Give The Lady A Goddamn Cookie!
Great post by Lenore Skenazy, who, sadly, was looking for an assisted living situation for her Alzheimer's-afflicted mom when she overheard this conversation:
I happened to arrive at snack time, when one of the ladies was asking for another cookie. "No," the attendant told her patiently. "It's not good for you! You can't HAVE another cookie."Whereupon, big surprise, the woman asked for another cookie. And the cycle began again.
That incident came to mind when I read this fantastic article about the focus on safety, and sometimes ONLY safety, in caring for the elderly. It seemed to me, at the assisted living place, that if a woman has lost a lot of her mind and yet KNOWS she wants a cookie -- give her a cookie! If it shortens her life a little, so be it! At least it's making whatever time she has left here WORTH IT. Ultimately, I didn't want my mom to be at a place that would deny her life's little pleasures in pursuit of something supposedly more important: more days on this planet without life's little pleasures.
It's like denying seriously ill people, like cancer patients, or other suffering people, opiates or seriously large doses of opiates after they become acclimated to the dose they're taking. They're suffering, in constant pain, maybe soon to die...so what if they get addicted to Oxy, or get a little pleasure out of it?!
You get joy out of Puritanism? Great. Live a life of self-abnegation. Don't tell a little old lady who's lost her mind that she can't have a cookie or people like cancer patients that they can't get themselves out of horrible pain or -- horrors! -- even get high.
See, this reminds me of a conversation between my mother and her doctor a few years ago now. At this point her leukaemia had got quite bad and she had regular doses of morphine. She also had a large bottle of morphine to drink if the pain go too bad.
She was told that if she started drinking a lot she was to tell the doctors.
"Is that so you can make sure I don't get addicted?" she said.
"No, it's so we can up your dosage."
She chose a shorter but pain free life over a longer one, and I respect that choice. To not be given the choice is in my mind terrible.
Simon Proctor at July 1, 2010 3:22 AM
I have NO problem with people in decently sound mind getting to euthanize themselves. I also think Drs are way, way, way too skimpy with pains meds for adults and kids. I can't tell you how many times one of my kids has been in serious pain and the drs won't give anything. None whatsoever. I also think that's ridiculous to watch the diet of someone who-quite frankly-would be better off dead. Some famous actress said recently on the subject of diet "at the end of the day, if I can't come home and have some cheese or chocolate, what's it all about?".
I watched my mom deal with my Gma when she was no longer able to care for herself, and mom told me when the time comes, just make sure she gets a pizza and a poundcake one a week in the nursing home (I make KILLER poundcake) , and a daily milkshake, and she'll be fine.
momof4 at July 1, 2010 5:41 AM
When we brought Dad home, we decided to let him set his own schedule. He can sleep as long as he wants, eat what he wants and skip his doctor's appointments if he wants. The only reason to go to the doctor is for him to hear, "Yes, you still have cancer, Alzheimer's, a heart condition, a catheter and a colostomy bag. Hang in there."
We had to modify that a little, since we're the ones changing the colostomy bag, but seriously, I'm not going to tell him he can't eat cake for lunch. Fuck it, I'd eat cake morning, noon and night if I were in his position.
MonicaP at July 1, 2010 5:56 AM
I had surgery in the beginning of April. The nurses told me that I shouldn't be in the pain I was in. So after begging for death, they gave me some pain meds. Same thing happened to my not quite 2 year old boy. He was given drains in his ears and when he woke up from the anesthetic, he was screaming bloody murder for over an hour. The doctor said that he shouldn't be in pain and refused to give anything. The nurse came back 30 minutes after that with rectal paracetomel. 30 minutes after that, my boy was able to calm down and have something to drink. Fucking doctors have such god complexes that they can't even accept that hmm maybe someone really is in pain.
Kendra at July 1, 2010 5:56 AM
My elderly aunt's greatest pleasure in life was See's candy. Every month I would send her a 1 lb box to enjoy all by herself. Just before she died in a nursing home she told me how much she truly enjoyed the candy and could I please just send her one more box. They told me she finally passed away the day after she ate the last chocolate.
