Confused by POA and deputy stuff

[jenniferpa]

I think you've raised a very good point there with regard to the wording of the welfare LPA. I suppose it's because it IS a big deal to give this sort of control to another person: it's not something you would enter into lightly. And of course, so often the subject of LPAs come up at a time (after diagnosis) when the person doing the granting is already ill and may not be entirely rational. Competent, yes, rational, not always. For an elderly person who is already ill it is difficult to think about handing over such responsibility. They may also think that such a power would allow an attorney to turn off life support etc. In fact, an attorneyship only grants the attorney the same power as the donor would have, particularly with regard to medical matters. If the donor couldn't insist on a specific treatment or withdrawal of said treatment, then the attorney can't. The decision maker for major medical issues will always in the final analysis be the doctor. Sadly, many people have an unrealistic view of what a doctor will or will not do to prolong life, but that's a subject for another thread.

I'm not sure, though, that there is what you might call global confusion on the forum about this. This thread is about one specific aspect of the (old) EPAs, but I think everyone on the forum and in AS are quite clear about the benefits of LPAs. In fact, they already have a fact sheet about this http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=154


Having said that though, and I'm not sure how much of this was discussed in this particular thread, there does seem an increased inclination from some social workers to interpret lack of a welfare LPA as giving them close to carte blanche when it comes to making a decision about a vulnerable adult. Not in all situations, perhaps not even in most, and in my view, totally against the words and ethos of the code of practice, but it's foolish to pretend it doesn't happen. It seems reasonable to encourage everyone to bear such admittedly anecdotal reports in mind and make every effort to ensure that they aren't impacted.

 

[russellgww]

Thanks Jenniferpa for the response (and having the patience to read my comment). I didn't mean to suggest there was global ignorance, but just that it seems to me that everyone has a slightly different slant on the situation. Bearing in mind that almost everyone seeking advice on this issue is likely to be under a certain amount of stress, guilt and goodness knows what else, explanations need somehow to be made more simple (and most of all consistent).

Me, I am anxious that we don't unduly trouble my FiL as a result of anecdotal comment the full facts of which can never be known. It is almost sure that raising this again with him will cause distress but the time in which we have to do it is running out and I am trying to get a handle on what the real (as opposed to hypothetical) risk is of failing to secure a H&W LPA. It seems crazy to upset him for something that has only a tiny chance of ever being needed - and then I go and read something .....

I am probably making it sound as though we are badgering FiL all the time about it, when the reverse is true and we quickly dropped the subject when it was clear he was upset by it a month or so back. I just can't decide whether we are being compassionate or cowardly in not returning to the subject!

 

[jenniferpa]

I think it's always a difficult call (compassionate or cowardly). I can say "everyone should have both types of LPA no matter what their age" but one has to recognise that that will be totally impractical for some people. Let's face it, there are a fair number of people who never make a will, and one thing they can be sure of is that they will die at some point, yet they still don't make one.

I think how much you are prepared to push about this sort of thing has as much to do with your own personality as anything else. I'm more of a "hope for the best, prepare for the worst" sort of person, but going along with that is my inclination to attempt to cross my bridges before they are even in sight. If you are more the sort of person who is comfortable with a small element of risk, for example, you might be happy to hope that everything will be fine, particularly if you really understand the risks and are prepared to take any action that might become necessary (e.g. applying to the courts).

The real danger is for those who don't recognise the danger, if I can put it like that. They think they don't need an LPA of any kind ("I only have one child and (s)he'll manage my affairs" or "the state will take care of me" or "dementia doesn't run in my family" or any variation thereof). We often have people posting who simply didn't know there was such a thing as a lasting power of attorney, let alone think that they needed one.

Anyway, enough rambling from me. You do your best and that's all you can do, and that goes for every aspect of caring.

 

[Nebiroth]

As far as I'm aware EPA's cannot grant powers for welfare - the old Enduring Power of Attorney was for financial matters only. This is one of the reasons it was replaced by Lasting Power of Attorney, of which there are Financial and/or Welfare.