Mythical 24/7 Carers?

[susieq]

You may be lucky enough to have offers of help from friends and family, like, say Susie's sister, but what if mum didn't want Susie's sister to help and would only accept it from Susie? There's nothing that can be done and Susie would be completely stuck, despite the offer.
(I hope you don't mind me giving this example, SusieQ, but you see what I mean?).

always happy to be used as an example Fran

although in my case it's often that Mum prefers to have my sister rather than me At least she always 'knows' her whereas she's often not sure who I am

[philippa_150712]

Excalibur said:

Look, I'm an anarchist, right? We dont take anything - or anyone - seriously, least of all ourselves!!

Anarchy is a philosphy for the fit and strong who don't give a damn about anyone else ..don't you think.. . bit like survival of the fittest. It's not exactly a serious philosophy is it..

Of course not taking life seriously in the abstract seems an eminently sensible thing to do . Certainly i for one don't see anything to suggest that life takes us as individuals seriously at all. But then it's one thing taking a cavalier attitude to life and death in the abstract and quite a different thing in practice.

Hard (impossible i would say) to be flippant about watching someone you love (or anyone for that matter) frightened and in pain.

[philippa_150712]

Excalibur also said:

Caring full time is - IMHO - almost always inferior and worse quality care to sharing the care with family and paid carers on a fair basis. We wouldn't want to see a doctor who was working 24/7, so equally, nobody should be caring more than 40 hours a week. Its time to put an end to the myth of the hero 24/7 carer, once and for all. Because this argument isnt really about promoting quality care, is it? It is really about envy.

Ummm would that be you admitting that unpaid caring is work lol!

nobody should be caring more than 40 hours a week.

..and the choice is very often between caring ourselves or leaving our caree with inferior or no support. Hobson's choice!

It's a bit like saying no one should get sick or need care...well i agree but i'm not sure who i should take it up with

Presumably the respite issue is something to take up with Government but I'm not quite sure how a smaller welfare state (anarchy) fits in with extra respite for those without friends and family for support? But then maybe being an anarchist means you don't have to be consistent in your arguments lol.

As for 'envy' I'm not sure how that fits in with the argument you are making..sorry .. not following your logic?? We only care 24/7 because we are envious??? or does the argument refer to the thread the quote was taken from ie that using the term carer to describe so many different caring situations makes it meaningless in terms of campaigning.

I am a carer because i care for someone for a few hours a week.

I am a carer whose financial situation, health or general welfare is affected by my caring role.

We might as well just talk about 'caring'..since the term carer has to be further qualified to mean anything in terms of campaigning.


In my opinion such general usage of the term carer is enough to stop me putting 'carer' on forms that ask for your occupation.

That's not envy by the way..that's semantics

[SandySea]

I care ... because I CARE!
I don't see it as work. I see it as my privelige, my duty, and my way of giving grateful thanks for all the years of hard work my mother put in to bring me to this point.
Sure, I'd love to have a vacation - wouldn't anyone after 30 years without one? But with no family, no caring neighbours, and paid respite of 2.5 hours a week, there's not much chance of that.
Yes Excalibur, I'm a 24/7 carer, but IN NO WAY do I see my care as inferior. It is FAR superior to even the 2.5 hours a week I get.
And yes, we do all have choices, but perhaps we already recognise that and have already made our choices. That doesn't make us envious. It might make us weary, it might sometimes give us down days, but we can all remind ourselves that it WAS our choice, that we could have been selfish and thrown our loved one into a nursing home to be treated like a lump of meat (so many are!) and watched them fade away in a dusty corner, but we chose to give our loved one quality care, aware of the consequences of our choice.

Sometimes, putting others first can be a reward in itself.

[philippa_150712]

But given the choice you would have the person you love fit and well wouldnt you..like i said, being a 24/7 carer is Hobson's choice!

[SandySea]

Of course, Belle. But given the choice, we would all live forever, be filthy rich, never have to work, stay young and healthy and look like a movie star!
Life isn't like that. We deal with what we're given. Or we don't deal with it.
I'm one of those strange people who believe that if we don't deal with it, we just get it again next time. And who knows, maybe I didn't deal with it 100 times before now, so this time, I am.
Maybe next time, I get to be rich and beautiful!

[pauljstephens51@hotmail.com]

i feel my caring is better than any caring that can be give by social services as for them its a job and no need to care for that person. as recently put in my local paper a employed council carer is to appear in court charged with abuse of elderly and mentally ill carees.
i care with love and respect for my caree as do all carers who look after there family. care homes are well know not to care as its a job just doing it for the money, and the people who run them do so for profit not because the care.
thats my view.

[philippa_150712]

sandysea said:

We deal with what we're given. Or we don't deal with it.

But that's not really choice is it? or maybe i'm too choosey lol. I want more options

I want to be with and share my life with my husband. I want my sister to be well and happy and for my neices to have their mom. i want my own mom to be happy and to feel loved and wanted. I want the best for the people i love.

All those 'wants' mean i have ended up caring. That's not the same thing as choosing to be a carer. I don't need to be needed. i would rather just be loved. I'm more than willing to share care providing that means i still get all my 'wants.(and i do get and appreciate a few hours a week respite) but it still works out that i spend and have spent most of my adult life caring. I don't resent it. i don't see myself as a victim. I have a lot of good things and some pretty wonderful people in my life..But if someone asked me what i wanted to do with my life i wouldnt have said...ooooh i'll be a 24/7 carer please.

[Scally]

Anarchy is a philosphy for the fit and strong who don't give a damn about anyone else ..don't you think.. . bit like survival of the fittest. It's not exactly a serious philosophy is it...

I think you are probably confusing Anarchism with Authoritarianism. In fact it is the exact opposite.

Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

There are several strands of Anarchist thinking, some very serious indeed, some plain mischievous (and you can probably guess which side of that I usually find myself on!) but they all seem to agree that society is about making decisions at local level (small is beautiful) and trying to involve everyone in decision taking.

[douglas spooner]

but thats the point belle none of us would say that but most of us had no choice in the matter
to be come a carer some of us dont have family who care enough noreen and i lost our friends because of her illness same with family like you i dont resent it and i dont see myself as a victim i give love and get it in return that means a heck of a lot to me if i resented it i would not be doing what i do