s/o Attitudes towards care taking our parents & our kids

[AMJ]

Nice try, but appeal to emotion is not a rebuttal.  You're doing the ostrich number.  The fact is that individual choices matter. Take a look at the long term Type 2 diabetes trend. 

 

 

Careful there.  You are looking at a correlation, a co-occurrence of what is perceived as a certain lifestyle and the rise in type 2 diabetes, and thinking it is a causative relationship.  This has not yet been scientifically proven to be true.  Studies are still ongoing, and results are still very mixed.  There are a lot of various causes of type 2 diabetes, many of them still poorly understood, and likely more that are as yet unidentified.  Society has been cleaning up its act, promoting better eating, more exercise, and yet instead of the drop in type 2 diabetes occurrence that we expected we continue to see an increase.

 

When A and B occur together it does not mean that A causes B.  It could be that B causes A, or that something else is causing both.

 

I have seen plenty of people who were always active, thin, and ate healthy contract type 2 diabetes.  Clearly there is more going on that simply personal choices.

[Pawz4me]

I don't doubt you, the stats speak to this fact for Type 2 diabetics.  But that's not the case for most seniors.   Individual choices are significant.

 

 

As I said.

 

But they aren't everything (as I also said).

 

My doctor (because he knows my family history and knows how health conscious I am) frequently speaks to me of the triathletes he treats for HBP and high cholesterol to make the point that some things will be out of our control regardless of our lifestyle choices.

[Bluegoat]

Agree with Mother Goose.  Its not all luck, its taking responsibility and making choices that promote good health.  Sugar based diet, fast food diet, or nutritious?  Exercise or none?  Healthy weight? Indoors or go out and get some sun?   People that live a long time are genetically lucky in that they haven't had cancer etc right off the bat, but they avoid many other diseases because of their lifestyle chocies.

 

Truly independent until death isn't the goal.  Having capable people take care of themselves and not choose the path to early immobility has to be the choice, because there are more needing care than caregivers. Simple things like making the phone easy for arthritic hands via voice command...that gives people social...but that takes resources to develop and if we are using those resources taking care of self-inflicted diabetes, well, we've lost an opportunity.  

 

Five years before death?  Sounds like the dementia numbers.  But dementia doesn't affect everyone.

 

Yeah, 5 years.  It's nothing to do with luck and everything to do with what an ageing body looks like.

 

It doesn't matter if you are a very healthy person who lives to be 100.  Chances are, that in the final years, you really start to slow down, have mobility issues, can't manage all your banking, can't manage stairs, and so on.  Most people do not just go on gardening and being active, and one day they die.  Or even one week, they fall ill and die.  Almost always, there is a decline that lasts a good while.

 

My dh grandmother was super healthy until she hit her 80s.  Then she started to have effects from a chronic disease, but she was still pretty active, but needed assistance for some things.  At about 90, her heart started to suffer, and she was pretty much dying until she was 92, bedridden for the final year.

 

THat's a pretty common scenario, even for people who have a healthy lifestyle and pretty good genetics.  Falling ill and shortly dropping dead is fairly rare.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Seasider]

I feel very uncomfortable with making whether we have "taken the grandparents in" the litmus test for whether we value our parents/family enough. Choosing to live in a multi-generational household for the foreseeable future (which could potentially be decades) is not something anyone is required to do in order to prove they love their parents or value connection between the generations. You are talking about potentially giving up the rest of your life to elder care tasks.

 

I'm genuinely surprised at the amount of judgment in this thread. There is a lot of room between "my wonderful parents cared for me and now, by taking them into my home for a few months prior to death, everything has come full circle" and the token caveat "well, unless they were abusive". A lot of room. There are so many situations, many of which have already been mentioned on this thread, that fall in that murky grey area in the middle. And there are so many situations where taking the grandparents into your own home is simply not possible or reasonable from a medical or safety standpoint.