Just Me at July 1, 2010 5:58 AM
I understand Dr.s concern about addiction but the pendulem can definitely swing too far in the other direction.
Going through school I was doing my clinical nursing rotation at the local Medical center.
I was assigned a guy that had pancreatic cancer.
He was in pain and they wouldn't give him more pain meds (morphine). When I asked why they said he could become addicted!!! So you want the guy to live his last 2 weeks of his freakin life in excruciating pain because he could become addicted! A-Holes.
David M. at July 1, 2010 7:44 AM
David M., that's awful. What are pain meds going to do to him at that point, "ruin his health"?
Who cares if he gets addicted to something when it's gone that far? It's not like he's going to recover.
Pirate Jo at July 1, 2010 7:48 AM
Blame the book, "To Kill a Mockingbird". We all read it. We all had to read it at an impressionable age. We all knew the right answer is that it is better to die straight and screaming rather than doped out of our minds (oh, and white people are evil, except a few liberals). I am ashamed that a work of fiction was allowed to force unnecessary suffering on so many for so many years. And still does! And it goes on and on and on. Silent Spring, IPCC, ...
Disgusting.
billy at July 1, 2010 7:50 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/01/give_the_lady_a.html#comment-1728483">comment from David M.So you want the guy to live his last 2 weeks of his freakin life in excruciating pain because he could become addicted! A-Holes.
After he was dead, they could send his corpse to rehab.
Amy Alkon at July 1, 2010 7:53 AM
It's worse than you think, it's not about ignoring someone's pain, its about covering your ass. The doctors are afraid to be seen dispensing too many pain meds, being investigated as a possible opioid dealer. Taking the time to know your patient and thoroughly documenting would solve the problem, but that would take too much time and be too sensible. There's a glaringly obvious difference between a bone cancer patient out of their mind with intractable cancer pain, and the junkie known on a first-name basis at all three hospitals in town with a grocery list of unrelated diagnoses that have disseminated histories. Many doctors don't take the time to differentiate.
Get a good nurse to advocate for your loved one. Every shift, every floor, every facility has one, you just gotta sniff him/her out and make your appeal. A good nurse won't ignore such a situation, even if it means cracking skulls.
Juliana at July 1, 2010 8:02 AM
Life expectency is decreased by driving, walking, climbing trees, playing outside, walking to the neighborhood store, riding a bicycle, playing football, basketball, baseball, and skiing, among other activities.
The nursing home examples are only the worst. Deny people pleasure or keep them in pain because "health" and "life years" is more important than anything.
Say that you were choosing the type of life you were going to lead, before birth. Would you choose a protected, limited existence because that choice decreased your chance of premature death by 1%?
If you drive a car, your lifetime chance of dying in an auto accident is 1 in 100, and the probability of an injury requiring hospital treatment is 5 in 100.
How about making bicycling safer by reqiring everyone, and especially the children, to wear helmets? This decreases the pleasure of cycling, and decreases cycling, as people are convinced that riding a bicycle is like going to war. Require that every outdoor activity be padded, protected, helmeted, and supervised. That is not a great life.
Three lessons for a better cycling future
03/23/2000 - British Medical Journal
Andrew_M_Garland at July 1, 2010 8:15 AM
Here in Wyoming I have seen a change in attitude. Our local hospital at least monitors pain closely and does a pretty good job of pain management. I had some excruciatingly painful surgery about 18 months ago, where they opened my chest to remove a benign tumor and I have to say that if it was not for the pain management, I probably would just opt to die rather than have to go through that kind of surgery again. From what I have read a lot of the under treatment of pain is a side effect of the drug war. Doctors can lose their license if they are seen as too free with the pain meds. Usually in a hospital setting that is not an issue but if you are dying of a painful disease you may have to be in a hospital or hospice to get effective pain management. Isabel.
Isabel1130 at July 1, 2010 8:20 AM
> Blame the book, "To Kill a Mockingbird". We all read
> it. We all had to read it at an impressionable age.
