Dementia Dilemma- Just Opinions Please?

[pixie374]

This is several years ago now- but I would love to see people's views. As it was actually taken to court.

An elderly lady with advanced dementia, moved into our care home. She was strictly vegetarian, on principle, and had been for most of her life.

Obviously, she was only ever given a vegetarian diet by the home. But- 6/7 years later, she started helping herself to sausage rolls, ham etc... from the fridge or the side as it was being served.

Naturally, her son and daughter were quite horrified when told- but also suggested she should be stopped.

They took the home to court- who decided that she no longer had those principles, and it was not to her advantage, to prevent her from eating meat.

My view is both that she can eat what she likes. But that I also understand her children being upset by it. Although, court seemed excessive...

Any views please?

[barry1010]

The only reason the home was taken to court was for financial compensation. Greed.
Did her children remove her from the home?

[Jackdaw33]

I think the court got it absolutely right. It wasn't doing her any harm.

[pixie374]

No, she stayed. I can understand her children's reaction as well though.
I can't remember who and it doesn't matter- but someone asking how to vote on their mum's behalf, as they had dementia and couldn't, which has stayed in my mind since, as a similar view.

[Mamyalynne]

Her children handled this wrong in my view, what a shame it ended up in court.

[barry1010]

Seems odd that somebody is so unhappy with the care their mother is receiving that they take the home to court but leave mother in the same home.

[pixie374]

Mamya, they believed that her principles weren't being respected. Tbf, while I disagree with them, that was all they had known from her. I just wondered if anyone agreed with them.

[pixie374]

Barry... adjustment is hard for relatives, when people change. I disagree, but understand it. And I've seen similar here.

[Buenchico]

A basic principle of both law and morality is, in my opinion, that people should be allowed to do as they please unless there's a damned good reason why they should be prevented from doing so. Any restrictions that care homes might place upon the liberties of their residents should be consistent with that approach. i.e. unless there's a clear cut reason as to why a resident should be prevented from doing something (such as attempting to jump out of a first floor window or lighting a bonfire in the lounge) they shouldn't be stopped from doing it. Your care home's policy at the time would seem to be consistent with that view.

[choux]

I suppose neither nor both of her children never were present to see the lady take the meat products of her own volition?

[pixie374]

Thanks Chris x they were very much "by the book".
The only other time I can think, where they deliberately went to court, was when wanting to put up bedbars, on a residential lady, on end-of-life care, who also had epilepsy, and risked falling out of bed.
They lost that one, from "freedom of movement". The court said, they could pay for a 24/7 carer to sit with her. But- as long as they didn't touch her. She is perfectly entitled to fall out of bed, and the carer must just watch it and then call an ambulance.
So, I'm not entirely confident in their views...

[pixie374]

Choux, they were both informed exactly what had happened. But said, she didn't understand what it was. Which, she didn't.

[Nieve]

I think the children were wrong to take this to Court.
When a person gets dementia, the previous life choices change big time. Whatever makes the affected person happy is paramount, however upsetting to the family.

[woofgang]

were they vegetarians?
Difficult one. I kind of get the principles argument if she didn't realise it was meat she was eating but would have been disgusted with herself had she known, but I wouldn't stop her.

[pixie374]

Thanks both. No, they weren't, themselves, woof. They just hadn't seen her do that before. I guess it's the "if she had known"- where she doesn't, and if she did, probably wouldn't have done it anyway.

[Peter Pedant]

hmm do you have a case number for that? it is in the public domain. so data doodah is not in point

wd be decided probably the same - the judge wd not enforce what she liked before - people change their minds - and she seemed to like sausage rolls now but not previously

subsidiary point is that a person can choose sausage rolls and still be unable to execute a will ....

case number?

[Prudie]

My immediate view is if her children were so uptight about this principle being adhered that they took it to court to maybe they should have her living with them where they could enforce it. Beyond only serving vegetarian dishes for set meals what else could the home do- lock her away from fridges etc, that's better for her life quality how?

[pixie374]

Sorry, no idea, pp. It was maybe 12-14 years ago now. I know, prudie... although it's only really one example of similar wishes by relatives.

[choux]

The lady was not capable of understanding what she had eaten and with no likelihood of her cognitive powers improving I don't see how her consumption of anything could have upset her.

Her family would have been better off concentrating on her general quality of life as it neared its natural end.

[lankeela]

Unless the lady had some religious or medical reason for being vegetarian I can't see how the children had any right to question what the lady herself chose to eat.

[Canary42]

I would suggest the Home had more experience/knowledge of dealing with dementia, and this should be recognised by the children.

Also, it is likely that denial would be considerably upsetting to the mother. For the children to insist on the home sticking to mother's former pre-dementia principles is ridiculous IMHO.