 

My grandmother used to say, "I don't want to be a burden," and I always said, "Why would you ever think you could be a burden?" But my grandmother had far more wisdom and life experience than I did. She had seen people worn down by decades of caregiving. She had seen friends selfishly expect their children to give up their whole lives, their own families, and their own retirement savings to support them. She loved her own family too much to deliberately do that to them. My grandmother had only a 3rd grade education and carefully lived off a very small pension & social security, but she took care of her health, she prepaid her funeral & burial expenses, and she spread her (reasonable) needs and requests among her children and grandchildren. She was fortunate enough to have the good health to live independently until 6 months before her death, and those last 6 months of caregiving were a blessing to those involved.

 

But I have seen too many situations where someone gave up their whole life . . . literally, their whole life and their own health . . . for years & decades as a caregiver to pass judgment on anyone facing these hard choices.

Thank you for articulating this.

[FaithManor]

Yeah, 5 years.  It's nothing to do with luck and everything to do with what an ageing body looks like.

 

It doesn't matter if you are a very healthy person who lives to be 100.  Chances are, that in the final years, you really start to slow down, have mobility issues, can't manage all your banking, can't manage stairs, and so on.  Most people do not just go on gardening and being active, and one day they die.  Or even one week, they fall ill and die.  Almost always, there is a decline that lasts a good while.

 

My dh grandmother was super healthy until she hit her 80s.  Then she started to have effects from a chronic disease, but she was still pretty active, but needed assistance for some things.  At about 90, her heart started to suffer, and she was pretty much dying until she was 92, bedridden for the final year.

 

THat's a pretty common scenario, even for people who have a healthy lifestyle and pretty good genetics.  Falling ill and shortly dropping dead is fairly rare.

This is very true. What most people experience is not "grandpa went for a walk, had a heart attack, and it was all over." Mostly it is something a LOT worse than that.

 

Additionally, science shows that while healthy lifestyle is a factor, it is a small factor. Everyone wants to believe so strongly that they can avoid stroke, heart disease, diabetes, renal failure, cancer, autoimmune, whatever if you just eat right and exercise. Well, that isn't the case. It is all about genetics. Most of us have nothing more than an uphill battle against our genes, like a salmon trying to swim up Niagara Falls. We hedge our bets here. We hope that maybe, just maybe our genes aren't too bad so we exercise, keep our minds active, try to follow the latest nutritional advice which is a lot like chasing dandelion weed blowing in the wind because it changes so often and there is so much conflicting information, we take high quality multi vitamins with minerals, try to eliminate pollutants from the house, don't smoke, rarely drink....

 

And most likely we will fall victim to our genetic heritage, plain and simple. Sigh....

 

To listen to a local pathologist talk, most of us are pretty damaged from environmental pollutants that prevent our internal organs from remaining healthy.

 

So you try. You do your best. But in the end, it is a crap shoot!

[Tess in the Burbs]

I've seen how nasty my mom's mom was...and she's going to be just.like.her.  I expect her to be argumentative and combative in the end.  We have talked about her taking care of her mother and how awful the situation was.  I told her I didn't want to have the same experience.  I'm hoping she's heard my concerns.  

Honestly, I have offered for many years when the time comes mom can live with us and I'll take her to the Dr, etc.  She has said no.  

 

My dad has made sure he has enough money to deal with his own life.  okay dad.  

 

I think a lot of people have been just nasty mean and kids don't want to deal with it.  I know in my own family there isn't a lot of love being passed around...so it's hard to go into a situation thinking the best will occur b/c history hasn't shown that to be case.  How many time do you take being cussed out for trying to be nice? 

[Valley Girl]

NM

This thread is literally bringing me to tears.

[StephanieZ]

I don't disagree that personal choices regarding lifestyle can sometimes make a difference in ones long term health. I'm certainly a proponent of eating well, exercising, not smoking, etc. People who know me IRL would tell you I'm one of the most health conscious people they know. But I don't delude myself into thinking any of those are magic bullets for ensuring long term health. I think of them as ways to maximize my quality of life today. Right now.

 

To go down the road of ascribing long term good health to good life choices is choosing a dangerously slippery road, and one I will not take. It reeks of prosperity gospel thinking, holier-than-thou thinking and wishful thinking (if I do these things then I won't be one of the awful, needy elderly).