> We all knew the right answer is that it is better to
> die straight and screaming
It's been four decades, but I really, really don't remember that passage.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 1, 2010 8:59 AM
My mother is currently in an assisted living facility with late stage dementia. While the story certainly sounds cruel, there may be more going on than would be obvious to someone visiting at snack time. People with dementia often have trouble swallowing and the attendant may have been trying to limit the amount of crumbs that could get stuck in her throat.
People with dementia can also get stuck in cognitive loops. My mother had a roommate who told me that her son was late for his visit and asked me to have the nurses call him. It turns out that she made the request every few minutes whenever she was awake. In the case Amy describes, there is no harm giving the woman a second cookie (assuming she can swallow it), but should she get 30 - 40 a day if she asks for them?
Accuracy, please at July 1, 2010 9:05 AM
there is no harm giving the woman a second cookie (assuming she can swallow it), but should she get 30 - 40 a day if she asks for them?
Why the hell not?
Beth at July 1, 2010 9:09 AM
People with dementia can also get stuck in cognitive loops.
The cognitive loops make me nuts. Right after my mother died, my father would call me 13 times a day at work because he forgot he just called. And he's deaf, so we'd have very loud conversations about why I couldn't talk to him. I had to turn off the ringer or risk being fired. Then he would tell friends and family that I never talked to him, and I would get calls and emails from people accusing me of abandoning my dad when he needed me most. Good times.
Yeah, it's entirely possible that that old lady had eaten half a box of cookies already. Which may be fine for her, but I doubt the nurse has the time to be fetching cookies all day. Maybe it would be best to just give her the box and let her have at it.
MonicaP at July 1, 2010 9:12 AM
My brother and sister are going through that now. Before my mother died, my wife and I started calling them every Sunday. After she died, we kept that schedule. So, because of the routine, he always knows he's talked to us but forgets he just spoke with them.
It hasn't been four decades, but I don't remember it either.
Conan the Grammarian at July 1, 2010 9:26 AM
Skenazy might have parachuted into the middle of an ongoing situation. Does she know everything about this woman? Maybe she asks for cookies but doesn't eat them and just keeps asking, so it makes no difference whether she gets it or not. (If you know Alzheimer's patients you'll know that this is quite possible.) But most likely the woman's doctor has restricted her diet, in which case the facility and nurse has no choice but to follow the doctor's orders, in which case the beef is with the doctor (or the woman's family) and not with the facility at all.
Also, people can live a long time with Alzheimer's. Should a diabetic Alzheimer's patient be given all the sweets she requests b/c it gives her momentary pleasure when it'll cause all kinds of medical problems and maybe even kill her? If it were my parent I would say no. Maybe Skenazy's woman was diabetic. There's just not enough information.
kishke at July 1, 2010 10:10 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/01/give_the_lady_a.html#comment-1728509">comment from kishkeAlso, people can live a long time with Alzheimer's.
Perhaps others feel differently, but to me, this is like living a long time as a houseplant. I'd rather die faster -- or have somebody off me should I fail to off myself in time (if I get dementia).
Amy Alkon at July 1, 2010 10:14 AM
I've half-seriously considered paying someone to hit me with a shovel if I'm ever diagnosed with dementia. People with early-stage dementia can have a high quality of life, but the middle and late stages are awful.
That said, kishke's right: We really don't know enough about this situation. Maybe her relatives have requested that she not be allowed to overindulge. Also, poor nutrition can make dementia worse. In the early to middle stages, I could see a definite difference in my dad when he'd eaten well compared to when he hadn't.
MonicaP at July 1, 2010 10:19 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/01/give_the_lady_a.html#comment-1728512">comment from Amy AlkonGive me steak, bacon, buttered asparagus, German chocolate cake, chocolate chocolate-chip ice cream with a few very chewy raisins on top, and then hit me over the head with a shovel.
