Yes Molly, I agree there is a fuzzyness, what to do what to do? I guess that each case taken by itself is the way to go.
On 4 Sep, 13:26, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a difficult question to answer, as I can apply it to my recent > experience of being the caretaker for my dying mother in law. It took > us quite awhile to catch on to the fact that she was no longer able to > make rational decisions and was indeed insisting on self destructive > decisions. For instance, although she no longer had the manual > dexterity to apply make up or use hot rollers or curling irons, she > insisted on having it all and would sneak them into the house and > inevitably burn herself, ruin furniture or fabric etc., She also had > an anxiety driven need to move from wherever she was. She really > wanted to be back in her own home, but knew she could not care for > herself there or afford a care taker living with her. But she hated > being wherever she was and would constantly call people that she knew > to enlist them in her latest plot to move somewhere else. Of course, > she really didn't have the manual dexterity to dial a phone so two out > of three calls were a wrong number. This was a problem in the middle > of the night when she would wake folks up in her need to call around. > > In spite of these problems, she seemed somewhat rational in > conversation and really put on a good show of having it all together, > so that it was hard for us to do what was necessary to protect and > care for her. At what point do you say to an adult - "I'm sorry, I > know better than you do what is good for you?" Whether the issue is > dementia, a low IQ, or any other condition that reduces problem > solving and cognitive abilities, there is that fuzzy line where > decisions must be made by a care giver for the good of the patient. > In the US, it is a complicated and lengthy process to obtain > guardianship, requiring more than one medical opinion and several > court appearances. > > On Sep 4, 6:33 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yesterday I said that that the right to be is the paramout right. > > This article is interesting in that it seeks to curtail such a right > > for this woman on the grounds of her low IQ. > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8222689.stm > > > I think that perhaps she may not be fully aware of the conseqences of > > her decision, but does that mean that she should not be able to make > > it? > > > How much can a duty of care, inpingh up the right to be, or do you > > think that such a right simply does not exist?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
