Kim,
This is much
lower priority than other things -- ManorCare coping
with Mom (she is behaving badly, especially at night), me coping with Connie
(wow, that's a challenge) and, most urgently, me and Connie (with me doing most
of the work) quickly finding an excellent Board-and-Care that will be a good
place for Mom -- so you can "put this on hold" for awhile. Later, when you have time and are in the
mood, you can read it and comment.
Below is a
rough draft (but with most of the main ideas) that I was planning to send July
31 (exactly a year after my big message about "dog decision" a year
ago, then August 1, and now it will be later, or even not at all). I also want to write a shorter follow-up
message containing my brief summary of pro-and-con factors from a year ago,
along with my comments now, and a couple of more-detailed explanations.
Probably
I'll begin with comments about my regrets-about-decisions:
Sunday
afternoon was frantic for me, after our UCI Case Manager told me "the
medical group now (in a major surprise) wants to move her to ManorCare, not Pacific Haven." ..... But as I told you Friday,
>the decision to move Mom into
Manor Care (instead of Pacific Haven, as they previously had told us) was made
by UCI's medical group, independent from anything we had said or were
saying. They already had their entire discharge-process "set in
motion" and, like a freight train, they were not going to be stopped.
Therefore
even though I had to temporarily weigh conflicting factors -- us generally
liking Pacific Haven better, but me wondering about the consequences of
insisting that she go to a SNF that suddenly was "not preferred" by
the medical group, and so on -- I have no regrets about the decision, no
"cognitive dissonance" about it, because the decision was made for
us.
By contrast,
I've had a LOT of regrets about my dog-decision, with lots of unpleasant
cognitive dissonance of various kinds, since mid-July.
July 22, I
said
>for getting a dog, if I had a Time Machine with Life Editing (using
control-Z for UnDo/ReDo) a
year ago I would say NO, based on what I know now [and should have been
thinking then]. I wish
someone had said "it isn't your decision to make" a year ago, but of
course that's what I should have done myself. Why would I now say
NO, although I said YES earlier?
This message
explains why I now would say NO, and
what I (and you) should have done a
year ago during my process-of-deciding.
A STRONG REASON TO SAY NO
My main reason for now saying NO is a factor I didn't
seriously consider a year ago, even though I could have, and should have. Here was (and still is) my strongest
YES-factor:
EMOTIONAL QUALITY OF LIFE: ...based on what I know about Mom, this is my most important
factor. I think the direct result of getting a dog would be
to improve MomÕs emotional health. She would be happier,
and her risks for depressions (of various kinds) would be reduced.
(and she would feel more comfortable at night, with a companion
& watchdog to help her feel less lonely & more secure)
I'm very
confident that this definitely is true for her in-House living, where a
dog causes an INCREASE in her emotional health. But... the
strong factor I ignored was her in-Facility living, where
knowing she has an absentee dog (who isnÕt with her 24/7) makes her less
satisfied with her living situation, causing a DECREASE in her emotional
health.
The overall result of having
a dog is to widen her range of emotional quality: when she is high (in-home, generally
happy) her quality becomes higher with a dog, but when she is low (in-facility,
generally unhappy) her quality becomes lower with an absentee dog.
But... her
in-facility quality is affected by many factors, and I think it's much less
affected by "an absentee dog" than by other factors -- her problems
with memory & fantasy, disorientation, loneliness-and-fear when alone most
of the time, and more -- that I described in "Mom's mental & emotional
state [SNF vs in-Home]" July 26, and will
summarize in the message following this one. But I wish the dog-factor was zero,
because I had said NO.
A year ago this extremely
important factor -- considering Mom's quality of life in-facility
(a strong factor-for-NO), not just in-house (a strong factor-for-YES) --
was being under-valued by me. In
fact, it isn't the focus of any paragraph in my message, so (at least in my
conscious thinking) I was ignoring it.
Why? It was because of...
MY
INEFFECTIVE PROCESS WHILE MAKING THE DOG-DECISION
During 2018,
from late May until mid-November, here are some things I should have been
doing, but did not do:
Instead of
considering my message of July 31 to be a final conclusion, I should have
viewed it as an incomplete work-in-progress, as a foundation for continued
thinking that I would do in August and (if necessary) beyond.