Amy Alkon at July 1, 2010 10:23 AM
Regarding the To Kill a Mockingbird...helping the cancer victim addcited to painkillers was a sub-plot....scout and the other one had to go to a ladies house and read to her/keepher company...they described how creepy it was...she would writhe and grimace and choke back screams as they read...with a timer set longer and longer and longer...eventually she died and some adult explained to them that she had wanted to die clean, and not addicted to her pain meds so they had been sent to help her. Every day they read a little longer until she was able to kick it totally.It was some sort of punishment i think (this part is shaky, it has been decades since I read it) tht was supposed to teach them giving and compassion and help...like community service.
rsj at July 1, 2010 10:48 AM
This decreases the pleasure of cycling, and decreases cycling, as people are convinced that riding a bicycle is like going to war.
:koff koff:
I wear a helmet. It's a lightweight, aerodynamic thing that cost maybe $35. But admittedly, I'm not out for a leisurely jaunt around the neighborhood; I ride often, and I'm getting up to some pretty good speeds on bad roads, in traffic, etc.
Mandatory helmets would seem to put a damper on casual riding, though, and that's a shame because those are the people who are probably the least likely to have a serious injury, and the group that could probably use the most exercise.
Tom Accuosti at July 1, 2010 11:06 AM
My dad grew up in the South and had to do something similar. I think he'd agree with the "creepy" assessment. When he talks about having visited cancer-stricken relatives, he says the smell is something you never forget.
That's the main reason he has a living will.
Conan the Grammarian at July 1, 2010 11:21 AM
That's the main reason he has a living will.
I have less faith in living wills than I used to. It's nice when everyone knows what you want, but you have to ensure that the right people are in charge of carrying out your wishes.
My father would be best served in a nursing home, but my sister is convinced that both I and the state are going to screw her out of her inheritance, so no one has the authority to sell his house to free up the funds for that. It's a big mess. My husband and I will be setting up a trust so whoever is responsible for our welfare, should it come to that, will have both the legal and financial means to do what is best.
MonicaP at July 1, 2010 11:42 AM
MonicaP, your sister seems to be forgetting whose money it is. She is not entitled to an inheritance. I told my parents to spend all their money before they die. I can earn my own.
Pirate Jo at July 1, 2010 11:53 AM
Um, time for a little trot on the high horse. I got Gretchen good 'n pissed off about this last time, and it's worth doing it again.
> I'd rather die faster -- or have somebody
> off me should I fail to off myself in time
> (if I get dementia).
&
> I've half-seriously considered paying someone
> to hit me with a shovel if I'm ever diagnosed
> with dementia.
Y'know, Amy, Big Red, that just ain't right. I mean, what exactly is it that we want for the next chapter of civilization?
Would civilization be improved by projecting the responsibility for our personal suffering (including inevitable suffering) onto other people?
Would it be improved by loosening our prohibition against taking the lives of others, a standard of behavior that's always at risk anyway, and always challenged by dark forces within our own hearts?
Our complaints on Amy's blog are often centered on the consumer nature of our culture. The pattern frequently decried is that we pay a local salesman for something we want, and shriek and badger him mercilessly until we get the best possible delivery for every penny of our dollar... And then bad effects are felt in some distant place, but we imagine ourselves to have no responsibility. (This pattern is the shimmering core of our real estate/financial crises. We outlaw yet greedily consume loathsome inebriants here in the States, and then complain that South America is run by organized crime. We complain about numbers at the gas pump and the prices of our synthetic clothing, but don't see ourselves as implicated in the oil spill in the gulf.)
Well, guys, the truth is, you're gonna get Alzheimers. If you don't, someone you love will. And it's not our responsibility to kill you, or even to judge the innocence of someone who DOES kill you, no matter how sincerely you might desire it. This is like my frequent squealing about divorce: Statistically, it is going to happen. If you really, really feel that you don't want it to happen to you, you have no excuse –including the tragedy itself– for leaving a mess for others to clean up.
Please understand that I'm arguing on behalf of stoicism, not suffering.
