95yr old frail stubborn mother

As a retired nurse WDYS, if you read the OP’s very nasty post listing the health problems she has suffered, and take into account her perhaps over-emphasis on covid restrictions and the fact that she has a husband, do you believe there was no time during during a period of three years that she could have visited her mother with her husband’s assistance or (again with her husband’s assistance) made arrangements for her mother’s care and wellbeing which would have limited reliance on the neighbour? Three years is a very long time isn’t it?

Agree - I really sympathise with all the health problems that the OP had, but mentioning Covid as a reason not to visit would not be accepted in a court of law. In summer 2021, my neighbours had a wedding reception for 80 guests, so surely the OP or her husband/son could have visited then, if not before, or made arrangements?

I agree she may have had problems travelling, but feel sure that she would have mentioned it!

Care homes round here are £5-6k a month, something to bear in mind as well!

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

WDYS: As a presumably new poster, (I don't see you in the Search facility), are the rules of engagement here becoming a little clearer?🤔

VB000

Agree - I really sympathise with all the health problems that the OP had, but mentioning Covid as a reason not to visit would not be accepted in a court of law. In summer 2021, my neighbours had a wedding reception for 80 guests, so surely the OP or her husband/son could have visited then, if not before, or made arrangements?

I agree she may have had problems travelling, but feel sure that she would have mentioned it!

Care homes round here are £5-6k a month, something to bear in mind as well!

Me too.

But upon hearing that DM could not cope it would have been the right thing to phone Social Services and ask them to assess her so she could get the right help. That way, OP could have been available by phone to support and advise. It might have prevented the neighbour realising there was a crisis and stepping in.

Although, it is always easier to look back with hindsight, isn't it.

I still think it would be a good idea to get Social Services to do an Assessment of Needs for Mother to see what care she actually needs and make sure it's put in place. The neighbour's help may not be appropriate if it was assessed that she needed more help? I do also think OP could do with a Needs Assessment from Social Services to make sure she is getting all the care she needs and any other help she may be entitled to.

WDYS

Seems free speech is not allowed on Gransnet watch this one being deleted as proof

This one is not accusing other members or things GNHQ doesn't allow you to, so I expect it will remain. Free speech is allowed. The guidelines tell you what isn't.

Fleurpepper

OnwardandUpward

They do Fleurpepper, as long as they have capacity to make those decisions.

If they lose capacity and only then, is when they lack the capacity to make the best decisions for themselves anymore and that is when it becomes a Safeguarding matter . Then, and only then, decisions must be made in their best interests.

And yet- that is a very fine and wobbly line. Who decides when that line is crossed. If someone decides to live in squalid conditions, which would be considered by others not to be 'good' decisions- but fully compos mentis and aware of risks, of say, falling over, not being discovered immediately, being cold or not washed as often as perhaps we would deem adequate- at what stage do we have the right to say 'you are not making good decisions'? People have the right to make the 'wrong' decisions all their lives, why should that choice be denied in old age.

I am not being flippant. But we have come across many cases where the very question became the reality. Should the doctor act against the patient's wishes, because his/her children decide the parent is not making 'good decisions' according to their standards?

I think you have put that very well Fleurpepper.

DaisyAnne

Fleurpepper

OnwardandUpward

They do Fleurpepper, as long as they have capacity to make those decisions.

If they lose capacity and only then, is when they lack the capacity to make the best decisions for themselves anymore and that is when it becomes a Safeguarding matter . Then, and only then, decisions must be made in their best interests.

And yet- that is a very fine and wobbly line. Who decides when that line is crossed. If someone decides to live in squalid conditions, which would be considered by others not to be 'good' decisions- but fully compos mentis and aware of risks, of say, falling over, not being discovered immediately, being cold or not washed as often as perhaps we would deem adequate- at what stage do we have the right to say 'you are not making good decisions'? People have the right to make the 'wrong' decisions all their lives, why should that choice be denied in old age.

I am not being flippant. But we have come across many cases where the very question became the reality. Should the doctor act against the patient's wishes, because his/her children decide the parent is not making 'good decisions' according to their standards?

I think you have put that very well Fleurpepper.

No, the Dr should act professionally within the standards of the Mental Capacity Act.

They will then know whether the person has the capacity to choose to make a bad decision for themselves or whether the person has lost capacity and reasoning skills to make good decisions for themselves (therefore needing Safeguarding)

What the children want does not factor in a medical decision about whether someone has Capacity or a Safeguarding decision. No one except a professional can make that assessment, though we may question whether an assessment needs to be made.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/social-care-and-support-guide/making-decisions-for-someone-else/mental-capacity-act/

No what?

Are you denying that in many cases, that line is very fine and wobbly, and not at all clear cut?

No.

No it's not up to the kids.
No I don't make the rules.

I gave you the facts of what happens by law, but the wobbly line is absolutely "not my circus and not my monkeys."