I should
have explicitly asked each of you to try persuading me, by saying Òif you think
there are reasons for me to decide NO, letÕs talk about it (by email, phone, or
in person) because I want you to persuade me.Ó I should have told you that for personal
reasons -- because NO would improve my own quality of life, and because I knew
that each of you thought quality of life (for me, Mom, and you) with NO -- I
should have been highly motivated to say "I want you to persuade me."
I should
have brought Mom into the process, by reading each section of my message to her
(with some filtering/editing) and discussing it with her.
Or I could
have skipped most of my own "process" by viewing all of you as
co-deciders (not just advisors), as explained later, because the result of a
family-group vote would have been NO.
During
August and beyond, I should have continued to think carefully about reasons for
YES and NO, by reading each section of my big message (written starting July
27, sent July 31) and thinking carefully about each YES-factor and
NO-factor. And this careful
thinking should have been combined with more praying, as explained at the end
of this message.
But I didn't
do any of these things, or at least didn't do them well.
Here are
some general thoughts about thinking and deciding:
My simplest
model for Problem Solving (and Decision Making) is to creatively Generate Ideas and critically Evaluate Ideas, in cycles
of creative-and-critical thinking.
But for both phases, to Generate and Evaluate, all people (including me)
tend to stay in "mental ruts" due to habits of thinking, due to a
lack of creativity in Generating Ideas that are non-habitual, are out of the
rut. And all of us have ruts while
Evaluating Ideas.
My
page-section about "Reducing Restrictive Assumptions" (URL's are
below at end of message) describes one way to escape from a mental rut: We can "get a different
perspective by asking a colleague, 'What do you think?' ... Experts in promoting creativity agree
that a person's creative thinking can be stimulated by interacting with other
people, because often this is an excellent way to view situations from new
perspectives, from their perspectives." Like others, I sometimes am unaware of
important things (facts, ideas, values & priorities,...) that others see,
and proactively asking "what do you think?" can a useful way to see
these things. But I didn't ask you, and you didn't help me escape from
the mental ruts that were preventing me from saying NO.
But even if
I never asked "what do you think?" it would have been useful -- to
help shake me out of my mental ruts -- if any one of you had grabbed me by the neck (figuratively) and said "hey,
Craig, pay attention, you should be thinking ____" and you also had
explained "logical reasons for saying NO" in a way that would
persuade me. In the field of persuasive
rhetoric, a key strategy is to match the thinking style of the person(s) you're
trying to persuade: if their
reasons seem to be mainly logically, try persuading them by using logic; but if their reasons are mainly
emotional, appeal to their emotions;
if self-centered, appeal to their self-interests by showing how a
different decision (the one you think they should make) would benefit
them; or if altruistic, show why it
would benefit others.
July 31 a year ago, I
began by telling you that "asking 'should Mom get a dog?' has become a
tough question. It's complicated, with many conflicting factors, with
many reasons to say YES, but also NO." and later "Overall, when all
things are considered, I've decided YES. Due to the complexities, I'm not
certain that this is the best decision." Frankly, I was very uncertain due to the
strong NO-factors, so it was a close call, maybe 55% vs
45% for YES vs NO.
In 2018 one YES-factor
was very strong in my thinking. The
first paragraph in my pros-and-cons was about "Mom's Emotional
Health: I think the strongest reason for YES is because a dog would help
improve Mom's emotional health, help her be happier, would make her
Quality of Life better." And
later, "Based
on what I know about her, this is my most important
factor. I think the direct result of getting a dog would be
to improve MomÕs emotional health." But... as explained earlier, "a year ago
this extremely important factor -- considering Mom's quality of life
in-facility (a strong factor-for-NO), not just in-house (a strong
factor-for-YES) -- was being under-valued by me." One way that I could have persuaded
myself (or one of you could have persuaded me) is by asking me to...
Remember and
Imagine: This NO-factor could have
been a powerful persuader if I (or you) had asked me to VIVIDLY REMEMBER what
happened in 2017 (in Foothill Hospital & Buena Vista) when Mom's main focus
was "going home" to her familiar house & bed, and Kobe. And to VIVIDLY IMAGINE what is likely to
happen the next time (as in UCI Hospital & ManorCare)
when her focus is "going home" to her familiar house & bed, and
Zoe. It should have been obvious
why vividly doing these experiences (by remembering & imagining) would be
mentally-and-emotionally useful for making a decision, but I never took the
time to do them. I think these
experiences would have shifted me from 55-45 to 40-60 (or even stronger) for
NO, by helping to neutralize my strongest YES-factor.
