|
Archives
- July, 2005
Avoiding Institutions at Both Ends of Life – July
19, 2005
My 96-year-old mother has, until recently, been living independently.
But over the past few months, she has become increasingly frail and
confused, to the point of making herself ill by overdosing on her
medications, not eating and refusing relief from a major heat wave that
we’ve been experiencing. A few weeks ago, in spite of her stubborn
opposition, I sought medical help for her. She has been in the hospital
ever since, with her awareness degenerating to the point that she no
longer recognizes me. Her doctor says she has experienced a series of
small strokes and more are probable. Clearly, she cannot return to her
apartment and the hospital’s discharge coordinator has begun the
process of arranging to admit her into a long-term care facility.
Although many things prevent my
looking after her, I have been struggling mightily with this situation.
For 30 years, I have been preaching against the institutionalization of
both children and the elderly. I succeeded with my children, but I am
feeling hypocritical regarding my mother’s situation.
So I have begun looking for a home that is as
un-institutional as possible. One with plants, animals, maybe even some
children. One where they don’t use restraints to immobilize people for
the convenience of staff. One where meals are served on china in a
dining room. Where respect and dignity trump convenience. The search is
making me feel useful and my hypocrisy-fed stress is abating. But more
importantly, I am finding a few bright lights in the morass of green
walls, antiseptic smells, under-paid staff and bleak surroundings. For
instance, a few years ago, PBS did a piece on a project called
The Eden Alternative and profiled
a home in Utica, New York. (They also have Canadian and Australian
projects linked from their website.)
In the piece, Eden Alternative founder Bill Thomas says, “In
long-term care, love matters. And the heart of the problem is,
institutions can’t love. When we rethink our mass institutionalization
of elders, when we do these things, we’re not just making a better life
for the elderly, we’re making life better for everybody in every part of
society.”
Unfortunately, there are waiting lists and the
bureaucracy here doesn’t give families much control over placement.
But I guess advocacy for the elderly has just joined advocacy for the
young as part of my mission.
Posted: 2005/07/19 10:50 AM
Two-Tier Health and
Education – July 15, 2005
There is a big debate ongoing in
Canada about the future of our famous but costly public health care system. The
Supreme Court of Canada recently struck down a ban on private health
insurance in Quebec. And according to the analysts, that opens the possibility that the
provinces will have to allow private clinics that offer services not
covered by the public health system. That so-called “two-tier”
system will, many fear, lead to “pocketbook medicine” where those
with money to spend can achieve faster or better access to health care.
Now, I am most
certainly in favor of public health care. (And I am currently
experiencing it at perhaps its best as my 96-year-old mother becomes
increasingly senile and requires around-the-clock care.) However, we
already have a two-tier system, which I’ve also been using for
years...not because I have more money than other people but because the
type of services I want are not covered by the government health care
system. Those who want to use most of the so-called “alternative” therapies
must pay for them (or be fortunate enough to have them covered under
private insurance plans). Here in Ontario last year, the province even delisted chiropractic treatment,
ending more than 30 years of public funding for chiropractic services in
the province.
The health care
controversy is similar to the arguments I often hear about public versus
private education…that families whose kids learn outside the public
school system are undermining that system, which is an important
foundation of our society, etc. So in order to protect publicly funded
health care and education, we’re supposed to be content with
mediocre education and put up
with the lowest common denominator of overcrowded
hospitals, long waiting times, unhappy staff, etc. And all because our health and education
industries are protecting their turf. Providing equal access is just so
much rhetoric.
So until public
health and education systems provide access to a wide open variety of
services, it’s not just the rich who will be looking elsewhere to fill
the gaps.
Posted: 2005/07/15 10:35 AM
No Einsteins Here – July 2, 2005
I’m just getting around to reading a month-old issue of
The New Yorker, left over from a recent trip. I was fascinated – and horrified
– by an article called “Best in Class” by Margaret Talbot (June 6,
2005). She
describes the fierce competition that goes on among seniors in American
high schools for the supposedly prestigious post of valedictorian
(highest ranking graduating student, who gives the class’s farewell
address at the graduation ceremonies). Students are studying overtime in
order to boost their grade averages a fraction of a mark in order to end
up on the top of the pile. Disappointed students and their families are
even taking their school districts to court in an attempt to overturn
decisions. And some schools are appointing co-valedictorians or even
abolishing the idea altogether in response.
A bit of Google research uncovered many more such
stories. A 2003 CNN
piece described a court case in New Jersey
where an 18-year-old (who happened to be the daughter of a state judge)
asked a federal judge to intervene, saying that being forced to share
the speech with students with lesser grades would detract from what she
had accomplished. She filed notice to sue the school district claiming
the dispute humiliated her. Interestingly enough for those who favor
home-based learning, the school refused to make her sole valedictorian,
in spite of her top marks, because she “had to” spend part of her
day studying at home due to health issues.
Similarly, a MSNBC piece from last month
describes the plight of a Texas student who was refused the
valedictorian honor in spite of having the best marks because she missed
some school early in the term due to undergoing hospital treatment for
anorexia. Huh? If we’re talking marks here, didn’t she earn the valedictory honor even more by being handicapped by an illness and lost school time?
Talbot’s story in
The New Yorker cites some 1981 research by professors Terry Denny and
Karen Arnold, which studied the lives of 81 high school valedictorians
and led to Arnold’s 1995 book Lives of Promise: What Becomes of High School
Valedictorians. The students continued to distinguish themselves
academically in the post-secondary environment. The group included lots
of lawyers, accountants, doctors and engineers, with many Ph.D.s and
master’s degrees. And they tended to stay married, exhibited few
addictions and were active in their communities. They were,
Arnold points out, skilled at conforming to the expectations of school and
chose careers that were likely to be socially and financially secure.
None of the serious athletes ever pursued sports occupations; most of
the high school musicians hung up their instruments after graduating.
None of them exhibited that “powerful early interest” that evolves
into “lifelong, intensive, even obsessive involvement” in an area of
special talent or passion. In short, there were no Einsteins in the
group. And that is not surprising. As Arnold notes, “Exceptional adult achievers often recall formal schooling as a
disliked distraction.”
Posted: 2005/07/02 1:25 PM
|
