More about Preventing Elder Abuse With Prosocial Behaviors

Who You Callin’ Stubborn?

 

This is a follow-up post about WEAAD.  Elder abuse is a phenomenon that affects not just the victim of abuse, but threatens the fabric of our community.  Besides mandatory reporting, prosecuting perpetrators and enforcing existing laws prohibiting elder abuse and exploitation, there are prosocial behaviors which can serve as powerful and effective preventive interventions to guard against the isolation and vulnerability which often lead to elder abuse.

What Are Some Examples of Prosocial Behaviors?

The term was coined as an antonym of the more prevalent term “anti-social” behavior.  It comes in many different theoretical forms, but they all recognize that we humans are social beings and depend upon one another, notwithstanding many of our “atomistic” beliefs about who we are and how we interact with each other.  In this respect, prosocial behavior is tied to our very survival, but a functional approach is what I’m concerned about here because I’m looking at ways to foster elders remaining visible members of our community.  The basic behviors might include: demonstrating concern for others, sharing time and resources, caring for others and active empathy.

Isolation as a Precursor to Elder Abuse, Inclusion as the Antidote

It may not occur to many of us that someone’s ability to live independently in the home – a/k/a aging in place, can have disadvantages and drawbacks.  From my experience, I see plenty – but don’t get me wrong, I am definitely not against aging in place!  I am concerned that sometimes it gets glamorized in unhelpful ways.  I have seen some elders dig in their heels at the suggestion by loved ones that they bring in some help to perform household chores or share in meal preparation.  In its worst expression, it becomes a vow by the elder that they will only be removed from their home “on a gurney.”

How Our Focus on a Rights-Based Approach to Elderhood Often Overlooks the Prosocial Activities of Inclusion and Participation

Most elder abuse occurs in the home.  Many elders face abuse and abusive situations in skilled nursing facilities or other facilities and these tend to be the attention grabbers.  I think of this fact when I read the ruling on appeal issued by the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals last May, which upheld a jury verdict of $1.21 million in damages against an operator of an Oklahoma City, Oklahoma nursing home for abuse of one of its residents by nursing home employees. Keep in mind that nursing home administrators have many resources to assist them in training and supervising staff, one of these tools is known as TPAAN and here’s more information about it.

Our Collective Fear of Dementia Often Means We Shun People Affected by Dementia

When we’re talking about elders aging in place, we have to consider folks with dementia.  People with dementia have trouble thinking and sometimes their loved ones in particular (most of whom have no special training in communicating with people with dementia) or other community members have a difficult time not correcting those errors in thinking, cognition or memory impairment.  But what if we looked at those “errors” not as errors but simply as a different way of being in the world?  How could we get through to see and listen to someone in that different world the person with dementia inhabits?  Remember, there is still much opportunity for communication, which can and does still happen.  The more challenging question is how we can facilitate it.  I think of music and its use in Alive Inside and I recently learned from a Canadian friend of the Butterfly Model, a new version of person-centered care that recognizes that

for people experiencing dementia, feelings matter most, that emotional intelligence is the core competency and that “people living with a dementia can thrive well in a nurturing environment where those living and working together know how to “be” person centered together”

We Can Still Be in Relation With A Person Whom We Struggle to Understand

This person-centered care is a relational way of engaging with a person affected by dementia. It also reminds me of Naomi Feil’s validation therapy, which is also relational.  So, this leads me to the inevitable question, can people engage in this type of relational work without specific training and/or outside the context of institutionalized care?  I will write more about this soon….

©2018 Barbara E. Cashman, www.DenverElderLaw.org

When the Decedent Was a Hoarder

Tightrope

What is hoarding? I like this simple definition from the Anxiety and Depression Association of America.

Hoarding is the persistent difficulty discarding or parting with possessions, regardless of their actual value. The behavior usually has deleterious effects—emotional, physical, social, financial, and even legal—for a hoarder and family members.

Hoarding is “officially” a disorder, meaning it was reclassified as such in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) in 2013.  Prior to its recent “promotion” to a disorder, it was considered an aspect of obsessive-compulsive disorder, so many folks who suffer from OCD (or OCPD) are also hoarders. Hoarding has also been linked to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and depression. Sometimes hoarding may be associated with an eating disorder like pica (eating non-food materials), Prader-Willi syndrome (a genetic disorder), psychosis, or dementia.

Hoarding for elders can be indicative of depression and/or anxiety and for those elders who may have been “pack rats” in younger years, the compulsive habit can worsen in later life.  Here’s a link to a University of California at San Francisco study that looks at elders’ hoarding as a health concern.  That study concludes that hoarding in elders often seems to worsen and becomes more problematic, but for reasons that remain unclear.

How does hoarding impact one’s life? There seems to be, to a certain extent, an inverse relationship of stuff hoarded to quality of life. The more stuff clutters a home, the unhealthier and more dangerous can be the living conditions. Shame, fear of judgment, distrust of others being allowed in to the hoarder’s living space can contribute to the hoarder’s sense of isolation.