I supervised the care of an aunt with this disease some time ago... While I never made anywhere near the sacrifice that Monica and her household are going through this year, I well understand that the misery for everyone concerned is a brutal and punishing thing, even on good days. I greatly admire the comment from "Accuracy, please" about not judging caregivers too harshly: They're dealing with a building full of people who aren't sane, and no candid snapshot can tell the story. Life has dissatisfactions for all people, and losing your mind won't make that go away.
(Though "Accuracy, please" is a terribly snotty pseudonym.)
I am specifically NOT into pain! I say open up the candy store, pharmaceutical-wise. Remember the Wizard of Oz? The ugly bitch circling the crystal globe with her ulgybitch hand?: Poppies!... Poppies!.... Dude, go for it. Heroin from the Taliban, whatever. If you're in the endgame of life and it hurts, then good, stony drugs should be readily available. And in most competent facilities and homes, they are.
But that won't make it a pleasant time. I've been thinking about Hitchens a lot today, both because I like him and because he's only ten years older than I am. One of the best things I ever heard him say was three short words: "This ends badly". That was always going to be the case, and he knew it, which is why he enjoyed all that smoking and drinking.
If you honestly intend to protect the universe (or even just the Earth) from the horrors of death, don't have kids. Death is not a policy problem, or a consumer problem, or a religious problem, or a legal problem... It's not even a medical problem. This is how things go.
And the fact that they'll go badly for you –as they've gone badly for everyone who ever lived– doesn't mean you get to disrupt the entire human enterprise on your way out the door.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 1, 2010 1:12 PM
Amen PJ- I'm watching a situation here where one daughter is not waiting for the mother with dementia to pass- she helped herself to some of her inheritance early, and bought herself a Mercedes. Figured she'd better tap that money before her mother selfishly burned it all up on health care for herself. Fortunately the other daughter is not standing idly by and is filing suit.
Juliana at July 1, 2010 1:16 PM
When my grandmother was in a home, my brother and I used to smuggle in hamburgers for her. We had to be careful because they had signs all over the place about not bringing in outside food and that they would throw out anyone they caught doing so. But we figured that at 98 FREAKIN' YEARS OLD, if she wanted a hamburger, she could damn well have one.
Cousin Dave at July 1, 2010 1:26 PM
Would it be improved by loosening our prohibition against taking the lives of others, a standard of behavior that's always at risk anyway, and always challenged by dark forces within our own hearts?
Oh, being serious is no fun. If I pay someone to hit me with a shovel, I can opt out of dementia AND help the economy. It's a win-win! (Plus, there are TONS of people who would love to hit me with a shovel.)
MonicaP at July 1, 2010 1:30 PM
But... But...
I'm just saying, that's exactly what this is about. The piss-shiver bravado that goes 'I hope that never happens to me' or 'just hit me with a shovel' is not really on point in this discussion.
Hitchens smoked all those cigarettes, AND he wants to live. So does almost everyone else, including the people who pretend that dementia is what weakens their suicidal resolve.
No. I don't believe them.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 1, 2010 1:48 PM
I have a slightly different opinion about the cookie situation. My grandma has dementia and will eat and eat if it is in front of her. She also has type 2 diabetes that is controlled with diet. She had gained some weight before we realized she was eating when she wasn't hungry, just because it was on the plate. If she asked for a cookie, she would eat it and then likely ask for another 20 minutes later because she didn't remember getting the extra cookie. I'm all about not being in pain and suffering in your final days, but giving her extra cookies all the time will ultimately lead to a drastic decline in her health. She is fine physically except for the dementia and type 2 diabetes.
But, those in serious pain (cancer etc) who have a terminal diagnosis should be given as much pain meds as they want in my opinion. Let them have some pain free days.
Casey at July 1, 2010 2:46 PM
The lady might be in reasonably good health. My grandmother was in a home for 9 months or so after she fell and broke her leg and hip. My grandfather was to frail to be of much help so she was in their while the bones healed and then her rehabilitation (they didn't want her falling again and she was extremely week because she was pretty well immobilized while the bones healed). Furthermore, she started gaining weight there and they didn't want that because it would strain her bones and muscles more so she was put on diet which she complained about. Her speech had been affected by a stroke along time before that, but mentally she was still quite sharp at that point.
