The legal powers given to individual health professionals under the Mental Health Act, Patients Property Act and other connected legislation are extraordinary and, in my opinion and in many people’s experiences, far beyond what is necessary or helpful in most situations.

The real problem is that many seniors are isolated and have no family or friends they can look to for assistance. In the absence of appointed Attorneys, or Health Care Decision Makers, an individual may wind up being cared for by government with personal finances managed by the Public Guardian.

The powers given to the Public Guardian are actually necessary. It is regrettable but not unusual for friends or family members to take advantage of persons with diminished capacity.

Old age and declining health present a myriad of problems. In the absence of a caring social network of family and friends, we are all vulnerable.

Bob Reimer, Lawyer

Again, I’m sure that sometimes the situation is reversed, i.e. I’m sure sometimes certain patients can be quite needlessly insulting or even abusive to their caregivers. But the solution for that problem, actually, is exactly the same: We need better policies and procedures in place to protect basic rights and investigate and deal with complaints and conflicts in the residential care system.

To reiterate, I think accountability in this situation is best looked at first from top and bottom. There needs to be clearer definitions of patients rights at the bottom of the structure, and a more vigorous response to accountability gaps at the top, within VIHA and the gov’t. In the middle, all the workers, too, need to work towards regulatory bodies that function more like independent investigators than like ‘union defenders’.

In fact, most of my article does not even deal with general care worker issues; it is focused on the lack of legal rights of people who’ve been declared incapable. This is not a matter of opinion. The laws are very clear. What I examine through the bulk of the article is the way that this lack of rights can be exploited and abused in particular situations. The article is to function as an alarm bell.

You see, the way it is now, the patients are DEPENDENT on you, as the caregiver, treating them well. If you treat them well, that’s great, I commend you. But the problem I’m discussing in this article is that, if you decide alternatively that you don’t like your patient and decide to treat her poorly, well, you can do that and there is basically nothing at all anyone can do to stop you. THAT’S the problem I’m discussing in this article. It shouldn’t be that way. If you decide you personally think a particular patient may be just “spoiled” or any of those other things you imply through your questions above, now you may be right or you may be wrong, but either way there should be some sort of process for establishing the facts and making decisions other than you with your own opinion. Wouldn’t you agree? But currently, there is virtually nothing in place. The care workers, administrators etc have all the power, and the patient has none. If you decide the patient is just spoiled, well… Clearly, that’s OBVIOUSLY what has happened in the main case I cite in the article, right? These care workers and administrators and health professionals have seemingly decided they don’t like Kim and that Joan is just off her rocker, and they are reacting on that basis. I try to show, well, maybe it’s more complicated than that and maybe there’s a good case to be made that this situation needs an independent assessor involved… You see?