It seems straightforward that an elder who has a dwelling place crammed full of junk is much less likely to allow caregivers into the home or others who might able to otherwise assist an elder with managing the challenges of independent living.

What can be done to help a hoarder while they are still alive?  The answer to that depends on the type of hoarding behavior as the intervention must be tailored to it.  And yes, in case you’re wondering, there is a Hoarders Anonymous, but my antivirus software won’t let me visit their website. . ..

So, this post is about hoarding in the estate context – what does that mean?

It means that the job of identifying the decedent’s assets can be difficult, at best.  Finding relevant information can be extremely challenging or impossible due to the sheer volume of papers collected by the deceased hoarder.  Many years ago, I represented the personal representative of an estate of someone who was a hoarder.  The decedent had died in a skilled nursing facility, but inside her home remained dozens of filing cabinets as well as many boxes of papers.  When I informed the personal representative about some documentation I would need, she informed me that she was fairly certain that the papers I needed were kept in the home, but it would take several weeks to go through those storage places to try and locate them.

What if the deceased was an “organized” hoarder and kept only certain types of items?

Well, that might not be so bad, but I haven’t seen that one yet.  In my experience, there are few “selective” hoarders.  I think that has to do with the fine line between collecting and hoarding!

And if the deceased was an indiscriminate or disorganized hoarder? Well, I don’t think there’s a patron saint of the chronically disorganized who happen to be hoarders – but maybe there should be.  You might recall that Dante’s Inferno, in the fourth circle (of hell) to be precise, identifies the twin opposite behaviors of those hoarders and wasters (or prodigals).  That circle is all about greed as the Fourth Circle of Hell is guarded by Pluto, the Greco-Roman god of wealth:

Here, too, I saw a nation of lost souls,
far more than were above: they strained their chests
against enormous weights, and with mad howls
rolled them at one another. Then in haste
they rolled them back, one party shouting out:
“Why do you hoard?” and the other: “Why do you waste?”

Canto VII, lines 25–30, Ciardi translation.

So, it is apparent that the proliferation of stuff and its unceasing accumulation has obvious negative effects on one’s relationships with others and the outside world in general, but. . .

What can we do about detecting the causes of hoarding and helping a hoarder?

It’s a fine line indeed between “collecting” and “hoarding.”  That Depression-era mindset of scarcity, coupled with distrust (anxiety) about the future – the origin of one’s next meal, etc., can contribute mightily to a worsening of an already latent propensity to collect.  Here’s an article about that topic.

And if you think there isn’t an opposite extreme that people can engage in (see Dante’s reference to the “wasters” above), here’s an article about compulsive decluttering.  The root of the problem may be the link between either type of activity and its origin with obsessive thoughts.

In short, there are ways to help a hoarder – and in particular to avoid making the person (not their affliction) a spectacle of ridicule.  If this sounds like self-interest for the family members of a hoarder, as in those persons who will be responsible for going through the hoarder’s possessions – well it certainly is in their interest to help!

© 2017 Barbara Cashman  www.DenverElderLaw.org

Capacity and Incapacity in Context

Maigue Swan

 

Capacity is not some dusty old legal concept! In this post I revisit some implications encroaching incapacity or. . .  the “dark side” of our longevity.

The issue of capacity basically concerns judgement – the ability to reflect on and consider decisions required for daily living.  When one lacks that capacity (or is deprived of it) the validity of some actions taken or decisions made – which have legal implications – can be called into question.  This capacity discussion is likely to become more commonplace as more baby boomers move into retirement years and greater longevity…

Here’s a definition of capacity referring to Black’s Law Dictionary:

Legal capacity is the attribute of a person who can acquire new rights, or transfer rights, or assume duties, according to the mere dictates of his own will, as manifested in juristic acts, without any restraint or hindrance arising from his status or legal condition. Ability; qualification; legal power or right. Applied in this sense to the attribute of persons (natural or artificial) growing out of their status or juristic condition, which enables them to perform civil acts; as capacity to hold lands, capacity to devise, etc.

Capacity includes the ability to behave rationally and exercise one’s own judgment (for better or worse).  Certain matters which typically adversely impact one’s otherwise presumably intact capacity include: mental disorder, developmental disability, intoxication, injury affecting one’s cognitive abilities, or the course of a disease process.

Reference to judgement capacity (or the ability to process information) is a legal notion often coupled with or inclusive of a functional (objective) capacity assessment.  This is because so many of our human “doings” can require distinguishing (as our law does) between when we can manage and when we can’t.  The term “capacity” by nature refers to an ability.  I won’t go into any discussion about the nuances and historical underpinnings in the law relating to capacity as distinguished from competence.  If you want to read further on that topic, check out this entry from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on decision-making capacity.

