levels, and opposition began to grow almost immediately.

Tobacco companies have viewed the initiative as a major threat to their business. Luis Pinto, a spokesman for Reynolds American, said the proposal would “effectively eliminate legal cigarettes and fuel an already massive illicit nicotine market.”

“These actions would also have a significant negative economic impact on farmers, retailers and others,” he added.

Convenience store retailers have also opposed earlier versions of the proposal, saying they would sustain substantial losses in revenue from a projected decline in cigarette sales.

Congressional Republicans have also tried to thwart restrictions on nicotine levels. In 2023, members of an influential House subcommittee passed a measure that would have prevented the F.D.A. from spending any money to advance limits on nicotine, with nearly all of the supporting votes by Republicans. The Senate did not include the provision in a final budget package.

Still, supporters of the plan point to signs that incoming public health officials may be receptive to it, including to the popularity of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s pledge to tackle chronic diseases and improve the health of Americans if he is confirmed to lead the nation’s top health agency. Mr. Trump himself has said that he is personally opposed to cigarette smoking.

“Given these enormous benefits, we urge the incoming Trump administration to move forward in finalizing and implementing this rule,” Yolonda C. Richardson, the president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a statement. “Few actions would do more to fight chronic diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular disease that greatly undermine health in the United States, and that the incoming administration has indicated should be a priority to address.”