Readers may have noticed that I haven’t updated my
blog in recent months. There are two
main reasons: firstly, I’m aware that many whose lives are touched by dementia
are looking for uplifting, or at least reassuring, stories; my mother’s
condition has progressed to a stage where I feel I cannot be that Pollyanna and
do not wish to discourage others. Secondly, dementia has already taken so much
of my life - practically,
emotionally, and financially - that I now have to focus on rebuilding an
involuntarily neglected career.
But this week I read something that so incensed me,
I just had to respond. It was this interview
given by [former @May 2015] Minister of State for Justice*, Simon Hughes:
Now I do acknowledge that media reports sometimes take
comments out of context or misrepresent tone or intention. I cite the piece with those caveats. But if this is a fair summary of Simon
Hughes’ message, I take issue with its assumptions.
His basic contention seems to be that elderly
people in residential care have all been “forced” there by callous relatives
who lack a sense of responsibility, “obligation” or “sacrifice”; and that those
who live alone and/or seek state support for their needs are wilfully
“neglected” by society or by family “who you would have thought would
care”.
Furthermore, he holds up the wearisomely familiar
example of idealised “Asian or African” families, who, he contends, have a
superior culture of caring for their elderly “to the end”.
It may be that these are his genuine, personal
views; in which case we may consider him ill-informed, but not malign. But let’s not be disingenuous. He is a government minister**. And government continues to wrestle with the
problem of how to fund adequate - never
mind good – care for a population that increasingly lives into very old age
with a variety of high dependency needs.
If families can be persuaded (or guilt-tripped) into shouldering more of
the burden, the thinking evidently goes, the state can shell out less.
But do those who posit this neat fiscal logic
really understand what they are asking – and of whom?
In the last year or so, we have been treated to a
similar sermon from both Jeremy Hunt (Secretary of State for Health) and Norman
Lamb (former Minister of State for Care and Support***).
I am frankly sick of usually male politicians sanctimoniously preaching
self-sacrifice without remotely practicing it themselves or acknowledging the
true cost for those who have no choice.
Time to take off those rose-tinted specs.
For we cannot assume a cosy set-up of extended
family who live in the same few streets and can pop in to mum’s with a
casserole of an evening or help granddad mow the lawn while granny baby-sits
the kids. For one thing, families tend
to be smaller now. I am myself the only
child of an only child and have no children of my own to care for me in the
future.
And in today’s society, people often have to move
hundreds of miles away from hometowns in their youth to study or find work, as
I did; however much we may love our relatives, caring for them in old age may
well involve one or other party uprooting at a stressful time of life, leaving home,
job, hard-won income and support network behind.
Otherwise the relentless and exhausting shuttle of
long-distance travel, coupled with round-the-clock phone calls and emails to
arrange care, liaise with professionals the carer can never meet face-to-face
in office hours, and manage an escalating litany of crises.
If we explore the live-in option, not everyone has
a house big enough to welcome a dependent relative or carer, which can involve
the cost and upheaval of building an extension, modifying an existing home, or
both parties selling up to purchase a new property or going on a local
authority waiting list to be rehoused. (Perhaps this doesn’t occur to
politicians who have two or more properties at their disposal, funded at the
taxpayer’s expense…)
That’s assuming that both parties are agreeable to
the arrangement in the first place and can sustain it over a number of years.
The ideal of multi-generational living, as exemplified by those notional Asian families,
is all very well in theory; but, apart from the practical challenges, sharing a
home 24/7 when you have been used to your own space and privacy can put a huge
strain on relationships. And not all elderly people themselves want to
surrender their independence to move in with relatives whom they may see as
controlling or whose busy lifestyle is stressful to them.
Crucially, I would suggest it is still women who most often have to be the main
facilitators of family care and shoulder the greatest daily and long-term burden
– not just looking after their own parents and children, but often in-laws, aunts
and uncles too. That’s how the fabled
Asian and African families traditionally manage – by keeping women at home to
attend to everyone else’s needs. And in
the 21st century, they too may have to hold down a job outside the
home as well to make ends meet. (For a female perspective on the reality for Asian carers, see Manjit Nijjar's story and the Sikh community dementia research of Dr Karan Jutlla; and for the South Asian caregiver's journey, A Fragmented Pathway by Shahid Mohammed.)
Many would say they do this out of love, not
“obligation”; but don’t men love too? As
I have noted in my previous post, Social Care: A Women's Issue, there
are of course male carers of spouses and parents who act with equal devotion,
but it’s relatively uncommon for men to take this on as sole responsibility if
there is a female relative to hand, just as it remains a minority of men who choose
to be primary carers of children.
Even where men and women share responsibility for
an elderly relative, it is more usually the woman who withdraws from her
career, either taking on a part-time post that offers more flexible hours or
giving up paid work completely when care demands a round-the-clock
presence.
Which brings me to the other main issue. What does Simon Hughes imagine “care” to
be? I have touched on this in my earlier
post, Social Care Is Not A Lifestyle Choice, but it continues to
frustrate me that policy-makers remain largely ignorant of the reality. So I’ll spell it out here.
Yes, a loving family can adjust its routine without
too much upheaval to help a frail elderly person to shop, cook, clean, have
some company, and get out and about. If
that were the extent of the “sacrifice”, we would not have much of a
problem.
But in previous generations, average life
expectancy was no more than early to mid 70s. (That was the basis of pension and National
Insurance contributions.) People died of
acute illness before they became routinely dependent on others. Today, life expectancy has risen by a decade
and climbing; advances in medicine and technology keep the body going, but not
necessarily the mind.
69% of people living in care homes have some form of
dementia; that’s why
they are there. Not generally through
the selfishness or indolence of relatives who can’t be bothered to make some
small sacrifice, but because their practical needs and behaviours have progressed
– often over very many harrowing years – to an extremity where even the most
loving of family carers can no longer cope.
The main distinguishing feature that can set
dementia apart from other forms of frailty is lack of insight. Many people with
symptoms disruptive to their independence never receive diagnosis (or receive
it much too late), because they simply don’t recognise or accept their degenerating
capacity and may be antagonistic to the expressed concerns of others; and
without diagnosis or at least acknowledgement of the problem, external support is
very difficult to access.
Thus a person may get into considerable
difficulties over a very long period of time, with family, friends, and
professionals desperately doing their best to fire-fight with no co-operation,
until some major crisis finally precipitates the dreaded decision to consider residential
care. This is the situation I faced with my mum: The Crisis We All Dread.
For dementia is not just a bit of “memory
loss”. It’s a syndrome of progressive, cognitive disorders that can escalate to
consume every daily function of a
person’s life.
In my mum’s case, it began more than twenty years
ago, when bereavement triggered separation anxiety and disproportionate
emotional responses to certain situations; then came gradual short-term memory
loss, leading to repetition of conversation and confusion over appointments and
events. Her ability to manage money and admin became compromised, with PIN
numbers and passwords a particular challenge; household tasks fell by the
wayside due to lack of concentration and declining grasp of everyday technology
such as washing machine, cooker, and hoover.
Even so, I managed much of this myself for many
years and could have arranged further domestic support. But mum was unable to acknowledge her
deteriorating capacity and vehemently denied needing any help at all. She could not recognise the extent to which I
was effectively running her life and would not accept external agency to spread
the load.
A series of physical crises – falls and fractures –
escalated her decline, and cognitive symptoms came to the fore: loss of capacity
to interpret instructions and reminders and of motor skills to manage food
packaging and household tools; compromised spatial awareness and mobility; inability
to decode social signals and understand boundaries; and most of all, paranoia –
a pervasive, unfocused dread that caused distressing personality change, irrational
outbursts of antagonism and unwarranted suspicion that often obstructed
attempts to care.
In recent years, mum became unable to understand
the difference between an ansaphone message and a live person speaking, leading
to distress at being “snubbed” by friends and relatives who were merely out;
her short-term memory loss developed to a state of being unable to remember the
previous sentence of a conversation, or an incident one minute ago.
To her, a person out of sight might just as well
have been absent for a year than the actual two minutes they had been in the
kitchen putting the kettle on or upstairs in the loo. Hence a constant feeling
of abandonment, resulting in the need to have someone in sight or on the end of
the phone at all times. She could not be
left alone for even five minutes in a public place (for instance to park the
car) and increasingly not even at home.
Previously very fastidious, she came to neglect her
personal hygiene and reject all efforts to help. Despite a fridge stocked with foods requiring
little or no preparation, she stopped feeding herself because even the memory
that there was food available and the understanding of what to do with it could
not be retained. She could no longer
manage her own medication from a pill-counter with each day clearly marked,
because she could not interpret it; and if I were there to administer
medication myself, she would argue black and blue that she had already taken it
and refuse to accept evidence to the contrary.
Finally, she stopped recognising her own home, even
forgetting which was her own bedroom (where she had slept for 40 years), and
started obsessively packing random belongings to flee and wandering out in distress,
sometimes at night, often leaving the door wide open and her handbag on
display.
By this stage – two decades after the first emerging
symptoms of dementia - I knew I could no longer keep her safe and well on my
own 24 hours a day. I too was at
breaking point and had no option but to arrange a residential care place for
her. This was an absolute last resort
that I had done everything in my power to avoid; but it has saved mum’s life -
and possibly mine as well.
Now she has moved on to the nursing unit in the
same home. A visiting friend asked me
why, as in her eyes mum looked much the same as in recent months. But her increasing frailties are not always
visible to the casual observer.
