After being with my mother recently after she suffered a broken hip, I was thinking more about supported decision making and guardianship. The purpose of supported decision making is that a person’s loved ones that know them best can come together and help make decisions based on what they know would be that person’s desires. It seems reasonable to me that when a person loses the ability to make those decisions themselves that is a less restrictive way to help them gracefully live their lives, because not everyone that ages needs a guardian. Just because people have an illness that affects their decision making and memory doesn’t mean they have to lose all their rights.
So, that leads me to the thoughts about a guardian in that process. Based on what would be in the best interest of a person, wouldn’t it seem reasonable that if there is a guardian that is overseeing your loved one they would want to bring all the family into the decision making process for that person? As I said, this was something I thought about after being at the hospital and helping my mother after she suffered a broken hip, as well as, other medical issues.
- Did the guardian contact all of her daughters and ask us what our opinion was about my mother and her care? NO.
- Did the guardian contact her daughters and ask if we wanted our mother to return to the nursing home where she suffered with a broken hip for eleven days before being admitted to the hospital where they finally discovered she had a broken hip? NO.
- Has the guardian/guardians ever contacted all her daughters to involve us in her care or treatment or any other decision making? NO.
- Did the guardian contact us to ask us what we would like to do with my mother’s home and possessions before she sold them to complete strangers and let them throw away all her/our memories? NO.
So, my last question is why? I would love your thoughts.