When you care more about your caree than they do

Share your ideas about the practical side of caring.
""Any society that has a hierachy who decides / administrates has a duty towards the very citizens that it represents.""

Gosh, that's a very large statement of political philosophy!

Bleakly, the strong CAN flourish (because they have the power!) (money, weaponry, whatever) and therefore often DO.

However, stepping back from the precipice of mere 'might is right' etc (although, of course, if 'we the people' possess the collective 'might' that is, indeed, definitely 'right'!!!!), I do think the main stumbling block in the state-funding of care is twofold:

(1) That each of us never 'thinks ahead' to a time when we, or our family, might NEED that care and
(2) That care provision is just SO expensive.

We know it takes an entire 'one other human being' to look after a single human being in need of 'intense' care, and, worse, that for the most extreme cases, eg, the deep dementia of my MIL, or the complete incapacity of a child/adult with severe disability, it can take MORE than an entire other human being, it can take three of them (ie, three shifts of 8 hours each in ever 24 hours)

So the 'care ratio' is one to one. That means, in economic terms, that not only do funds have to be found to keep the CAREE together, body and soul (food, shelter etc etc) but that of the CARER as well (food, shelter etc etc).

So each member of society incapable of 'earning their own living' (food shelter etc) actually costs the price of TWO people, themselves and the carer.

That just does not make economic sense.

Worse still, unlike, say, childcare, where the investment of one human being (mum/dad/nanny) into the upbringing of another human being (child), when we are infirm, we shall NEVER contribute economically at all! Children will grow up to be economically useful, so it's 'worthwhile' investing time and money in them.

Those who are infirm are a 'waste of resources' to society........

Grim, grim, grim.
Political ?

Not in this context ... there are NO politics in CarerLand ... just a ceaseless struggle against the very society which created what we call CarerLand.

It is not political to ask for the very tools needed so that most family carers can function ... namely adequate finances and affordable support ?

Good , secondary , case.

By only making the primary case a reality will anything REALLY change in CarerLand.
No, it's definitely political - and political philosophy at that!

It's about how 'the people' organise their 'society' and what they permit and how they resist and impose etc etc.

There really isn't any 'given' about EXPECTING 'the state' to give a button about anyone that isn't 'useful' to it.#

'We the people' have to ENFORCE that 'giving a button' by withholding our votes for any non-giving-a-button governments etc ec etc.

Bad things happen in societies where we sit back and do nothing. And the reason we sit back and do nothing about the fate of carers and those wanting care is because we don't think it's gong to happen to us, so we don't 'invest' in it ourselves.
So be it ... political it is !

As for me , a politician ?

I was once labelled ( Labeled for any American readers ) a " Libertarian " by a " Famous " former member of this forum.

I don't mind that label ... as labels go , that is ... my avatar is now frowning at me !
And the reason we sit back and do nothing about the fate of carers and those wanting care is because we don't think it's gong to happen to us, so we don't 'invest' in it ourselves.


Numerous posts along those lines on the old CarerWatch forum ... when not all carers were in denial !

My thoughts are with Babybyrd ... just charting where the original post has led ?
Well, I don't think we ever really believe it's going to happen to us, do we??!!! I mean, how many of us, here, have set aside the £40k a year we'll need for care home fees, etc etc??

It's a bit like contraception - 'crossing our fingers and hoping we don't get pregnant' is I'd say the standard attitude we have towards our need for care in old age....

Yes, we have wandered off from Babybyrd's original post, which was more about when the CAREE 'gives up' on themselves, and we don't want them to!
Well ....three days after form filling iv e got a phone call assessment today. Have to say just the speed of this being arranged has cheered me up ...
Good news. Make notes beforehand about all the problems beforehand. If the are rushing you at any point, insist they slow down. "I've waited a long time for this, so please let me speak..."is a good line, repeated as neccessary!
Thats a good tip bowlingbun.
Writing things down not only jogs your memory...sometimes I've even written and duplicated my own agenda (a really good surprise factor, especially if no one else has bothered!) But it can also help you focus on what is really important to you, and what you want the meeting to achieve. I've had ten carees, and been one myself, I've now had 8 operations. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain, by politely putting your views forward for consideration.
jenny lucas wrote:
Sat May 12, 2018 9:33 am
Re Food - in general, the very elderly start opting (or 'reverting' maybe?) to 'kiddie food'. Basically 'sweet carbs'.

To my mind, at extreme old age, do they really NEED what we would consider a balanced diet? Do they need to build muscle with protein (meat and fish), and how many vitimans do they need (fresh veg) etc etc.

. . .

I reallky wouldn't stress over food too much. Meat is probably much easier for them to physically consume if it is, say, minced (eg, shepherd's pie etc), rather than in 'big lumps'.

Their appetite is small, and shrinking.

And, as with small children, visibly 'stressing' and endless 'coaxing' may be counterproductive. (A friend of mine says it can take over an hour to 'feed' her elderly father with dementia....after every mouthful he pushes the plate away and is 'finished'....)
I quite agree. Some of us may tend to treat our "elderly toddlers" in the same way as we treated our infantile toddlers. I am not in favour of "force-feeding" people of any age. If they leave half their meat, then give them only half as much meat next time. People do not let themselves starve.

In my childhood, mum used to coax my siblings and me to eat more than we wanted, "or else you won't grow up to be big and strong"! In fact, despite our pernickety eating habits we all grew up to be bigger and stronger than she was. I suggest treat the elderly in the same manner. Spending an hour trying to get them to eat what they don't want will just cause them grief and distress. But minced meat is a good idea - so much easy to handle and swallow than large, gristly lumps.

My father-in-law survived in his latter days on a couple of slices of toast, a can of peaches and a cup of tea and little else per day. He was as thin as a rake and physically still active till his late eighties. He reached 90 and would probably have gone on longer had not a fall and subsequent complications finished him. I am not recommending such a diet but it shows that people are less dependent on eating than we may imagine.