So – how do we move from being presumed to have capacity to being legally incapacitated?

Where an adult has diminished or diminishing capacity, the law makes reference here to the “least restrictive means,” a concept borrowed from disability law.  For Colorado adults who are determined by a court to be incapacitated, there is a finding by the court that “the ward is an incapacitated person and the ward’s needs cannot be met by less restrictive means, including the use of appropriate and reasonably available technological assistance.”  See JDF 848, Order Appointing Guardian for Adult.

Because my practice focuses on elder law and probate, most of the petitioners whom I represent file petitions for guardianship (or conservatorship) concerning elders who have “slipped” in their capacities to manage for themselves, meaning the individual no longer has sufficient capacity to manage their affairs or make important decisions on their own.  Many of these elders are at risk of financial exploitation as a result.  I have also represented petitioners who are often parents of developmentally disabled young adults.  The distinctions among them, as for elders, are varied and numerous.  Suffice it to say that sometimes, for younger adults, it may be easier to establish grounds for a limited – as distinguished from the much more commonplace unlimited guardianship.  In the former there can be specific references to supports to help facilitate an adult’s capacity(ies).  Unfortunately, limited guardianships remain rare birds for a number of different reasons.

  Capacity in Daily Living

To bring this discussion back to the practical level, I not that one’s capacity to “live independently” or perform the activities of daily living (ADLs) are often part of the incapacity picture as well, but this is generally due to a concern for an elder’s self-neglect.  With regard to an elder who is named as a respondent in a petition for guardianship, the elder’s physical capacity or incapacity is generally irrelevant in determining incapacity unless it substantially affects his or her ability to make or communicate important decisions regarding his or her person, family, property, or results in self-neglect.  Physical impairments alone are often of limited import in the guardianship context, as evidenced by reference in Colorado law assistive devices and technologies and the preference for least restrictive means, but in making the determination of incapacity, reference is made (as stated above in JDF 848)  to those assistive technologies.

Another context for elders and capacity which is receiving more attention is the issue of consent for sexual relations.  I would imagine that the free-loving baby boomers will test their adult children’s tolerance and demand that more attention be paid to this aspect of living in a communal or institutionalized setting. Read a recent study about the generation gap in attitudes and practices of extramarital sex here.  A couple years back I wrote a blogpost on this topic and also about a husband in Iowa who was prosecuted for allegedly sexually abusing his demented wife.

Suffice it to say that this debate is ongoing, particularly as more institutions look to provide more person-centered care for residents who still enjoy physical intimacy.  Some of these folks have dementia or other cognitive impairments which can affect their ability to consent.  Do not underestimate the “eeewww” factor of many of these folks’ adult children who would rather not be informed of mom’s recently contracted STD or consider that an elder parent is sexually active!

We must remember, even when an adult is determined to be incapacitated for purposes of imposing a guardianship, what can still remain intact is that person’s capacity to express a preference as to the person who will serve as guardian.  In In re Estate of Runyon, 343 p.3d 1072, 1077 (Colo.App.Div.4 2014), the court held that

a finding that the respondent is an “incapacitated person” within the terms of the statute does not necessarily mean that the respondent lacks sufficient capacity to express a preference as to a guardian or conservator.   Neither the definition of incapacitated person nor the criteria for appointment of a conservator automatically exclude the ability to make a rational choice as to the selection of a guardian or conservator. Therefore, an incapacitated person may “still be able to express an intelligent view as to his choice of guardian, which view is entitled to consideration by the court. (Citations omitted)

That’s all for now and thanks for reading!

© Barbara E. Cashman 2017   www.DenverElderLaw.org

Medical Aid in Dying for Dementia Patients Who Lack Capacity

A Maelstrom?

A couple days ago a bill was introduced in the Oregon senate (S.B. 893 – you can read it here) which would permit a patient’s expressly identified healthcare agent in an advance healthcare directive, “to collect and administer prescribed medication for purpose of ending patient’s life . . . if patient ceases to be capable after having received prescription for life-ending medication.”  [Thanks Jennifer for the heads up!] This bills extends Oregon’s medical aid in dying law (the Oregon Death With Dignity Act) to allow another person (“expressly identified agent”) to get the prescription for MAID and administer it to the person who lacks the capacity to arrange for getting a prescription for MAID and self-administering it.

The definitional section of the bill, which highlights the additions to the existing Oregon law, clarifies that “expressly identified agent” is an agent under a health care power of attorney.  The additions state further:

SECTION 3. An expressly identified agent may collect medications dispensed under ORS 127.815 (1)(L)(B)(ii) and administer the medications to the patient in the manner prescribed by the attending physician if:

(1) The patient lawfully executed an advance directive in the manner provided by ORS 127.505 to 127.660;

(2) The patient’s advance directive designates the expressly identified agent as the person who is authorized to perform the actions described in this section;

(3) The patient’s advance directive includes an instruction that, if the patient ceases to be capable after medication has been prescribed pursuant to ORS 127.800 to 127.897, the expressly identified agent is authorized to collect and to administer to the patient the prescribed medication;

(4) The medication was prescribed pursuant to ORS 127.800 to 127.897; and

(5) The patient ceases to be capable.