Dementia depends on the individual. Towards the end of my grandfather's life, he was a danger to himself by doing things like forgetting the stove was on but he could have a good time conversing with his friends and relatives. He could remember along time ago, but not what he just did.
The Former Banker at July 1, 2010 2:51 PM
At the risk of sounding like a heartless, penny-pinching crank...
Cookies ain't free. Anytime any setting like that---school cafeteria, daycare center, nursing home, whatever---serves the meals and snacks they have to stick to a certain amount per person to stay on budget. If Mrs. Jones gets an extra cookie, then everybody wants one, and you're out of cookies well before you're supposed to be.
I worked in an after-school program before, and we were instructed to tell the kids when they asked for seconds at snacktime, that it wasn't good for them rather than opening up the cost-containing/not enough for everyone can of worms.
If the nursing home staff was giving the patients cookies to begin with, I'd say they're not trying to take away cookies (and their sweet, sweet joy) altogether.
Jenny Had A Chance at July 1, 2010 3:42 PM
A reasonable thing to consider, Jen, but compared to the cost of sheltering, feeding, and showering a hallway full of old people, an extra box of cookies ought not be a meaningful expense.
And here's a naughty secret: The treats don't need to be very good. In a context like that, they're meant to summon faded memories of comforting indulgence from earlier decades... It's not so much about building a new experience of sugary fulfillment. These dieases, and old age itself, diminish the power of flavor anyway.
I used to sneak a bite from my aunt's desserts sometimes. The ice cream cones were cold, somewhat sweet, brightly-colored, and presented with care and respect... Plenty good enough.
crid at July 1, 2010 4:54 PM
Well you have to remember, MOST old people don't end up in nursing homes. I'll never have enough money to pay for one of those places - but then, that just ensures that no one will ever try and stick me in one!
Pirate Jo at July 1, 2010 5:05 PM
I want to go out like my husband's grandfather: He drank a cup of coffee, read the newspaper, then keeled over at the age of 92, still living on his own and crochety as hell. When he died, all his neighbors came by. He'd been giving all the neighborhood kids candy, and he especially liked the woman next door, who didn't speak English, so she didn't talk much.
MonicaP at July 1, 2010 5:42 PM
MonicaP, that's awesome. :-) Good for Gramps.
One of the regulars here made a comment about walking out into a snowstorm when "that" time came. I can hardly imagine such a moment, because I'm not even halfway to it yet. But I could see that - my brain and bladder are failing, and I can barely get out of bed. Just walk out into one of our January nor'easters, and look for Holly. She's my beloved pug, who by then will have been gone for at least 30 years. I'm sure she would show me where to go next, and that I would find her, if I was looking.
It's best to enjoy what life has to offer now, and worry about later, later.
Pirate Jo at July 1, 2010 6:07 PM
When I go -- I want to go like my grandfather -- peacefully in my sleep. Not screaming like his passengers.
--------------------------
I was related this story about my (passed) lady's first husband (early 70's). He came up with leukemia -- given two months but was in excellent health and lasted seven. Towards the end he wanted some cigarettes. (You could smoke in a hospital back then.) Everyone would refuse him. After he died the father was like "I'm sorry now that I didn't give him his cigarettes." Taking small comforts away toward the end is a waste.
I look at it from the view point that at a certain point you don't "give up" but be realistic that you, and those around you, are going to die.
Jim P. at July 1, 2010 7:46 PM
Jenny Had a Chance said:
At the risk of sounding like a heartless, penny-pinching crank...
Cookies ain't free. Anytime any setting like that---school cafeteria, daycare center, nursing home, whatever---serves the meals and snacks they have to stick to a certain amount per person to stay on budget. If Mrs. Jones gets an extra cookie, then everybody wants one, and you're out of cookies well before you're supposed to be.
I worked in an after-school program before, and we were instructed to tell the kids when they asked for seconds at snacktime, that it wasn't good for them rather than opening up the cost-containing/not enough for everyone can of worms.
