Tag Archives: Care of the elderly

Dying and Bereavement

26 Oct

 

Dying and bereavement

 

When a family member is terminally ill, everyone deals with that information in different ways, that includes the person themselves.  The Kubler-Ross model has 5 stages: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and finally Acceptance.  These stages can work for all parties involved.

 

Family members can therefore choose to be very involved or not at all and this difference of grieving process has an impact on family relations, at an already difficult time.

 

Some people are afraid of dying and don’t want to do it alone, they will hang onto life for as long as they can.  Others accept it and at the end willingly go there, rather than cling to life.  Some terminally ill people don’t want their family to witness their death, they consider it personal.  So for family’s who are on a 24 hour vigil, the 5 minutes in which they leave the bedside to have a comfort break will be the 5 minutes that person chooses to pass away.  Others want their family there, will white knuckle the hands of a loved one, rather than let go and feel alone.  Either situation has its emotional impact on all parties.

 

Some family members will communicate with the others that turn up and let them know that if there is anything they can do to help, they will, yet when asked, are always busy with something more important.  They just can’t deal with facing the situation.

 

Some family members want to be involved with everything, do as much as they can, which might be more than is required and might be an invasion of the privacy of the dying person.

 

So what is the answer?  There is no “one” answer and there is no “right” answer.  Everyone deals with death and grief in their own way.  It is important to remember that, however anyone else deals with it, they might not understand how you do and vice versa.  So just give everyone a bit of slack.

 

When in doubt, imagine yourself in a week, a year and a decade and do the thing that means that you won’t have regrets, whatever that is.  And whatever you choose, know that you are not the only person in the world that has felt that, grief is universal, even if you feel alone in the moment.

Advertisements

Managing Risk for People with Dementia

21 Sep

 

Managing risk for people with dementia

 

We all take risks, we do it all the time.  We cross the road without looking carefully, eat too much, exercise too little, drink too much alcohol or smoke to name just a few of the things that all of us do.  And sometimes this has serious consequences, with the number of road traffic accidents there are a year, but there are far fewer accidents, than the numbers of people carelessly crossing the road each day.

 

People with dementia are still people, I have red hair (sometimes it is even referred to as being ginger!), but I’m not just known as that, I’m also a solicitor, resident of Plymouth and parent.  There are lots of different facets to me, but when dealing with a person with dementia, why is that the key facet that is seen?  They are more than that, much more.  So if I can take a risk, why can’t someone with a dementia?

 

From the human rights aspect, they can, they are still human and human rights are universal!  The overriding human right it the right to life, so as long as they are not seriously risking their life, everyone, including people with dementia should be allowed to make unwise choices.  We are all allowed a private and family life, freedom of religion, as well as freedom of assembly and association and freedom from discrimination.  We should all be allowed to exercise all of our human rights and it is only at the point that we risk our life, should our ability to exercise our human rights be curtailed and they should only be curtailed to the extent needed to protect our life.

 

In the Mental Capacity Act 2005, there is legislation regarding ensuring whatever decision is made on that person’s behalf, it is the less restrictive of their rights and freedoms.  The key word here is less, it is not least, to do the least restrictive would be to do nothing, but that might mean that it is too risky and becomes a risk to their life.  How many people with dementia say that they want to live at home with no help?  They might want to, but would be dead in a few days if they did, as they have no ability to care for themselves.  So the less restrictive might be to put in a daily carer, possibly even multiple times per day.

 

People with dementia are still people and like the rest of us, are completely unique, with their own views about themselves and the world around them.  They might be very risk averse or happy to take risks, even big risks.  All their characteristics needs to be taken into account when making a decision about someone with dementia, including what they say now, not just what they would have said when they were well.

 

The decision should be the less restrictive, let the person with dementia feel like they are still a person and not just a medical diagnosis and let them take a certain amount of risk as too restrictive a regime might be just as bad and dangerous for health as a too unrestrictive one.  Balancing risk is about seeing the person first, as a real person and not just their dementia.

 

And to all carers out there, from time to time, you may get it wrong, but mostly you get it right and just by caring, you get it right.  Keep up the good work.

 

If anyone needs advice in caring for a loved one, let me know, I understand.