This is a huge departure from what might be called the “status quo” of the handful of states (and last month, the District of Columbia) regarding the legality and administration of MAID.  When I presented at the CBA/CLE Advanced Elder Law Institute last week on the new Colorado End of Life Options Act, I mentioned that something like this would be inevitable.  I had no idea that this bill would be introduced the following week!

This Oregon bill basically eliminates the requirement of mental capacity for a patient to be qualified to arrange for MAID.  The Oregon statute concerning health care powers of attorney can be read here.  So many concerns come to mind I can scarcely name them.  It makes the principal’s job of selecting the correct health care agent a matter of life and death – literally.

Dementia – of a variety of types – can often last for years, so perhaps it would not be so easy for a principal with dementia to be otherwise qualified under the Oregon law (with a terminal illness and not expected to live longer than six months) to have the health care agent end the principal’s life.  I’m not certain that diminishes my concerns.

What if there is a passage of years between the naming of the health care agent and the advance of a person’s dementia?  There is often a change of relationship that occurs during this time, whether it concerns a spouse, life partner or child.  How would this be accounted for?  There is no allowances for change of circumstances here.

This prospect of putting someone out of their misery might just be what my veterinarian meant (as she was administering the drugs to end my much-loved elderly dog’s life) when she stated “I wish we could do this for people.”  But there is of course the prospect (along with many examples over the course of human history, particularly recent history) of putting another person out of our misery.  How do we discern the difference in these circumstances?  I will write more on this topic later.

© Barbara E. Cashman 2017   www.DenverElderLaw.org

 

Springtime!

Solstice and Death Denial

Night Lights

Solstice is an astronomical event, a phenomenon occurring biannually which marks two extremes: the shortest day of the year (today) and the longest day of the year. Its meaning derives from the Latin: sol for sun of course and stice meaning standing still in that the sun stops before it reverses its direction.  All cultures in the world have noted or somehow marked the occurrence of the solstice, but each has historically come away with different forms of its observance.

I’m writing about solstice today for a couple reasons I suppose. One is its reminder of constant change in our natural world.  There is always some movement in this life – a lengthening and a shortening, a moving toward and a moving away from, but it often seems that many of us would rather insist on holding onto something a bit more concrete, that we can touch, hold or identify as familiar.  Most of us do not welcome change with open arms because it represent the unknown, about which we can never be too certain.

In the coming months I will be writing more about a favorite theme of mine – the denial of death.  This denial of death which we endorse and glorify in our culture, often unwittingly, is essentially a denial of life.  We can’t have one without the other.  So how do we manage this uncertainty which often presents as anxiety – either on a personal or collective level?  Many of us will simply choose to react, to prepare for what we think is inevitable in our minds – as if we can predict the future.  Of course many of us can predict the future in that the narrowness of our ability to see the world in front of us is such that our field of vision is limited to only those things which we want to see.

This closing up, this denial of what we don’t want to accept, what we are not willing to see and what we have told ourselves we would never accept is in many ways like a solstice.  Our world shrinks down to what is manageable under the circumstances, the mystery and uncertainty of what we can’t control is simply too much for many of us.  But what if the unknown, the uncertainty is our best teacher?  How might we respond to it? I think of a favorite quote of David Steindl-Rast:

The root of joy is gratefulness…It is not joy that makes us grateful;

it is gratitude that makes us joyful.

You can watch Brother David’s Ted Talk here.

I have written about gratitude and gratefulness a number of times.  In our culture, we tend to be focused almost exclusively on the personal losses faced in elderhood: the loss of autonomy as a result of physical, mental or emotional difficulties or challenges; the loss of purpose in that many of us no longer feel we are contributing members of a community; and the loss of engagement in life. I believe that successful elderhood is possible and desirable, amidst all the difficulties, pessimism and “conventional wisdom” (or insanity, depending on your point of view) – perhaps even as a result of all these challenges.  This is what I will be writing more about in 2017.  I am grateful for this opportunity to write about this, for each of you that reads a post of mine and particularly to those who comment or send me an email about a post.  Happy solstice day today and may your days be lengthened in joy and deepened in purpose.

© Barbara E. Cashman 2016   www.DenverElderLaw.org

Dementia and the Growing Prevalence of Elder Abuse

Not Winter Flowers

Not Winter Flowers

I was reading a list serve post yesterday that told of the member’s father (a retired attorney in another state) who got a call from a scammer claiming to be an attorney working on behalf of a grandchild in trouble with the law.  The post was essentially a “heads-up” kind of post to a new mutation on the old long lost grandchild scam.  You can read an article about how that scam works from the perspective of the scammer here.  Sadly, some other members of the list serve community reported a couple instances of this one when it worked successfully, relieving the loving grandparent of a sum of money.  One such scam was traced to a caller in the Ukraine!  If it sounds like it might never happen to an elder you know, think again – these folks are quite sophisticated.