 

It is on the whole--when expressed w/o a LOT of quaifiers--a vile, reprehensible thought pattern.

 

Agreed 100%.

 

My mom did everything right. Didn't smoke, rarely had a glass of wine, was fit and trim and exercised routinely and ate all the right things. Meditated, did yoga, took classes  . . .  Ate organics . . . She retired at about age 67 from her legal career and kept up her brain via extensive brain-challenging volunteering as an ombudsman for a nursing home, read and discussed serious literature, took up a musical instruments, traveled the world, etc. 

 

She saw good doctors regularly, had her colonoscopies and mammograms and skin checks, took her statin for high cholesterol (genetic, not dietary) and vitamins, did everything every doctor told her to do, and she sought out excellent doctors . . .

 

In fact, it broke my heart a million times when I'd see just how hard she worked to stay healthy and activate her brain. All those stupid things that are supposed to stave off dementia. . . She did them ALL. She tried so damn hard. So, so damn hard. 

 

Nonetheless, she began developing dementia around age 70 and full blown ALZ by age 72. Still saw the best doctors and took every best medicine available, and involved her competent adult children in her care as soon as she had her first "positive" diagnosis of early dementia, so I went to every neurologist appointment with her . . .

 

ALZ doesn't spare those who do everything right. Mom died soon after her 76th birthday.

 

Life is unfair.

 

My stable has no room for high horses.  

[MotherGoose]

I am the daughter of a diabetic who was always active, thin and ate well (a mostly plant based diet).

 

I speak from experience.

 

I believe I qualified my post with an exception for something catastrophic happening, and diabetes in this situation qualifies as a catastrophe. Diabetes when you are 100 pounds overweight and do no more exercise than walking to the fridge is largely a result of lifestyle. It's not something that should surprise anyone. I have seen both types of people (in laws). People absolutely have bad Luck in the gene pool.

 

And yet they are still very likely to have a period of five years or so before death where they will no longer be able to be really independent.

But five years of needing some reminders or a bit of help, or even a lot of help in late old age is much better than decades of it. My entire point from my post, and I honestly don't see why there's much debate about it because I think it's certainly what many people teach their children as ways to increase the chances of a healthy life is that if you eat right and exercise all your life you will be more likely to have a long life and a healthier life than if you don't exercise and eat junk food all your life. Are there people who are couch potatoes, eat junk, and smoke three packs of cigarettes a day who live to a healthy old age? I'm sure there are. I'm just talking about on average, if you try to take care of yourself, you will be healthier during old age. A healthy old age is partially luck, but it's not ALL luck. Edited October 19, 2017 by MotherGoose

[Pawz4me]

I believe I qualified my post with an exception for something catastrophic happening, and diabetes in this situation qualifies as a catastrophe. Diabetes when you are 100 pounds overweight and do no more exercise than walking to the fridge is largely a result of lifestyle. It's not something that should surprise anyone. I have seen both types of people (in laws). People absolutely have bad Luck in the gene pool.

 

It's a common scenario. Much, much more common than many would like to admit. So no, I don't buy it that something that's relatively common = catastrophic.

[MotherGoose]

It's a common scenario. Much, much more common than many would like to admit. So no, I don't buy it that something that's relatively common = catastrophic.

I think I originally used the word "bad," so what I have been trying to say is that if you have the "bad luck" to get diabetes when you have been taking care of yourself all along, then you have done all you can do to avoid it. Genetics is a crapshoot. Totally get that. I do know people who ended up with diabetes even after trying to take care of themselves, as well as many other illnesses. I know many more who got it after a lifetime of obesity and inactivity. I think the statistics will agree with my observations.

 

My very simple point is that if you try to take care of yourself and exercise, then it's more likely that you will live to an advanced age in relative health than if you eat too much junk and sit on the couch all your life. It's no guarantee of anything, but although we can't control our genetics we can control our choices and behaviors that impact our health to some degree.