Mental Capacity – what does it really mean?

31 Aug

 

Mental capacity – what does it really mean?

 

When someone has lost their mental capacity, what does that mean?  With the Mental Capacity Act 2005, capacity is considered to be time and decision specific, but what does that mean?  Every decision that is made is made at a certain time, it might even be made each day at the same time, such as eating breakfast or getting out of bed, but each decision is made every day and tomorrow the decision to have breakfast is a new decision.  Capacity can be fluctuating, so if someone is very unwell today, they might not be tomorrow and their capacity can return.  This is why decisions are time specific.

 

What about decision specific?  Some decisions are much more complicated than others, such as the decision to move house, but a decision about what to eat for dinner is much easier, so someone with poor cognition may not be able to make one decision, but might be able to make another.

 

The statutory test of capacity at stage 2 of the decision making process is about understanding it, weighing it up, retaining it and communicating the decision.  So how does someone weigh up the decision?  The easy answer to that, is to ask them.

 

What isn’t part of assessing someone’s capacity is the “nice answer” or the “risk free answer”.  So whether someone with a cognitive impairment can decide to live with a relative or not, should not depend on whether the arrangement would work well or would be good for one of more of the parties.  Or just nice to see happen!  Ask them if they understand the proposition, look at the different aspects of it, how would an “average person” analyse the situation, unless you know they have skills in the area greater than an average person, then that’s the criteria to assess them by.

 

When deciding if someone has capacity to eat dinner, an average person would be unlikely to know how many grams of saturated fat they have eaten today, or how many calories.  An average person knows they are hungry and what they might fancy eating and that it’s approximately dinner time.  There is no reason to make the decision more complicated than it needs to be.

 

One of the key aspects of the Mental Capacity Act is the presumption of capacity, that someone is considered to be able to make a decision until it is proven that they can’t.  Capacity is often a balancing act and it is only when someone is in a coma or other minimally aware state that there is a total lack of capacity, even people so impaired that they are non verbal can refuse to eat or drink or have care undertaken.  And they might refuse to eat their meal, but agree to eat their pudding or sweets, because they know the difference and have a preference.

 

The ideas behind the Mental Capacity Act were about enabling and empowering people to make as many decisions that they can for themselves.

Acting as a Health & Welfare Attorney

1 Jun

Acting as a Health and Welfare Attorney

 

The first thing to understand about acting as a H&W attorney is that the attorney can only make decisions that the donor lacks capacity to make themselves and that is true for each big or little decision.  So a person may know that they like chocolate but not be able to make a decision about a complex medical procedure, capacity is “time and decision specific”.  This means that the donor may well be making some decisions about their life, but not others.

 

The next thing to understand is that when acting for someone who is found to lack capacity, the attorney must decide in their best interests.  That’s not just an average person’s best interests who is a bit like them, but in that one individual person’s best interests and to do that, the attorney would need to know something about them.  H&W attorneys are usually family members, so hopefully they do know something about them.

 

There is also the issue of life sustaining treatment and the donor can choose to allow the attorney to make decisions or not.  If they donor chooses that the attorney cannot make decisions, then whilst there might and should be consultation with those closest to the donor by the health care professionals looking after the donor, the final decision maker about life sustaining treatment is the health care professionals.  If the family disagree with that decision their only recourse is an application to the Court of Protection, which can be expensive, time consuming and very emotive for family members.

 

If the donor allows the attorney to make decisions about life sustaining treatment, then their decision is binding on the health care professionals, in the same way that the capacitated donor’s decision would be.

 

So apart from life sustaining treatment, what other decisions can the attorney make?  In short – any medical or social care decisions, which would include decisions about treatment, including medication and surgery.  Social care decisions such as what to wear, what to eat and who visits you.  Importantly where to live, which includes whether someone goes into care and if so, which care home they go into.

 

They attorney can request a particular kind of treatment, but it will only be offered if it is clinically appropriate, this is the same as if the donor was capacitated.  The attorney cannot demand the treatment.  The attorney can refuse clinically appropriate treatment, in the same way that the capacitated donor could, which includes things like discharging from hospital against medical advice.  However, the place that the attorney is taking the donor needs to be in that person’s best interests and if the health care professionals believe that the attorney’s decision is too risky, then instigate an application to the Court of Protection to have the attorney removed.