ADVISORS
versus CO-DECIDERS
Instead of
asking you to be co-deciders with a "group vote", I was viewing you
as advisors. This is apparent in
what I wrote a year ago,
>For me, asking
"should Mom get a dog?" has become a tough question. It's
complicated, with many conflicting factors, with many reasons to say YES, but
also NO. ..... I place a high
value on what you think. Here is a
summary of pros & cons, of reasons to say YES or NO. ..... [here are my final two factors:] Respect for Family: Earlier, all
of you said NO, and I place a high value on what you think. (-->
NO) Respect for
Mom: She wants a dog, and we should place a high value on what she
thinks. (--> YES)
Instead of VOTES, I
wrote about your opinions as having "high value" for me, but being
only one of the "factors... cons... reasons to say NO".
Recently you
(Nikki) made an explicit clearly worded statement that I should have viewed you
as co-deciders, and I breathed a sigh of relief and said ÒOK, thatÕs what we
are.Ó But nobody said that last
summer.
For all decisions affecting Mom, like getting a dog, a
tough question was "how much voting-weight should Mom get?" -- should
it be the same as the rest of us, or more IF she is the main person (although
not the only person) affected, or less because overall she is less rational. I should have given her ÒvoteÓ less
weight than I did, because she thinking mainly about the immediate
gratifications of having a dog, was ignoring other important factors.
But... as I
wrote a year ago, ÒIn early June, I told
Mom "this is complicated, with reasons to think YES or NO," and
"family members have concerns, they have reasons for thinking it
might be best for you to not get a dog, and so do I." Then
Mom asked "why should YOU (and THEM) decide this instead of ME?"
In retrospect, I gave
too much weight to Mom's vote.
I think
"the dog decision" is sort of analogous to assigning
responsibility/blame for a 3-car accident.
Imagine that one driver was primarily responsible because he did
something wrong, but each of the other two drivers could have prevented the
entire accident (so none of the 3 cars was damaged) if they had responded
skillfully.
It's correct
to say that each driver has 100% responsibility, because each could have
prevented the accident.
But it also
seems fair to say that the driver who actively "did something wrong"
should have more of the responsibility.
For example, after studying the location & motion of the 3 cars
before their collisions, you might estimate the responsibility for the 3
drivers (A, B, C) as 70% for A, 25% for B, and 5% for C, by reasoning that A
actively caused the dangerous situation (re: locations & motions) leading
to the accident, and B could have
prevented it by actively doing an easy evasive action that most drivers
(including B) are capable of making,
but the evasive action required for C was more difficult, requiring more
skills, and C would have to do everything "just right" so (when they
didn't do these difficult things) they have less responsibility than B. {Ryan, you've had lots
of intelligent experience doing accident analysis, so you can expertly comment
on what I've written here, if you want.}
Here we see
two kinds of errors: Driver A did a
mistake-of-commission (by doing something that was not-beneficial, by actively
doing what he shouldn't have done), while B and C did mistakes-of-omission (by
not doing something that was beneficial, by passively avoiding what they should
have done). But each is responsible
because each could have prevented the accident, but each driver -- by their
active mistake or passive mistake, by their action or inaction -- didn't do
what was needed to prevent the accident.
Like all
analogies, this is similar to The Dog Decision in some ways, and is different in
other ways. But I think the general
principle is similar: the primary
responsibility (active) was mine, but each of you had a secondary
responsibility (passive) because you could have persuaded me, but didn't,
because although you "told me" you didn't do enough to "persuade
me" to say NO.
For example,
after my big message on July 31, the only response (by Connie, 40 minutes
later) had no logically persuasive
insights, and then... there was nothing from anyone, by email or phone call or
in person. I wish the group had been more effective in persuading me, by
giving me stronger reasons to say NO.
