Elderly couple removed from longtime home

[R8ers]

Big Gubment at it's Finest... I will never live this long but to those of you blesses with longevity genes ... Keep voting for this shit..



In May 1964, Nels and Irene Highberg bought their first and only home. It was a modest, brick rancher -- no garage -- on a pleasant cul-de-sac on the edge of East Petersburg.
The Highbergs raised two sons there. They entertained neighbors there. They grew old there.
After 48 years at 6312 Miriam Circle, the Highbergs -- Nels is 92, Irene is 89 -- figured they could manage a while longer. Family and friends agreed.
But the county Office of Aging stepped in last summer, saying for safety reasons the Highbergs must move to a nursing home.
"I ain't going to go," Highberg said, according to Erick Highberg, the couple's 54-year-old son.
When a van arrived Aug. 2 to take the couple to Oak Leaf Manor in Millersville, Highberg sat in a chair in the driveway for many long minutes. He got in the van only after a police officer showed up.
"He respected her uniform," said Erick Highberg, noting his father's more than 20 years of service in the Navy and Coast Guard.
Mrs. Highberg said in a phone interview she got in the van to see what the nursing home was like. "I didn't understand we would be locked up here," she said. "They brought us in here, and they kind of disappeared real quick."
Now, after more than three months at Oak Leaf Manor, Mrs. Highberg still wants to return home.
"If I have to be here, it couldn't be better," she said. "It's a very nice place. The rooms are nice and clean, and the food is good, and they have entertainment, and we get out to do some things, musicals and such once in a while. Really, you wonder what the heck I'm complaining about. Well, it's not my house."
What prompted the Office of Aging's action was receipt June 10 of a "report of need" from a party the agency, by law, may not disclose.
The party, according to a court document, said Mrs. Highberg was confused and unable to care for herself, yet she was caring for "her incapacitated husband when she was in all likelihood more confused than he."
The Office of Aging then conducted an investigation that included a medical exam at the Highbergs' home by Dr. Robert M. Howse Jr., a geriatrics specialist. The doctor recommended placement in a dementia unit and appointment of a guardian to oversee the couple's affairs. He wrote that the Highbergs had lost the capacity for sound decision-making as long ago as January 2007.


Read more: http://lancasteronline.com/article/l...#ixzz2Clb3xvOj

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by R8ers

Big Gubment at it's Finest... I will never live this long but to those of you blesses with longevity genes ... Keep voting for this shit..



In May 1964, Nels and Irene Highberg bought their first and only home. It was a modest, brick rancher -- no garage -- on a pleasant cul-de-sac on the edge of East Petersburg.
The Highbergs raised two sons there. They entertained neighbors there. They grew old there.
After 48 years at 6312 Miriam Circle, the Highbergs -- Nels is 92, Irene is 89 -- figured they could manage a while longer. Family and friends agreed.
But the county Office of Aging stepped in last summer, saying for safety reasons the Highbergs must move to a nursing home.
"I ain't going to go," Highberg said, according to Erick Highberg, the couple's 54-year-old son.
When a van arrived Aug. 2 to take the couple to Oak Leaf Manor in Millersville, Highberg sat in a chair in the driveway for many long minutes. He got in the van only after a police officer showed up.
"He respected her uniform," said Erick Highberg, noting his father's more than 20 years of service in the Navy and Coast Guard.
Mrs. Highberg said in a phone interview she got in the van to see what the nursing home was like. "I didn't understand we would be locked up here," she said. "They brought us in here, and they kind of disappeared real quick."
Now, after more than three months at Oak Leaf Manor, Mrs. Highberg still wants to return home.
"If I have to be here, it couldn't be better," she said. "It's a very nice place. The rooms are nice and clean, and the food is good, and they have entertainment, and we get out to do some things, musicals and such once in a while. Really, you wonder what the heck I'm complaining about. Well, it's not my house."
What prompted the Office of Aging's action was receipt June 10 of a "report of need" from a party the agency, by law, may not disclose.
The party, according to a court document, said Mrs. