Keeping our elder safe --- at what cost?

We really want to “take care of” those elders in our life who are important to us. Those elders may well be our parents, or may be elder members of our religious congregation. The response of “wanting to take care of” comes from a sincere “caring about” the elder(s) in our life.

Too often this well-intentioned mindset is tainted with the ageism that is so embedded in our society that we are totally unconscious of it; we don’t recognize it. Two examples of this come to mind immediately. In one case, a widow in her early 80s lives in a rural area but drives the short distance into the small adjacent town as needed and desired. Recently her vehicle of many years became unusable. Her only child chooses not to help his mother shop for another vehicle because he worries about her driving. Now this woman has had no accidents, no fender-benders or traffic violations. She uses good judgment about when and where to drive. However, her adult child worries about her mother. “Something might happen.”

A second example is of an elder Sister who wanted to make arrangements to spend Easter with her family who lived some 70 miles from her motherhouse. The Sister appointed to act as “superior”/family member” suggested to the Sister that she not make this trip. “Sister, you know you fall sometimes. I’m afraid if you make that visit you may fall while you are there.” The Sister, of course, didn’t visit her family.

Dr. Judah Ronch tells us that such actions result in “surplus safety.” In the name of caring for an elder because we care about them, we prohibit them from taking risks that are inherent in life. When all risks are negated, there is no quality of life. Every day every one of us take risks – a flight from one part of the country to another – driving a car – and on and on. We take risks because we judge the benefdits to outweigh the risks.

When elders are prohibited from taking similar risks because we want to keep them safe, usually ageism, exhibited as paternalism is involved. A valid question to ask when one is tempted to prohibit an elder’s action in order to keep him/her safe is this: “Would I be inclined to make this same decision for a person who is thirty years younger?” If the answer is no, examine whether a paternalistic/maternalistic (read patronizing) mindset is what drives our decision.

For more information,Google “surplus safety” and “Judah Ronch”

Alzheimers -- Living in the Moment

Often when aging and aging services are discussed, the focus becomes, intentionally or not, pathological aging, such as is experienced by any elder who is living with dementia. It is true that as one’s age advances the risk of dementia increases – until we’re 95 according to Dr. Snowden of the Nun’s Study, and then the risk for dementia decreases to almost ‘it’s not going to happen.’ However, aging and living with dementia are not interchangeable terms.
There is a very thought-provoking article in today’s New York Times entitled, “Finding Joy in Alzheimer’s.” The author believes that we should “reassess our thinking about the elderly and old age dementia” – that an important change in perspective is called for in how we view the changes that are going on in the affected elder.

The comments that follow the column enhance the already informed and perspective-rich article. I offer the link here for your convenience.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/finding-joy-in-alzheimers/?ref=health