[Bluegoat]

I believe I qualified my post with an exception for something catastrophic happening, and diabetes in this situation qualifies as a catastrophe. Diabetes when you are 100 pounds overweight and do no more exercise than walking to the fridge is largely a result of lifestyle. It's not something that should surprise anyone. I have seen both types of people (in laws). People absolutely have bad Luck in the gene pool.

 

But five years of needing some reminders or a bit of help, or even a lot of help in late old age is much better than decades of it. My entire point from my post, and I honestly don't see why there's much debate about it because I think it's certainly what many people teach their children as ways to increase the chances of a healthy life is that if you eat right and exercise all your life you will be more likely to have a long life and a healthier life than if you don't exercise and eat junk food all your life. Are there people who are couch potatoes, eat junk, and smoke three packs of cigarettes a day who live to a healthy old age? I'm sure there are. I'm just talking about on average, if you try to take care of yourself, you will be healthier during old age. A healthy old age is partially luck, but it's not ALL luck.

 

This is only true to a point, mainly because the real health disasters tend to die sooner.

 

But I'm not talking about the final five years being a bit of help - that might last 10, 20 years.  Even in the healthy, once you get past about 80, they start to see people getting very frail and needing more serious help, for years.

[FaithManor]

This is only true to a point, mainly because the real health disasters tend to die sooner.

 

But I'm not talking about the final five years being a bit of help - that might last 10, 20 years.  Even in the healthy, once you get past about 80, they start to see people getting very frail and needing more serious help, for years.

Yes. And to be honest, I am not seeing anyone locally dying in their old age of diabetes or the complications of that. Really. Everyone is getting cancer. Everyone. Lung cancer in non smokers, liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, brain cancer, prostate cancer that metasticizes to the bone, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, it is astounding to me. It seems that when life spans get past sixty, cancer just starts ravaging the populace.

 

Cancer centers, oncologists, radiology, hematology, these are the specialties growing here.

 

And then the Alzheimers.

 

I know no one struggling with an elder because they didn't eat enough salads and walk enough miles. They are all struggling to take care of either parents with cancer, or parents with dementia. There is the occasional stroke victim, but in the tri county area there is exactly one dialysis center and it is only open part time which makes me think that pretty much most of the people with diabetes are keeping it well under control. But at the oncology offices, the waiting rooms are packed, and new oncologists are moving in every year.

 

Maybe my area is a superfund area, and it's being covered up by the government or something. Wouldn't surprise me! We are only 70 minutes from Flint and the lead crisis for goodness sake!

[Seasider]

Yes. And to be honest, I am not seeing anyone locally dying in their old age of diabetes or the complications of that. Really. Everyone is getting cancer. Everyone. Lung cancer in non smokers, liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, brain cancer, prostate cancer that metasticizes to the bone, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, it is astounding to me. It seems that when life spans get past sixty, cancer just starts ravaging the populace.

 

Cancer centers, oncologists, radiology, hematology, these are the specialties growing here.

 

And then the Alzheimers.

 

I know no one struggling with an elder because they didn't eat enough salads and walk enough miles. They are all struggling to take care of either parents with cancer, or parents with dementia. There is the occasional stroke victim, but in the tri county area there is exactly one dialysis center and it is only open part time which makes me think that pretty much most of the people with diabetes are keeping it well under control. But at the oncology offices, the waiting rooms are packed, and new oncologists are moving in every year.

 

Maybe my area is a superfund area, and it's being covered up by the government or something. Wouldn't surprise me! We are only 70 minutes from Flint and the lead crisis for goodness sake!

I was just discussing this with my oldest who is in the medical field. He said the first thing one of his old professors said in a class specifically about cancer was that most people, if they person lives long enough, would eventually get some kind of cancer. I can't explain all the science behind it, but the theory seems to be that cancer itself involves the generation of new cells, something the body is always doing anyway, and that a decrepit body starts producing malformed cells.

 

I'm sure it doesn't work that way for every person, or for every cancer, but there appears to be a clear correlation between cancer and a population with increasingly extended life spans.

[FaithManor]

I was just discussing this with my oldest who is in the medical field. He said the first thing one of his old professors said in a class specifically about cancer was that most people, if they person lives long enough, would eventually get some kind of cancer. I can't explain all the science behind it, but the theory seems to be that cancer itself involves the generation of new cells, something the body is always doing anyway, and that a decrepit body starts producing malformed cells.