 

People take risks, people make unwise decisions, this is normal and happens all the time and people with a cognitive impairment should also be able to do, as far as possible, what everyone else can do.  The issue becomes the balance between the unwise choice of the attorney honouring the preferences of the donor and the risk that this will incur.

 

Acting for someone when they are unwell is always hard emotionally on those that must make those decisions and care for them.  And making decisions about life sustaining treatment is particularly hard.  For any attorney who needs help, please contact me, I would be happy to support you in this role.

 

 

Dementia & GPS trackers

26 Feb

shutterstock_99085391 (40) - Copy

GPS trackers & Dementia

 

Following the recent Plymouth Dementia Conference, part of what I was discussing was the advice regarding the Human Rights aspects of people with a dementia wearing a GPS tracker.

 

So below is a link to the advice that I have written, following consultation with a Senior Judge from the Court of Protection, a Human Rights Lecturer and a Scottish Lawyer.  Thank you to them all.

 

http://www.nash.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/GPS-Systems-for-people-with-Dementia.pdf

 

I hope that you find it interesting.

Dementia & Human Rights – My Speech

11 Feb

Dementia Conference

 

I was very pleased to be asked to speak at the 4th Dementia Conference in Plymouth and as I went on at 10am, I spoke in front of a pretty full audience, which was both thrilling and nerve wracking!  My speech was well received and I have had lots of positive comments afterwards, which were incredibly kind.

 

As there was a lot of interest in my speech, I have published it, see the link below for the full text:

 

http://www.nash.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Hilary-Cragg-Dementia-Conf-Speech-2015.pdf

 

Nash & Co had a stand at the Conference and I had a brilliant day there, I met some old friends that I have met many times before and hopefully made some new ones, so that we can all work together to help people to live better with dementia.

 

IMG_20150205_145937 (2)

Court of Protection Cases – Part 12

5 Feb

shutterstock_110792273 (43) - Copy

Court of Protection – Part 12

 

For the last couple of weeks I have discussed a recent training course I went on presented by Senior Judge Denzil Lush, who presides over many of the cases about financial abuse and as a result many of the cases that I have discussed in earlier blogs.

 

He talked about some of the cases that I discussed and about the Court of Protection in general.  He had some statistics from the Court of Protection and the OPG.  In 2009 there were 17,068 applications issued and in 2013 there were 24,923.  He also said that 94.5% of cases are non controversial and are dealt with on the papers alone, with only 5.5% of cases being dealt with by an attended hearing.

 

The OPG had received an increasing number of LPA applications and as it has not been possible to create a new EPA since 2007, the numbers of these being registered is decreasing.  So in 2012/13 there were 242,000 applications for LPA and in 2013/14 295,000 an increase of 22% (in one year alone!).  The numbers of applications to register EPA was 18,000 in 2012/13 decreasing to 16,000 in 2013/14, however this is an overall increase in the workload of the OPG of 20% in one year alone and this increase is not likely to slow with the aging population.

 

In 2008/9 the OPG were supervising 15.935 deputies and in 2013/14 they were supervising 49,006, more than treble what is was before the introduction of the Mental Capacity Act and this increase in caseload is likely to continue.

 

The OPG when they supervise Panel Deputies (who are the Deputies appointed by the Court where there is no-one else to take on the case) they would historically look at each of the cases in turn, but the supervision now is more holistically overall the entire caseload of the deputy.

 

Senior Judge Denzil Lush also said that many of the cases that he presides over are not cases where the deputy or attorney has intentionally stolen from the patient, but often where they are incompetent.  A deputy is required to file accounts with the OPG annually and if they have not done so for 3 years, it does not necessarily indicate that they have stolen anything, but they are simply not doing the job as deputy to the standard that is expected and therefore these deputies have their appointments revoked.

 

So the message that I learnt from this is that there is going to be more and more cases going to the Court of Protection and many of us are going to be dealing with it, either in a personal capacity when a loved one develops dementia or for me professionally I will be assisting more families through the process of dealing with the Court of Protection.