Kim: Maybe I'll conclude with
this paragraph:
Process and Prayer: My
motivation for writing a page about "Using Prayer for Living More
Effectively" (URL at end) was "remembering many experiences of
thinking ÒoopsÓ after I did an ineffective decision/action, and then asking
Òwhy?Ó so I could learn more from my failure-experience, to help me improve my
decisions/actions. When asking Òwhy?Ó, usually my answer-for-self was
that I had not enough attention-to-process and/or not enough prayer.
https://educationforproblemsolving.net/design-thinking/index.htm?left=mc-pr.htm&right=blank.htm
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Kim: I also might include some
of these ideas, but maybe not, or maybe in a follow-up instead of in the first
message:
[saying NO
would have been useful in a self-protective
CYA Strategy for myself]
[basically
you allowed a Bad Decision to occur instead of preventing it]
[re: the
analogy with 3-car accident, you "told me" but did not "persuade
me" so you have some responsibility]
[if a group
thinks a Bad Decision is possible, they should do proactive Persuade-to-Prevent instead of passive Allow-then-Blame (is this passive-aggressive?)]
Kim: Here
are some extra ideas about ...
VOTING BY FAMILY GROUP
Generally, instead of viewing Mom's Medical PoA (and other decisions for her) as GETTING TO MAKE
DECISIONS, I see it as HAVING TO MAKE DECISIONS, being forced
to do it, because I often don't enjoy it (especially when there are
disagreements among us) and sometimes (for important decisions that are
difficult due to conflicting factors) I don't feel confident in doing it.
This is why I was happy to see your recent
message, Nikki, saying (paraphrased, not quoted) "these are not your decisions, Craig, we
should decide as a group." But it would have been better if someone had explicitly-and-clearly
stated this earlier so it would have been useful for a longer period of time,
for more decisions, including whether to get a dog. [Kim: maybe stop here, cut the
next paragraph]
Maybe the delay (by all of you) in not explicitly saying "these are
not your decisions" was due to my delay in not explicitly saying "I
don't enjoy making these decisions, would rather not feel forced to do
it." Whatever the cause, these
delays (by all of us, including you & me) are examples of disadvantages
caused by passive inaction (procrastinating) instead of proactively productive
action.
Kim: This section is probably
TMI for the initial message, maybe would be useful later in a response. Unfortunately, I tend to have lots of
decision-regrets with cognitive dissonance. By contrast, Connie often makes
decisions quickly based on minimal information and evaluation, then defines
"whatever she decides, or blames her bad decision on someone else; often it's me, and these ideas could
give her ammunition for blaming me.
Here is an expansion of the early paragraph that begins " But... her in-facility quality is affected
by many factors, and I think it's much less affected by "an absentee
dog" than by other factors..."
EVALUATIONS OF
IN-HOUSE VS IN-ALF:
Currently, Mom seems uninterested in the benefits of ALF, but getting a
dog might guarantee that she never says "yes, an ALF (in my new
apartment-home in the ALF) would be better than staying here (in my
house-home)." And this could cause her to miss a new way of living
that overall (with activities, socializing, food,...) would be beneficial for
her. ... But using this factor to say "no dog" is
basically choosing to decrease her in-house Quality of Life by making her less
happy in-house, for the purpose of making an ALF more competitive in a
comparative evaluation. This seems unethical and unloving.
Here I asked
about Òevaluations done by Mom about whether to enter a facility,Ó but I also
should have asked Òwhat will happen if we (not her) do the evaluation, and we
decide to put her into a facility?Ó
In this case the only result of her evaluations is to cause a ÒDECREASE
in her emotional healthÓ when she is in-facility and is thinking ÒI don't want
to be here, I want to be home with Zoe.Ó
Of course, Mom wants to "go home" for MANY reasons, but it
will be difficult to separate other factors -- the familiarity of home, getting
to sleep in her own bed, avoiding the negatives of a facility (disorientation
due to unfamiliarity, fear of being alone in a strange place, having an
"open door" in a hospital or SNF,...) from the dog-factor.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
and imagining what would happen the next time Mom is in a facility (as in UCI
Hospital now, and Pacific Haven soon).
As it turned out due to my long dog-search, I had a long time (until
November 15) for this process. But
I didnÕt do it.
VOTING
1. I should have been viewing all of you
as co-deciders (with a Ògroup voteÓ) instead of advisors for my
decision; and I gave MomÕs vote too
much weight.