_________________________
If I may go onto a tangent.....
I think that when dealing with kids, especially, parents should think twice before citing lack of money as a reason for not buying something. It's very depressing for kids to hear constantly the words "we can't afford it" when they're surrounded by people who SEEM to be richer than that but are probably just deeper in debt. More importantly, though, kids should not be allowed to get the idea that lack of money is the only valid reason for a parent not to fork over on command, for obvious reasons.
So what do you say to kids instead? Just that: "It's not good for you." Or, in different cases: "Earn it." One example of that would be the case of kids who insist that certain overpriced commercial foods always taste better than anyone's home cooking. As Amy Dacyczyn wrote: "Kids seldom want anything enough to earn it, and if it's not important enough to them to work for it, why should I?"
Let's face it, that philosophy sounds horrible and cruel only because hardly anyone seems to practice it anymore. Likewise, too many kids get the idea that shopping for necessities at yard sales and thrift stores is shameful, not smart.
lenona at July 1, 2010 8:10 PM
I agree that parents shouldn't just say, "we can't afford it."
My parents always used to say that. At some point I realized that it was not true. They had money for things that were important to them.
They were actually pretty "good" with money, but I'm not sure that I agree with all of their choices.
We lived in several homes that are now valued at more than a half a million dollars each, yet we couldn't afford to go to the movies, have birthday parties, etc. We only had three outfits. Of course the homes were professionally decorated.
We tell our children that we can afford just about anything that is important to us, but not everything. We have to make choices. We think that it is important to have money for retirement, college, and to always have insurance. Most other things are negotiable. We talk about priorities and how you can't have it all. You have to decide what is important to you.
Our boys have been able to travel and play sports. They have had extra instruction in subjects that interested them. This costs money. It may not "pay off", but they do know that we value them enough to invest in them and their enjoyment.
We all make decisions based upon our priorities.
Jen at July 1, 2010 8:56 PM
Some good points there. Growing up, I thought my family was poor...not dirt poor, but just scrapping by. Later I realized that my parents just spent money differently then most of the other families around and also didn't go into a bunch of debt.
Some neighbors went on vacation every year, often times to Hawaii. We went to the state park. But we had a computer and almost no other family did at that time.
The Former Banker at July 2, 2010 1:41 AM
Jen said:
My parents always used to say that. At some point I realized that it was not true. They had money for things that were important to them.
They were actually pretty "good" with money, but I'm not sure that I agree with all of their choices.
We lived in several homes that are now valued at more than a half a million dollars each, yet we couldn't afford to go to the movies, have birthday parties, etc. We only had three outfits. Of course the homes were professionally decorated.
__________________________
No birthday parties?? As in....no guests from school? If so, that's one of the few times I can imagine it would be fair for kids to call their parents "stingy."
That is, I can't really understand what "stingy" means when the accused party doesn't actually owe anyone anything. I have the impression it's an accusation mainly used by long-term guilt-tripping freeloaders, such as kids. (That is, many kids would be outraged at the idea that they should have to return a big favor done by a parent every time the kids ask for one, per se.)
If someone owes you money or a favor but refuses to deliver, that's clearly something worse than stinginess. If a parent refuses to get a kid shoes and makes her go barefoot to school, that could be called neglect - depending on the exact circumstances.
Otherwise, as I said, there aren't many occasions where using the word "stingy" - even out of earshot - is fair or even polite.
lenona at July 2, 2010 4:57 AM
My kids area already at age 6 getting basic lessons in "there's only so much money, and daddy works hard for it, and if we spend here we can't spend there". More Americans need that lesson. We bought a house in a nice but not rich neighborhood, a block from a great school. We drive the cheapest cars available. We throw birthday parties but don't eat out. It's all give and take.
momof4 at July 2, 2010 7:41 AM
As a nurse, I can tell you the food thing is very tricky. I would love to give patients whatever they want to eat. However, some foods can interact with medication. Even with those in end-stage dementia, this can cause serious problems. I am, however, all for giving those in terminal situations all the narcotics they can handle. We know how much it takes to kill them outright versus how much it takes to make them comfortable, especially if they are still lucid. My godmother is currently in her last weeks of life, dying from ovarian cancer. She can still communicate well, so I say give her what she is asking for...and end to the constant pain.
