You, the caretaker, when he starts taking them at the wrong time or not taking them all. After all if he has been diagnoses with dementia, that means his brain is not always telling him the right thing to do.
my own opinion of course- if a dr is prescribing them a drug that is intended to soften the impacts and the effects of the disease and is given for their wellbeing then i think its imperative that i would do anything to get them to take it, and that would mean by any means. on a personal note i was reluctant to use the anti convulsant drug neurontin,the neuro wanted DH on as i was leary of the side effects being worse off. he said 'we have medications to lessen his pain and can make him more comfortable, but unless you are willing to take the chance to see if he benefits its of no use"..we are taking the meds with good results and i am grateful the dr forced my hand to see the light. medicating them to relieve their stress and anxiety when they are under duress and anxiety seems the prudent and humane thing to do. Divvi
You should see how the handle this issue in a P(sych) M(ed)U(nit). They ahd my Dh Dx. They had to change a med. They (more than one) went to him, told him they had to stop his Tegretol. Instead they were going to give him Lamictal. They explained all the stuff about it--pros and cons. Theyt then asked if he understood. He reponded in the affirmative, and they had himsign a paper, that he'd been informed. 20 minutes later, they brought him his meds, and after taking them, he ustled down to the phone and called me in tears because "they didn't give me my pink one!" He knew he had trouble if he missed that one. I told him I'd check it out, and he should calm down. I'd call him back, and to stay near the phobes. I called the case manager to find out what was going on. She explained that "he'd been told", they even had a signed paper to back that up. I questioned how valid it was, and she said "He understood it at the time". That covers it for them. I don't know how many times I've been told I can't MAKE him do anything. He can make his own decisions. This is an over correction that came out of the overhaul of the mental health system when it ws determined there had been excesive abuses---committing people who were difficult or had mental problems, not necessarily illness. This is why we have people who are mentally ill, living on Social Security or Welfare, living on the streets, getting into trouble because they can't manage their meds, etc. I am lucky, DH has alwys been extremely good about taking his meds, and has accepted the changes as his ability to keep track of them has diminished. He no longer knows one pill from another, and rarely verifies that he is getting his "pee" pill or his "shaky" pill. He knows he takes a batch in the early morrning along with his Potassium powder packet. He takes another batch around noon and the third batch about 6 pm. If he has to have a med. he will have it, but I will be alert if he doesn't want it. There have been a couple times when a med was a problem and changing it solvbed the issue. Luckily, so far we have been able to deal with professionals who "get" what's going on.
Andrea refused pills, too. So should I give them to her secretly, or is that medicating her against her will?
Well, let's look at the circumstances. If Andrea had been against medication because she was afraid of side effects, or didn't wish to prolong her life, then that would be a reason. I would have known these views prior to her disease as well, more than likely.
However, her dislike of pills was a result of the belief that I was trying medicate her because I wanted to take her bras away from her and hide them. She was also positive that we were giving her pills when no one else had to take them, and that didn't make sense, so obviously we were up to something.
This was the same logic of the grandchild who wanted to push beans up his nose. We didn't allow that, either.
I do not see how anyone could say that she had her best medical interests at heart, or even understood her condition enough to be able to have an opinion. If the medical condition erodes your decision making center, then you are out of the loop, even if you are an adult chronologically.
It will be an even worse decision, BTW, when you have to decide for them whether or not you will continue medicating them to keep them alive. Now you have to decide whether or not to STOP the pills.
I monitor all meds the neuro and PCP prescribe for DH. So far he is very compliant and doesn't give me any trouble. He knows he takes BP med, 1/2 aspirin to keep his blood thin, an exelon patch to help his memory and Naemanda twice a day for his memory. (Although he doesn't have a memory problem and he's only taking the meds because it makes me happy. He says he has always believed that having a happy wife makes a happy husband and therefore a happy marriage. Who am I to argue?)
However, I am here to state that if he refused to take the meds or gave me any problems, I wouldn't hesitate to crush them and put the med in his applesauce or ice cream or whatever to make sure he got the proper meds. I cannot imagine anyone who would turn me in for violating his 'rights.'
Bar-Bra, the right to medicate against one's will might be covered by a POA, depending on what the POA says. Most of them don't give the right to force the person to do something against his will, however, and most of them stipulate that the person has to be declared incapacitated by two doctors before the POA takes effect. In addition, a POA can be revoked. So if you really want authority to make medical decisions for a person here, no matter how that person feels about it, you need a guardianship or conservatorship of the person that spells out your authority to do so.
I had DPOA and MPOA for my DH and still was told "you can't 'make' him do anything." That's why I've been so mystified that they (knowing Dx) would tell him they were changing a med. Taking one away and giving him another. They explained all the pros and cons of the new drug and had him sign a paper that they had told him and he understood and agreed. 20 minutes later, they brought him his meds, without the one pill and he called me scared and crying because they "didn't give him his pink pill." I called the Case Manager, who then told me of the change and what he had been told. I asked, how they could think he knew and understood, given his Dx? She answered, "He did at that time." Even after I was given Legal Guardianship, his Social Worker and Dr. gave me the same song and dance. His current Drs. (Psych. and PCP) work with me on the premise that you act on his behalf in the same way you would your child. You may have to use different tactics, but the basics are the same. Meds have to be taken. Dangerous objects are denied. Yet, the overcorrection made in the mental health field to protect the "Rights of the Patient" leaves us in a mine field because at every turn someone has to decide where the boundaries between Patient Rights and Patient Safety and Health are.
SunShyne ....... Yes, I understand. While there are so many variances in documents, laws - state and federal as well as individual country laws, in actual fact there is so much the same - many documents mean and say the same, they are just titled differently.
As spousal care givers we are all loosing enough without loosing materially and monetarily as well. It certainly is important to deal with having the proper documentation drawn up sooner rather than later 'cuz leaving it until later could definitely prove disasterous!
carosi, I think the social worker and doctor were doing a "cover your derriere" routine. If they explained things to your husband and he signed a document giving them permission, then he DID consent at the time, and they have written proof. That makes them much happier than having YOU say to go ahead.
If they consulted solely with you, and you authorized a treatment that your husband didn't want, if push came to shove, your Letters would stand up in court.
But who the heck is going to take something to court? The most likely person would be YOU, if you later decided that the advice you were given was wrong, and you wanted to sue for malpractice. So having your husband's consent is a safeguard.
We go through this at the research center... they always get written consent from both of us.