Address the excuses employed by decision makers to resist imposing practical assistance.
The decision starting point for a frail elderly person should be to ask: are their lifestyle decisions unsafe? And what viable solutions other than care homes are there? Is there an alternative way?
For those connected with frail elderly people you can find that NHS and social services dance around intervention on the basis that they are deemed sufficiently coherent to make there own decisions. Legal issues around the Mental Health Act will be at play - but is there maneuverability? We have a ruling called "Gillick competent" in which a child under the age of 16 can be assessed as competent enough to decide upon their own treatment. Could we adjust this age based approach for people at risk, demonstrating failings. To acknowledge both the positive capacity that may clearly exist along with evolving limitations (in Gillicks case, a childs level of awareness). How do you get your (care providers etc) foot in the door to spare people who have begun failing from being fast tracked into care homes and hospitals. But for this approach to work you will need to address the failings of the current 'home care' provision (cost, staffing numbers, motivation, education).
The organising starting point for GP's/NHS and Social Services will be cost, inevitably paired with 'individual rights'. Looking at the Gillick ruling might be a way to allow failing elderly people to paddle their own canoe but allow those invested in their safety to steer them away from the edge of the waterfall.
People eating and drinking on the go
Does Israel want full scale war in the Middle East?