On a funny note, my friend Steve who is an Orthodox Jew told me once that the day he gets diagnosed with Alzheimer's, he's going to go home, write an advanced directive and living will, then eat an entire plate of bacon. I love that.
UW Girl at July 2, 2010 8:53 AM
So I heard this story through the family— A older man was living with his widowed daughter-in-law, and after all the usual dramas and episodes, he went to the doctor and was given the diagnoses of Alzheimers. So he went home to think about it, and then he went back to the doctor.
And he said "I've decided to stop eating." And the doctor said, with the best legal and ethical neutrality he muster, "I understand."
And so that's what the guy did. He made meals of water for the rest of his days, and it was over within a month (instead of ?? years), and he knew he hadn't missed anything. And he knew he hadn't unduly warped the life of this younger woman who he loved.
So, there's your "shovel". Whaddya say?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 2, 2010 9:20 AM
I think it probably sucked for the DIL to watch her FIL starve to death. None of this is pretty.
MonicaP at July 2, 2010 9:33 AM
I know! I know! I hear you! But....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 2, 2010 9:46 AM
To give somebody in crippling pain from a terminal illness little or no relief is simply stupid and cruel. If I were a doctor, I'd set my licensing worries aside and put that pain victim on some good (legal) sh*t, so that he could live out the short remainder of his life in relative bliss. Then, when the cops came to arrest me, I would tell them where they could stick their handcuffs.
mpetrie98 at July 2, 2010 10:05 AM
Then, when the cops came to arrest me, I would tell them where they could stick their handcuffs.
I'd probably follow the rules and be really bitter and pissed about it. Medical school is expensive and time-consuming.
MonicaP at July 2, 2010 10:09 AM
When my grandmother was dying at home, it got to a point where she could no longer communicate very well, but we knew when she was in pain.
She had some type of strong pain medication. I don't remember what it was. Probably morphine. The siblings took turns taking care of her. When it came my Dad's turn, he noticed that she always seemed to be in excruciating pain. He'd give her some of the pain killers and she'd be doing great again.
He started doing a little accounting of how much medication there was. Turns out his sister was concerned that she might get addicted to the pain killers. WTF. She's terminally ill. It's was a matter of days.
My Dad had a hunch that the concern about addiction was really just a rouse. She probably wanted to withhold medication so that she could keep whatever was left after Grandma passed. Another plausible theory was that my crazy aunt was just exacting revenge on my poor grandmother. My aunt to this day always complained that her mother loved her the least out of the three kids and would fight with her mother constantly.
Regardless, it was cruel, and I hope there is a special place in hell for people like my aunt.
Mark at July 3, 2010 6:29 PM
We are far more civilized with our pets than we are with our ailing parents.
If your dog gets cancer, tends to lie around all day and yipes every time he moves and looks at you with that sadness in his eyes, we say to ourselves and each other, "It's not right that he should suffer like this. There is no more quality to his life. I'm bringing him to the vets tomorrow."
And that pet gets to die peacefully, and no more suffering from the pain.
What is so civilized about watching a loved one suffer in pain, or live their lives in a virtual prison such as a nursing home. For that matter, what about keeping their soul prisoner in a body and mind that is incapable of achieving anything more. Once you have severe dementia, you're no longer living your life on your own terms. You're living it based on the chaos of a decomposing brain. It's just a prolonged death.
I don't want to be there. And I don't want the responsibility of making decisions to be on my relatives. I want the option of having Dr. Kevorkian show up and take me on a permanent vacation. That seems most civilized to me.
mark at July 3, 2010 6:48 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/01/give_the_lady_a.html#comment-1729363">comment from markI'm with you, mark.
Amy Alkon at July 3, 2010 10:46 PM
Leave a comment