 

I'm sure it doesn't work that way for every person, or for every cancer, but there appears to be a clear correlation between cancer and a population with increasingly extended life spans.

This is what my doctor says, as well as our friend with Doctors without Borders. The health concerns the DOB doc deals with often revolve around lack of adequate sanitation, clean water, enough decent food so nutritional issues, and injuries lots and lots of injuries. Life spans are shorter in his country, barely topping sixty. They see very little cancer.

 

I suspect a combo of not living into the age span when cancer becomes so prevalent, and also possibly genetics ie not of European Descent. The six highest rates of cancer are in the US, Australia, and European nations with the exception of North Korea. The lowest rates, by a startling margin are in Africa, the Middle East, and Nepal.

[bettyandbob]

I was just discussing this with my oldest who is in the medical field. He said the first thing one of his old professors said in a class specifically about cancer was that most people, if they person lives long enough, would eventually get some kind of cancer. I can't explain all the science behind it, but the theory seems to be that cancer itself involves the generation of new cells, something the body is always doing anyway, and that a decrepit body starts producing malformed cells.

 

I'm sure it doesn't work that way for every person, or for every cancer, but there appears to be a clear correlation between cancer and a population with increasingly extended life spans.

This what I've read in the past. No one seems to believe me. I should get a journal article to cite.

[Valley Girl]

If it's any consolation, I don't believe the views being expressed here that are bringing you to tears are majority views. 

 

You deserve dignity and loving care in your old age, or when you are sick, no matter the $$ in your bank account. Truly, more of us think that than don't. There is no shame in needing to rely on family members, despite your best efforts at independence. It's what most of the world does as they age. 

 

Thank you for that, Sadie. Truly. I have vivid memories of running errands for elderly neighbors as a child, helping my grandparents as they aged, driving childless elderly aunts and uncles to functions, of being there for my folks during my father's illness, and of trying now to do what I can from a distance for my mom. I could not live with myself otherwise. And I don't have illusions about the difficulty families often face.

 

What troubles me most is the idea implied or stated in some of the posts that there is no real obligation other that from parent to child in the family unit. I would NEVER, ever say that people are required to give up their lives and futures to take care of aging relatives or have a relationship with people who abused them or pose a danger. But there's a whole lotta real estate between those misguided extremes and believing there is some basic familial obligation to care for the sick and elderly in our own families as best we can. What that looks like in practice is obviously going to vary with each family.

 

You know, so often in poverty and health insurance threads I see people bemoaning the lack of compassion and willingness of people to do more for those in society who need help. And I wonder how we can expect our kids to develop empathy and a sense of obligation towards strangers if we don't acknowledge a basic obligation to those in the most fundamental of our social units? It troubles me. And there are no easy (or cheap) solutions. It seems like every segment of society needs more help, more funding, more options, and I'm not sure where that's supposed to come from.

 

Anyway, thank you again, Sadie. To everyone struggling with the questions first-hand, I hope you find solutions that work for you and your loved ones.

 

ETA: Changed threads to posts for clarity.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Reluctant Homeschooler

[fairfarmhand]

I would NEVER, ever say that people are required to give up their lives and futures to take care of aging relatives or have a relationship with people who abused them or pose a danger. But there's a whole lotta real estate between those misguided extremes and believing there is some basic familial obligation to care for the sick and elderly in our own families as best we can. What that looks like in practice is obviously going to vary with each family.

 

 

You know, so often in poverty and health insurance threads I see people bemoaning the lack of compassion and willingness of people to do more for those in society who need help. And I wonder how we can expect our kids to develop empathy and a sense of obligation towards strangers if we don't acknowledge a basic obligation to those in the most fundamental of our social units? It troubles me. And there are no easy (or cheap) solutions. It seems like every segment of society needs more help, more funding, more options, and I'm not sure where that's supposed to come from.

 

Anyway, thank you again, Sadie. To everyone struggling with the questions first-hand, I hope you find solutions that work for you and your loved ones.

