|
Editorial
A
resident’s right to choose
August 8, 2003
We have a story,
that if published, would demonstrate long-term care is not a sterile
environment where activities are dull, and relationships duller. Sounds
like a good idea right?
The story is about two residents involved in a love triangle. They met
while living in a long-term care home, but one of them is married. Still
sound like a good idea? Bet you are still reading.
It is a story that, while unpublished, is causing deliberation amongst
those close to it and in this newsroom. And, it is a story that will
spark a deeper look into a resident’s right to choose.
Our writer first drafted the story because of its intensity of emotion
and the enthusiasm two of those involved had for sharing their story. Our
writer was touched, and a little conflicted by the experience.
The administrator serving the home of the two has made many points arguing
in favour of not running the story, one of which was to protect the privacy
of those involved. It was one of several legitimate arguments the administrator
made.
However, the residents did not ask for protection. Where do we draw the
line with regards to our right to protect residents from their own choices,
against their preferences?
The subjects of the story experienced the same compelling emotions that
make story telling such an important part of our culture. It is a story
of companionship, of hope, purpose and belonging – without a doubt.
It is a story that demonstrated that life in long-term care is a microcosm
of what goes on in the greater community. It is a story that breaks down
artificial segregation.
The emotional raw nerve endings were exposed to the same conflicting
feelings that form the great epics of our own cultural narrative – potentially:
responsibility, love, and betrayal were exposed. Those epics form our
own identity and values by causing us to react to them. In that sense,
it is
a story with the potential to bring to bear the vitality of life and
all of its challenges. The kind of vitality not popularly associated
with long-term-care
homes.
One of the interviewees had discussion with the writer about the ramifications
of the story going public. Both residents anticipate seeing the final piece.
They posed for a photograph.
Yet, we haven’t run the story.
Despite their complicity in the story’s telling, we have made a
decision laden with our own values, our own choices.
We have decided to not run the story. Did we make the right choice?
Our current decision not to publish rests in the potential familial strife
we could have caused if we had accepted the nod from two of the protagonists
of the story. We chose to minimize impact, on the damage side and likely
on the growth side too.
Have we unduly interfered with the choices made by two residents? Have
we robbed the OMNI community of an opportunity to grow through the experience
of the story?
We are still debating it.
The question of resident choice is a big one. And this is but one example
of where such decisions must be made. Where do we in the OMNI community
weigh-in when it comes to conflicts between families’ preferences
and residents’ choices? Where do we stand on choice and the use of
psychotropic drugs or alternative therapies? What about the balance between
safety and a resident’s desire to light up or drink beer? The boomers
are going to ask more of these questions.
To weigh in on the question of choice, please drop a line or seek opportunities
to speak with our writers. We intend to investigate the question of choice
further.
Prepared by: Peter Pula, Executive Editor, OMNIway News
E-mail: peter@newsroom5.com
|