Sunday
afternoon was frantic for me, after our UCI Case Manager told me "the
medical group now (in a major surprise) wants to move her to ManorCare, not Pacific Haven." Then I was super-busy emailing you &
calling you, plus ManorCare & Pacific Haven. Twice I was talking on two phones at
once, and for a LONG time was talking on at least one, with occasional breaks
to email. Temporarily I was confused
about what to do, because of the conflicting factors.
But
ultimately I/we did not decide, because UCI already had decided "your
mother WILL go to ManorCare," and by the time
they called me at 2:30 to "ask" if that would be ok, they already had
set everything in motion, by getting a room at ManorCare
(it already was assigned to Mom when I called before 3:00), filling out all of
the discharge-paperwork (and getting signatures), and calling the ambulance for
moving her at 6:30.
Therefore
even though I had to temporarily weigh the "conflicting factors" --
us generally liking Pacific Haven better, wondering about the consequences of
insisting that she be moved to a SNF that suddenly was "not
preferred" by the medical group, and so on -- I have no regrets. I feel fine about Sunday afternoon,
totally relaxed. I have no
"cognitive dissonance" about anything, because the decision just
"happened to us", it wasn't something that I/we were able to decide.
By contrast,
for 11 days I've had a LOT of regrets about my dog-decision, with lots of
unpleasant cognitive dissonance of various kinds.
>Why Connie has been totally locked out of the ability to
have any weight in these decisions will forever elude me
* I should have emphasized the value of individual conversations, by
email or phone or in-person, by contrast with the adversarial ÒcircusÓ
atmosphere promoted by ConnieÕs messages.
me (cognitive
dissonance, wondering if wise decision, guilt and self-blame) versus Connie (define own decision as
wise/correct, and if not do other-blame
RYAN
IN JUNE-JULY, ABOUT MOM'S BADGERING
Last
summer, probably in July, you (Ryan) told me that you felt sorry for me because
of momÕs intense badgering of me to get her a dog. If you had been
viewing me as one of 5 co-deciders, with me & Mom being outvoted 3-2 by
Nikki & Kim & Connie, you (or Nikki or another) could have explained it
to Mom, saying Òthis isnÕt CraigÕs decision, he wants you to have a dog, but we
think there are strong reasons to say NO.Ó I would have breathed a
big sigh of relief, agreeing with you that there are strong reasons (based on
loving you and wanting to do whatÕs best for you) to say YES and also to say
NO. I would have supported you, telling Mom ÒI respect their reasons
for saying NO, and think they are doing this because they love you.Ó
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Greetings,
For me, asking
"should Mom get a dog?" has become a tough question. It's
complicated, with many conflicting factors, with many reasons to say YES, but
also NO. I'm writing this message to describe how I see these
complexities, to help you understand what I'm thinking, because I place a high
value on what you think.
Here is a
summary of pros & cons, of reasons to say YES or NO.
Mom's Emotional
Health: I think the strongest reason for YES is because a dog would help
improve Mom's emotional health, help her be happier, would make her
Quality of Life better. (--> YES)
Mom's Physical
Health: With a dog, her odds for falling would increase (by how much? we
can only guess) and IF she fell this might cause a major decrease in her
Physical Health (and probably also her Emotional Health) to make her Quality of
Life worse. (--> NO)
Long-Term Care
for Dog: If Mom dies and her dog is alive, who would take care of
it? Nobody. In our first conversation, I told Mom "I would not
keep your dog, but would find a good home for it," and she said
"OK". (--> this is not-YES and not-NO, is
not-a-factor, so it's not a question worth asking)
Short-Term Care
for Dog: While I'm living in Mom's house, I'll be happy to care for her
dog. (--> not a major factor) [NO to preserve my time]
Medium-Term Care
for Dog, #1: But if Mom moves into an Assisted Living Facility (ALF),
probably I would be taking care of her dog at home, and visiting her daily,
thus making me "required" for helping improve Mom's Quality of Life
(Q-of-L). (--> NO, for my own Q-of-L, for my freedom)
Evaluations of
in-House versus in-ALF: When we (Mom and us) compare the pros & cons
of her living in her house versus living in an ALF, for Mom all other factors
could be overwhelmed by her wanting in-house-with-dog instead of
in-ALF-without-dog. Even if "considering all other factors"
favored ALF, without-dog would make her want to reject ALF.
