So last week a woman died in a house fire. They stated on the news that she was known to have dementia. The fire smoldered for hours before it was discovered and the fire department called. She had been dead for some time by the time the fire was discovered. In my experience with families, I have to wonder if there had been a discussion about needing some kind of assistance, a sitter, family staying with her, going somewhere else, anything? It is just a news story and the characters are not known to me personally. But the situation is one I see over and over and over again. As the memory gets worse, the person is not making good decisions. Yet no-one wants to rock the boat and make mama mad by suggesting help. So instead, she continues on in an unsafe situation. In many situations, there are not dramatic outcomes such as this. But I have to wonder and I'm not trying to be a smart alec; Is it preferable that mama was able to stay in her house on her own, even though she died in a tragic fire, rather than making her angry?
I know it's easy to look in from the outside and make judgments or second guess others decisions. But why, when we know someone is not making good decisions and we don't let them drive, we manage their finances for them, etc, do we go along with their decision about care? So the question becomes, which would you rather deal with, making a decision for safety even if it makes someone mad, or knowing something that happened could have been prevented? It's not an easy choice, but it is real.
No comments:
Post a Comment