 

ETA: Changed threads to posts for clarity.

 

I think we end up talking past one another in these threads. Those of us who have seen a parent ravaged far too young by cancer, those of us who have tried to look after aging parents while caring for young children, those of us who live far from relatives often feel that we're horribly judged by those who imply that using nursing home and not personally providing care is "not caring for your elders."

 

Practically in many situations, nursing homes are the best option. Particularly because many state/government sponsored programs will pay for a nursing home but won't pay for nursing care at home, respite care, housecleaning services, and the myriad other things one needs to not ruin the caregiver's health while caregiving for an extremely ill person.

 

Do you know what my dad had to do to avoid bankrupting himself at age 56. while caring for mom for 12 years?

 

He had to go through an agonizing separation of assets. He was audited, and all of it was laid out for a judge to decide whether or not my mom could be considered a pauper and go on state care.Dad was facing losing everything to pay for her care. And as a pastor, there wasn't much.

 

His other alternative? Divorce.

 

He had an attorney suggest that. Divorce was the surest way to get my mom the care she needed without bankrupting my dad.

 

I have judgemental family members who think that those who EVER put someone in a nursing home is a failure of the kids to care for their family. So it's a little of a sore spot for me.

 

But yes, I do agree that in normal, healthy families, you look out for one another. That's the kind compassionate thing to do. You figure out a way to provide, safe, reasonable care.

 

I also think it's only fair that the elder be flexible and considerate of their kids and realize that their kids have lives, children responsibilities, and jobs as well.

Edited October 19, 2017 by fairfarmhand

[Arcadia]

Maybe my area is a superfund area, and it's being covered up by the government or something. Wouldn't surprise me! We are only 70 minutes from Flint and the lead crisis for goodness sake!

There are 88 superfund sites listed for Michigan. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-you-live

[Valley Girl]

I think we end up talking past one another in these threads. Those of us who have seen a parent ravaged far too young by cancer, those of us who have tried to look after aging parents while caring for young children, those of us who live far from relatives often feel that we're horribly judged by those who imply that using nursing home and not personally providing care is "not caring for your elders."

 

Practically in many situations, nursing homes are the best option. Particularly because many state/government sponsored programs will pay for a nursing home but won't pay for nursing care at home, respite care, housecleaning services, and the myriad other things one needs to not ruin the caregiver's health while caregiving for an extremely ill person.

 

Do you know what my dad had to do to avoid bankrupting himself at age 56. while caring for mom for 12 years?

 

He had to go through an agonizing separation of assets. He was audited, and all of it was laid out for a judge to decide whether or not my mom could be considered a pauper and go on state care.Dad was facing losing everything to pay for her care. And as a pastor, there wasn't much.

 

His other alternative? Divorce.

 

He had an attorney suggest that. Divorce was the surest way to get my mom the care she needed without bankrupting my dad.

 

I have judgemental family members who think that those who EVER put someone in a nursing home is a failure of the kids to care for their family. So it's a little of a sore spot for me.

 

But yes, I do agree that in normal, healthy families, you look out for one another. That's the kind compassionate thing to do. You figure out a way to provide, safe, reasonable care.

 

I also think it's only fair that the elder be flexible and considerate of their kids and realize that their kids have lives, children responsibilities, and jobs as well.

 

Absolutely there has to be flexibility on the part of the parent. It can't be a one-sided situation. And if push comes to shove, I personally think the older person needs to be willing to bend the most.

 

I don't know anyone who has place a loved one in a nursing home who didn't absolutely agonize over the decision. (And, yeah, I know what it's like to have outsiders look at a situation where they didn't understand the dynamics at play and sneer about family not doing "enough.") Most of the time, you (general you) do the best you can for everyone in a situation that doesn't have a lot of good--much less perfect--options. 

 

My post wasn't in reference to situations like yours where people are doing their best. It was in response to posts that seemed to suggest it was OK to throw up one's hands and say "no obligation--not my problem." I think I've said enough though.

 

This is a very sobering conversation with a lot of heartbreak on all sides.