(---> NO) (but what is the purpose of this NO-factor? to reduce
her Q-of-L for in-house, to make ALF more competitive by comparison?)
My
Freedom: For 3 years I've been feeling trapped in Anaheim, and the two
factors above (making me required, and Mom rejecting ALF) might hinder my
liberation. (--> NO, for my own Q-of-L)
Socializing
within ALF: If Mom does move into an ALF, having a dog could be useful
for socializing, for getting others to notice Mom and like her, want to know
her (and her dog) better. (--> YES)
Medium-Term Care
for Dog, #2: Maybe... there could be a way for someone else (within an
ALF) to care for a dog. Or maybe not. (--> Yes, if...)
Respect for
Family: Earlier, all of you said NO, and I place a high value on what you
think. (--> NO)
Respect for
Mom: She wants a dog, and we should place a high value on what she
thinks. (--> YES)
Overall, when
all things are considered, I've decided YES. Due to the complexities, I'm
not certain that this is the best decision. But I've asked myself
"how will I feel about this later?", and think I would not feel
comfortable with NO, but would feel ok about YES. It's a decision I can
live with. An important reason is that most of the factors are
speculative, based on what MIGHT happen. The only factor that I'm fairly
certain WILL happen is an improving of Mom's quality of life due to improving
her emotional health.
Here is more about each factor:
In early June, I told Mom
"this is complicated, with reasons to think YES or NO," and
"family members have concerns, they have reasons for thinking it
might be best for you to not get a dog, and so do I." Then
Mom asked "why should YOU (and THEM) decide this instead of
ME?" And I agree with her, that what she wants should be
an important factor to consider.
But it shouldn't be the deciding
factor, and it isn't. Whenever I think it's wise, I go against
what Mom wants, with an over-ride. I'm willing to do this
IF it's important enough, and/or IF I'm highly confident that what
she wants isn't the wise thing to do. For this dog-question, I think
the "IF and/or IF" is not strong enough to justify an
over-ride, to say "I'm going against what you want." In
fact, when all other factors are considered and weighed, I'm thinking YES,
so respect-for-Mom (for what she wants) only reinforces what I
already was thinking.
Your responses in late May
motivated me to think much more about this than I otherwise would have,
because I care about what you think. That's also why
I'm writing these two messages for you.
For the past 5 years, IÕve lived
with Mom almost constantly -- gone only 6 nights when I was attending
conferences -- and based on what I know about her, this is my most important
factor. I think the direct result of getting a dog would be
to improve MomÕs emotional health. She would be happier,
and her risks for depressions (of various kinds) would be reduced.
(and she would feel more comfortable at night, with a companion
& watchdog to help her feel less lonely & more secure)
For example, when web-searching for
[pets assisted living] the first page I found
-- https://www.assistedlivingfacilities.org/resources/choosing-an-assisted-living-facility/pets/ -- lists
the many benefits (emotional & physical) based on Òmany studies
that show incredible health benefits that come with owning a pet.Ó
Without a dog, Mom is getting none of these benefits.
You can read their brief outline,
and web-search to find more information.
I'm concerned about Mom's emotional
health. On a daily to-do list for her (with exercises,
nutrition, meds,...) one line is for "doing fun things" to help
her enjoy life more. Having her own dog would be a very
effective way to help Mom have more fun, and be happier 24/7, with better
emotional health.
This would happen IF a dog causes
Mom to fall, and she suffers serious physical damage (to body and/or
brain), decreasing her Physical Q-of-L. And this also would
decrease her Emotional Q-of-L.
Mom's History of
Falling: In early-August 2013, she fell and broke her pelvis.
Since then, I clearly remember 9 falls: 4 in the next few
years (mainly 2015), then 5 in the past 13 months, with the most
serious in late-June 2017 when she broke her hip. In these
10 falls, Kobe was a direct cause (by getting underfoot, causing her
to ÒadjustÓ and fall) in none of them:
zero. But it's possible, and it did occur for Dad when
during a walk he got "tangled up in Kobe's leash" and fell in
April 2012. Yes, the probability of a fall would
increase with a dog. By how much? We can only guess.
Mom's falls occur when she is not
paying attention. So I've been frequently emphasizing the importance
of "paying attention constantly" and "always doing
things the safest way possible," especially by using her
metal-frame walker (with 4 points of support) consistently and
effectively. And if she gets a dog, it should not be
a hyper-energetic puppy.