The nursing unit, I explained, is not just about
medical care; the staffing levels are double those in the residential
wing. It takes two staff to lift each
resident safely in and out of their chairs and beds several times a day with a
mechanical hoist, to attend to their personal hygiene and keep them mobile to
some extent. Residents at this stage may need physical help to eat and drink,
to dress and undress – again, very labour-intensive. And principally there is continence.
Most residents in the nursing unit are doubly
incontinent. People who have not
encountered this probably don’t realise that in dementia it is not just about
losing physical control of bodily functions, but loss of capacity to understand what to do, and what is
socially appropriate. To be explicit:
carers may have to contend with faeces smeared on walls, on clothes and in
hair, or parcelled up and hidden among clean clothes in drawers, in vases, or
biscuit tins. There are complex psychological reasons why a person cannot help
this behaviour, which is logical to them; but it is undeniably hard for others
to manage, particularly a sole family carer in a domestic setting. This, I
would suggest, is probably the main determinant of residential care – the other
being aggression.
The cocktail of symptoms varies with each
individual and many won’t be aggressive at all.
But for those who are (more usually, but not exclusively, men),
behaviour can be totally out of character, frightening and sometimes dangerous.
In mum’s unit, I have witnessed an
otherwise benign and pitifully frail old man suddenly come out with a tirade of
foul abuse at the gentle young nurse in charge, simply for attempting to take
him to the toilet for his own health. She copes with it, because it is her job
and she can maintain a degree of emotional detachment; but on a human level,
one cannot help but be shocked. How much
more upsetting, if it’s your nearest and dearest to whom you have devoted your
life, who is treating you in this way?
In the same unit, I was also present for the birthday
of a female resident, who is now unable to sit upright or to speak. She spends her days in a special reclining
wheelchair. Nevertheless, she was clean
and neatly dressed with nicely-styled hair; kitchen staff had baked her a
beautiful cake with a candle and her name iced on it (as they do for all the
residents); the carers made a ceremony of the occasion, and we all sang happy
birthday before sharing the celebratory tea. I was moved to tears by the simple
kindness of the staff and the tender devotion of the lady’s elderly husband,
who sat holding her hand for an hour, despite her inability to acknowledge his
presence. I can well imagine the lonely years
of anguish that had led him to this point – I’ve been there too and will
continue on the same path.
If Simon Hughes knew this, would he still say that
man and I – and all the other families who have a relative in care – lack a
sense of “obligation” or “sacrifice”?
That we don’t care?
On top of this emotional trauma and loss of our
shared past, mum and I (like many others) have lost our family home to care
costs – already over £120,000 for two and a half years and counting.
Thirty-odd years ago, I was an Oxford contemporary
of Simon Hughes’ ministerial colleagues, David Cameron and Michael Gove (indeed
I read English with the latter). Back
then, my future looked as bright as theirs. I established a successful career
in TV drama; but after a decade of missed work opportunities and life chances, attending
to mum’s needs, I find myself single, childless, and with virtually no savings,
having to start again. But perhaps I
have not sacrificed enough…?
I have met and corresponded with numerous others
who have shared a similar heart-breaking experience. There are no doubt some
people who shirk responsibility and put themselves first – just as there are
benefit cheats, multi-national corporations that don’t pay tax, and politicians
who fiddle their expenses…
But don’t tar us all with the same brush. I have
yet to encounter one person who has willingly placed their relative in
residential care for selfish or feckless reasons and merrily continued with his
or her own life unscathed.
The bottom line is that the economics of care funding,
based on continuous employment until 60 or 65 and death from acute illness at
75, no longer stack up. Government has
not yet found a solution to the vast expansion of need, set against contraction
of resources. To an extent, it’s not
party political. Opinions may differ on
how to cut the cake, but no-one is offering more cake. It’s a question of priorities.
So get real, politicians: have the honesty to say,
“we will not fund your care”. But don’t pretend that it’s families (mostly
women) who can’t be bothered to look after their own. If there is a moral failure here, I can
assure you it’s not ours.
* This post was written in 2014, under the Con-Dem Coalition government. Simon Hughes lost his seat in the 2015 general election.
** Simon Hughes was a government minister at the time of writing. Subsequent ministers, such as Conservative Jackie Doyle-Price in 2017, have expressed similar views, exhorting families to do more or to pay more for their own care, despite evidence that many are already stretched to breaking point on both counts.
** Simon Hughes was a government minister at the time of writing. Subsequent ministers, such as Conservative Jackie Doyle-Price in 2017, have expressed similar views, exhorting families to do more or to pay more for their own care, despite evidence that many are already stretched to breaking point on both counts.
*** Norman Lamb was Minister for Care and Support in the Com-Dem Coalition cabinet until the general election of 2015. He held his seat in that election and was a candidate for leadership of the Liberal Democrats. He retains a special interest in socialcare and does have family experience of these issues.
Update: my mum died in January, 2020. She had lived with dementia for over twenty years. We had virtually no help from the state in all that time.