This is an introduction to some news that I recently read about our neighbors in the UK: Dementia is the leading cause of death in England and Wales.  Read the BBC News article here.

This means that as other health challenges are effectively managed throughout one’s old age, dementia remains in the background so to speak, a silent killer.  It’s no surprise that the bulk of these dementia deaths were of women, as women tend to have a longer life span than men.  What I thought was particularly interesting was this figure: Dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, accounted for 15.2% of all female deaths, up from 13.4% in 2014.  Is this due to more effective means of diagnosing Alzheimer’s (which ordinarily must be done with a brain autopsy or at least a slice of that organ’s tissue to identify those amyloid plaques)? Or is it due to an actual rise in the number of persons afflicted with the disease, as demonstrated in the graph in the article which shows it steadily overtaking heart disease since 2012?

Dementia is a leading side effect if you will – of our longevity.  This news doesn’t just impact our health and longevity of course, factors mightily in the need for further raising the awareness of elder abuse.  Folks with dementia are likely to be victims of some form of elder abuse, neglect or exploitation.   The burden on the rest of us to be able to detect elder abuse is crucial to our collective well-being.  The community plays a foremost role in the detection of elder abuse in its many forms and so community members – through meals on wheels volunteer, peers at a community center or members of a faith community, can play a major part in this effort.  I don’t want to minimize the importance of prevention, but I think our awareness needs to focus first on the detection of the myriad forms of elder abuse.

My introduction to this post was about a scam by someone posing as a person assisting a grandchild – but most of the reported cases do not involve “stranger danger” as it is called in the child welfare context.  Sadly, when the abuser or exploiter is an adult child or other family member (as the vast majority of such cases appear to be) the elder is faced with a difficult choice indeed because their ability to be maintained in their own home is severely compromised.  We have some battered women’s shelters, but no emergency housing for abused elders.   We simply must be able to move forward with the development of services for at risk elders and design some kind of basic architecture of supportive services.  Right now, everything is dependent on where an elder lives.   How many community resources there are largely depends on local and state funding because whether the detection resources, such as law enforcement and adult protection services, are adequately informed to detect elder abuse – makes a huge difference.

Here’s a link to a very informative program from Nashville Public Television.  Especially as we tout “aging in place” as the best kind of living arrangements for most elders, we must face what that can mean for them and the risks it can pose.  We must respond to this call for being present to our elder community members!  I will write more about what looks to most of us to be a challenging landscape of familial relations and unfamiliar ethical territory.

© Barbara E. Cashman 2016   www.DenverElderLaw.org

Elder Abuse and the Mother-Child Relationship

Tree Mother

Tree Mother

 

Today I’m exploring the question of whether exploitation or neglect of an elder parent by an adult child presents differently due to the gender of the parent.  I will begin with a question:  is the elder parent – adult child relationship different between mothers and fathers?  What about when it “goes wrong” and results in neglect, exploitation or financial, physical or verbal/emotional abuse? I can say from my experience as an elder law attorney that elder mothers appear to be taken advantage of in ways that are often different from those means involving elder fathers.

This post crosses a lot of territory – spanning the abuse of a power of attorney by an adult child serving as agent, elder abuse resulting from neglect of an incapacitated elder, to the evolution of family conflict across many years of relationships.  Abuse in these contexts can take many varied forms and because it is part of a family relationship, a most intimate one of mother and child – it can express itself in subtle and slippery ways.

I have noticed in the estate planning portion of my work that fathers tend to have a much easier time with leaving disproportionate shares of an estate among adult children and also seem to be much more resolute about disinheriting a child.  One of the reasons might be that mothers tend to have a higher involvement and investment in the parent-child relationship, even as it evolves over the lifetime of the parent and the adult child(ren).  In my experience, mothers are more likely to hold out hope that a wayward child (whom a father might easily disinherit) will return to a more productive life path or that the filial relationship will otherwise be redeemed.

Some people might think that threatening one’s mother with putting her in a nursing home might amount to elder abuse.  I’m not saying that it wouldn’t constitute emotional abuse in some circumstances, which could be used by an adult child to further a strategy of dominating and controlling a parent for their own personal gain.  This threat could also stem from an adult child caregiver who is overstressed from his or her responsibilities to care for a (sometimes uncooperative or difficult) parent.  Sometimes what ends up as exploitation starts out as a willingness to assist the parent but perhaps due to the nature of the parent-child relationship or as a result of the buildup of resentment on the part of the child, the caregiving goes astray.  But what I’m talking about in this post goes a bit further.