We want Mom to
have both. But these two Q-of-L factors are in tension, so
in a risk-benefit analysis we must consider PROBABILITIES of each
happening (about 100% for emotional benefits, and ? % for
dog causing fall) and EFFECTS (significant although non-obvious
for emotional, possibly major and obvious for a fall).
Would any of us eventually
be responsible for her dog? No. When she first asked me
about a dog, I told Mom that "if your dog is alive when you die, I
wonÕt keep it long-term [and neither will Connie or Nikki/Ryan], but
I would try to find a good home for it." And she simply said
"that would be OK."
Therefore, this possible concern should be a
non-factor. It doesn't need to be considered.
While Mom is living at
home and I'm here, I'll help take care of her dog.
If she moves into an
ALF, for awhile I would be happy to keep the dog here and visit her daily
(as in July 2017), but I wouldn't want to do this for a long time, because
I don't want to remain in Anaheim for a long time.
The article about pets
in ALF (linked-to above) lists "Social Enhancer" as a
health benefit. A dog could be useful for socializing, for
getting others to notice Mom and like her, want to be with her and
her dog. If Mom moves to an ALF, I would visit daily and bring
her dog; based on my experience visiting Buena Vista a
year ago, most people like dogs (if it's the right kind of dog, like
Kobe was), and this could be useful for helping Mom build a social network
of caring relationships.
Maybe... someone
within the ALF would be willing to care for Mom's dog, after they get to
know the dog, and Mom. Of course, this isn't something we
could know ahead of time. And it might not happen.
Another possibility,
described earlier by Nikki (and in the article about benefits), is an ALF
having a "common pet" for everyone, or "bringing a pet
in" occasionally. This would be good for Mom, but
wouldn't be the same as her own dog.
Here, things get
more complicated. When we're thinking about Mom moving
into an Assisted Living Facility, some factors (food variety,
activities, socializing with many people,... and liberating me) favor
living-in-ALF, and others (memories & comfortable familiarity,
socializing with me, cost,...) favor living-in-house. But all
of these pros & cons could become trivial if, for Mom,
in-house-with-dog overwhelms in-ALF-without-dog.
Currently, Mom seems
uninterested in the benefits of ALF,* but getting a dog might guarantee
that she never says "yes, an ALF (in my new apartment-home)
would be better than staying here (in my house-home)." And
this could cause her to miss a new way of living that overall (with
activities, socializing, food,...) would be beneficial for her.
(but my motives for considering this are not totally altruistic,
instead there are some Òwhat's best for meÓ self-interests, in
addition to asking Òwhat's best for Mom?Ó)
But... using this factor to
say "no dog" is basically choosing to decrease her in-house
Quality of Life by making her less happy in-house, for the purpose of
making an ALF more competitive in a comparative
evaluation. This seems unethical and unloving.
* Whenever IÕve asked Mom
to consider pros & cons of moving to an ALF apartment, she responds to
one major ALF-benefit by saying ÒI donÕt want to talk with a bunch of
old peopleÓ or sometimes Ò... a bunch of old women.Ó
{ That's all for
now: house-vs-ALF is a HUGE topic by
itself, and I won't say any more about it here, except for its possible
effects on... }
For more than 3 years, I've
been feeling trapped in Anaheim, as described in my second
message. One possible route to freedom -- but maybe not
what actually will happen -- depends on Mom moving into an ALF. But
this won't happen if Mom says "no" because of ALF-without-dog,
unless we over-rule her by forcing her into an ALF, or if an injury
makes ALF the clear choice. And it would be less likely (although
not impossible) if I seem to be "required" even after she moves
into an ALF, as described in Medium-Term Care (#1 and
#2). But... maybe these two scenarios -- Mom doesn't want to go
and we don't force her, or she does go and I'm still required -- are not
how things will happen, maybe they're just speculations about things that
will never happen.
As explained earlier, "should Mom get a
dog?" is a tough question. It's complicated,
with many conflicting factors, with many reasons to say YES, and also
NO. I'm writing this message to help you understand why
I'm thinking YES, even though "due to the complexities, I'm not
certain that this is the best decision." I'm hoping
you will understand why "I feel ok about YES," and you will
respect this decision.
Craig