As we all know, parents remain parents of children, with all of the emotional responsibility that entails – regardless of the age of the child.  The fact is that many elders are better off financially (or at least more secure) than their children and they may want to help their children financially, but there is a razor-thin edge between healthy nurturing and being subjected to emotional manipulation.  Here’s a link to an AARP article from 2013 which has some sad statistics.  Part of the problem is a sense of entitlement from the adult child or children.  Some of us in my field of practice use the term “impatient heir” to describe these adult children who seem to be biding their time until the parent dies and they can “collect.”

I don’t want to sound like a broken record here, but I have noted a number of times in previous posts that there is not very much current research documenting the prevalence of elder abuse.  There is some recent work on the sometimes toxic nature of filial relationships and elder abuse.  What is “taking care of” someone and what does it properly entail? Here’s a link to an abstract about the special significance of the adult daughter-elder mother relationship and the use of aggression. Underreporting is an obvious problem – particularly when the reason for underreporting is shame or embarrassment.  When an elder mother (or father) reaches out to me as a resource person to assist in remedying a situation, one of the first things I say involves the recognition of how brave the mother Is to contact someone outside the family to report on what is generally a highly embarrassing and sometimes shameful situation.  One elder mother I worked with recounted to me how her daughter told her that she was mean to her when she was a teenager and so the daughter’s control over her mother’s finances was part of a “payback.”  Another mother extended her home temporarily to a child from whom she had been estranged for many years, only to learn he had no intention of ever leaving.  The victim-victimizer narrative in these situations can get rather convoluted!

Dr. Judith Smith is a researcher in this field who is engaged in studying how family conflict plays out in the later years of the parent and she has focused on the parent’s feelings of ambivalence (e.g., a mother wanting to help her child versus the resentment of feeling the need to assist).  The National Adult Protective Services Association (NAPSA) recently added Dr. Smith’s research brief entitled “Elder Abuse, Mother Abuse and Parenting in later Life.  Here is a link to the power point training offered by Judith Smith, LCSW, PhD on Vimeo on which NAPSA based their report.

The ambivalence scale to which Dr. Smith’s training refers is described in more detail here by Karl Pillemer, in the article entitled “Ambivalence Toward Adult Children: Differences Between Mothers and Fathers,” and you can read the article on the National Institutes of Health website here.

As we continue down the road of longevity, it might help us to think about our long term familial relationships and how they are challenged or compromised as a result of a parent’s longevity.  When this longevity involves physical frailty, emotional dependence, cognitive impairment or other factors diminishing an elder parent’s autonomy – what is an appropriate response?  This is of course an ongoing conversation and I will continue on this topic in the future.

© 2016 Barbara Cashman  www.DenverElderLaw.org

Colorado End of Life Options – A Follow-Up

denver elder law

Spring Orchid at DBG

 

I’m writing this as a follow-up to my last post, which elicited a heartfelt comment from a subscriber and a fruitful discussion on LinkedIn. . .

Voluntary euthanasia is when death is chosen by a person, when they are killed with their own expressed consent.  These types of requests and the consent needed for such must be clear.  To review a bit – passive euthanasia is when a person makes an advance directive in the form of a living will in which the person indicates the level of medical intervention – or lack thereof – in the event they are in an end-of-life scenario.  In the Colorado Medical Treatment Decision Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. 15-18-101 et seq., we distinguish between persistent vegetative state and terminal condition as the triggering circumstances for the application of the living will.  Persons dying according to the terms of their living will may direct in advance the withholding or withdrawal of certain medical interventions which would tend to prolong or sustain life. The Living Will is in essence a statement of wishes and the persons involved in providing for assisting with another’s grave medical condition must be aware of its existence and its contents.  Unfortunately, what sometimes happens is that an elder goes to a senior center or some other place to fill out a living will form, but the elder neglects to inform their family members they have done so.  No one knows of its existence or contents and so it is of no value.  This is why having “the conversation” – especially with one’s health care agent – is so valuable!

So, let’s get on with the discussion at hand.  Many of us have experience with active euthanasia in the form of “putting down” a beloved pet.  When my dear old dog Pepper was nearly paralyzed, we made the decision to euthanize her after considering the alternatives.  When two of my sons and I were with Pepper at the vet’s office (sitting on the floor with her, stroking her and telling her how much we loved her), she was injected with the drugs that would end her life.  The vet commented to me – “I wish we could do this for people.”

This is the paradox of passive and active euthanasia – that active euthanasia is more humane in that it hastens the death to alleviate the suffering, while passive euthanasia requires the withholding of the means of sustaining life – which means a person can go quickly if they are dependent on breathing support or. . . .  they will slip away slowly as they starve to death.

It occurs to me that many of us don’t think of the living will as a statement as to the form of euthanasia preference – or if there is no preference for such.  Is the living will a document that tells our loved ones to “let us go” or is it a document that gives the patient’s preference as a statement of self-determination, to be free from the unwanted interference of others?  Can it be both?

There are of course a wide variety of living will forms available.  While the documents are acceptable forms of stated preferences regarding euthanasia, different religious communities have their own preferred documents in compliance with their laws or traditions.  What is the distinction between letting someone die by not intervening and allowing a person to die by their own choice with the assistance of a doctor?  Is there really a bright line between the two?

Getting back to the “letting go” versus “self-determination” purposes of the living will, how do these play out in the context of active euthanasia or physician assisted death (as in the Colorado End-of-Life Options initiative)?  These tensions are even more pronounced in this context.  Where is the distinction between one’s not wanting to be a burden on loved ones and the subtle coercion that a gravely ill person may feel to “get on with” dying so that their loved ones can be liberated from the burdens of caring for the sick person?  I certainly am not suggesting answers.  What I am concerned about is that people seem to look for answers without regard to the question and what it entails or requires.

An exclusive focus on the self-determination rights of gravely ill people to be statutorily allowed to take their own lives – with the assistance of medical doctors – skews the discussion.  I liked Jennifer Ballentine’s article entitled “Law & Sausage: Physician Assisted Death and the Solution to Suffering.”  You can read it here.

The attraction is clear – to focus on the individual right to extend medical self-determination to include physician assisted death is a very American pastime!  We have a long tradition of championing and enshrining individual rights.  But in the context of active voluntary euthanasia, or end of life options, such exclusive focus myopically steers that discussion away from the critical context of the exercise of such a right [author’s disclaimer: I wear corrective lenses for correction of nearsightedness].  This right would certainly not exist in a vacuum.

I don’t think it is too much to consider a look at the bigger picture here and to identify in advance of our ballot choices this November the many unintended consequences which would flow from our choice.

© 2016 Barbara Cashman  www.DenverElderLaw.org

The Colorado End of Life Options Act – On Our Ballot This November

Spring in Assissi

Spring in Assissi

 

Will Coloradans approve the ballot measure to allow physician assisted death in Colorado?

This is an update to previous posts about (unsuccessful) proposed legislation concerning physician-assisted death in Colorado and the ballot initiative which will be put in front of Colorado voters this November.  Click here to read the Colorado Secretary of State’s final version of the initiative.  Today’s post is a further conversation about this highly-charged topic.  I enjoyed reading this recent Denver Post piece by Jennifer Brown about use of language and terminology in this initiative and the wider debate.

The first observation is that I’m using the term I have previously employed – physician assisted death.  When I typed in the term to my search engine, what appeared in the results was “physician-assisted suicide” defined here as

The voluntary termination of one’s own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life.

I use the term death because it is less inflammatory, but it is – by the very nature of the procedure – suicide.  Assisted death can incorporate both physician assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia, and I note this is important.  While we’re talking about terms to describe the life-ending process which is facilitated by a physician, let’s look at a few important terms to help keep the terminology straight.

Euthanasia comes from the Greek meaning “good death” and the Merriam Webster online dictionary defines it as:

 the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.

Within the definition of euthanasia are different types of euthanasia, including: voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary.  Today I consider only voluntary euthanasia which consists of two kinds – active and passive.

Passive voluntary euthanasia: When someone executes a living will to direct that no life-sustaining procedures or artificial nutrition and hydration be offered in the event a person (known as the “declarant” for purposes of a living will) is determined to be unable to provide informed consent and suffers from a persistent vegetative state or terminal condition.  This practice (with important controls promulgated by state laws) was made legal by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).  It was the first “right to die” case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, and discussed important aspects of self-determination, liberty interests and due process in the context of Cruzan’s family’s attempts to have Nancy Cruzan’s previously expressed wishes (orally expressed, not in writing) upheld.

Active voluntary euthanasia: This differs from the widely accepted passive form in that passive euthanasia involves a refusal or withholding of treatment and active euthanasia involves an intervention to give something –  a lethal prescription from a doctor – to provide the means to end a life.  Herein lies the distinction between refusal to provide or continue to provide treatment (recognized in our living wills) and the active choice of one’s own death, or suicide.

Can there be any middle ground here?  Perhaps.  If you consider the arguments for wider acceptance and use of hospice and palliative care – these focus on the treatment of the whole person to manage pain, a terminal condition or end of life medical care, and not just from the more mainstream exclusive perspective of medicine’s focus exclusively on a patient’s medical problems, often to the detriment of the patient’s quality of life.  So here is the question – if patients have access to good quality palliative and/or hospice care at the end of life, then is assisted death really necessary?  One way of looking at this is to consider that the rights-focused physician assisted death doesn’t adequately take into account the scope and range of palliative and hospice care which is presently available.

As we continue to age and live with (read: have our lives prolonged by) more drugs and medical devices, how we choose to remove those supports (like a pacemaker or similar devices) is part and parcel of our choice of living as much as it is how we choose for ourselves (and others) how we manage the end of our lives.  Here there is a distinction between the legal terrain (like a medical POA or a living will) and the medical terrain (a do not resuscitate is a medical order requiring a doctor), but this is longevity in the U.S. and most people don’t live their lives consciously regarding these distinctions.  Maybe it’s time to broaden the conversation . . .

© 2016 Barbara Cashman  www.DenverElderLaw.org

Guardianship and Self-Determination

View from Rocca Maggiore

View from Rocca Maggiore

 

In this post I’m examining the concept of self-determination in the post-adjudication context where a probate court has determined in a protective proceeding known as a guardianship (the concept also applies to conservatorship proceedings) that a protected person, now referred to as a “ward” is incapacitated and a guardian is appointed for that person.  In the guardianship context, after a person’s civil rights are essentially stripped away (but leaving intact the inalienable right to vote) in a court ruling, it might seem that a discussion of the self-determination rights of a ward would be a bit late.  This is most definitely not the case.

While the rights of a guardian over their ward are typically plenary and unlimited, this does not mean that a guardian can simply ride roughshod over the ward’s circumstances, personal preferences, desires and stated wishes.  There are important legal principles to consider in this context.  The Latin term “parens patriae” is the fundamental basis for guardianship law, the basis for a court to curtail an individual’s civil rights and name another to act on the person’s behalf.

Self-determination also factors into self-determination theory, which offers an explanation for human motivation in psychology.  This theory explains motivation in two different forms: autonomous or controlled.  This is relatively well-studied in the context of employment and employee motivation, but I couldn’t’ find many works on this theory in the elder protective proceedings setting.  Why wouldn’t it be as straightforward as the “four S’s” that motivate us as described in this Forbes article that we want to feel: successful, socially valued, smart and structured.  I realize this is a stretch when I am talking about someone with advanced dementia for example, but I think that many individuals who have trouble thinking could benefit from this approach to honor the autonomy such that it is.  Perhaps if we could think a bit more practically about how to apply the upper end of Maslow’s hierarchy: esteem, love and belonging. . .

Self-determination has a longer history in the disabilities rights legal context, and elder law and protective proceedings share many of the same principles.  Probably the most well-known is the doctrine of least restrictive alternative.  That term which borrows from the more broadly known “least restrictive environment” which is a common thread of much of the federal law of special education and relating to rights of the disabled.

So back to the self-determination of a ward.  What we are looking at is self-determination in a highly personalized relationship – that between guardian and ward.  The analogies offered above, from psychology and in the motivation context do offer some food for thought here, but I think the fiduciary relationship is still the most applicable baseline.  This means a subjective standard of looking at motivation and conflict in the guardian-ward relationship and how it plays out in the larger implications of the ward’s ongoing right to self-determination.  I think the incapacitated ward, like people with dementia in general, have much to teach those of us who are not afflicted with such trouble with thinking and managing our behavior.

After appointment, the guardian is accountable – to the ward, to interested persons (usually other family members) as well as to the court.  Under Colorado law, the guardian is a fiduciary and is held to a heightened standard of care.  The Colorado Bar Association has a couple helpful brochures available for guardians and for conservators.  It explains the fiduciary duties of a guardian to include the following: a fiduciary duty to the ward, meaning that you must always act in the best interest of and with undivided loyalty to the ward; make efforts to include the ward in all decisions and encourage self-sufficiency; avoid transactions that cause a conflict of interest; and make all decisions with care and prudence.   Acting in the best interests of the ward means also that a guardian is expected to consider the ward’s known and reasonable desires and personal values when making decisions on behalf of the ward, and must otherwise become and/or remain personally acquainted with the ward.

I think what the fiduciary duty covers generally here is an instruction to honor the ward’s dignity and rights (such that they are) to self-determination – to allow the ward a portion in exercising autonomy to an appropriate extent.  Here I bristle at the thought of our current obsession with the person’s safety, as if safety were the only thing that mattered in the care (or warehousing) of elders with dementia!  Safety is without doubt important, but it must be considered in context of quality of life and a person’s dignity.  I’m thinking of part of the Rumi poem “A Community of the Spirit,” on this point:

Why do you stay in prison
when the door is so wide open?

Move outside the tangle of fear-thinking.
Live in silence.

Flow down and down
in always widening rings of being.

Self-determination and autonomy – I’m wondering out loud whether it is possible to consider these important baseline values in a holistic context and not just as what the guardian owes the ward, or what the expectation of a court is relative to the guardian’s actions.  Self-determination is simply too important to not take seriously in the guardian-ward context.  I first wrote about this important right of self-determination of elders in the context of participation in mediation in an article I published in the March 2010 (volume 39, no. 3) issue of The Colorado Lawyer entitled “Elder Mediation Comes of Age in Colorado.”   Until the next post . . .

© Barbara E. Cashman 2016   www.DenverElderLaw.org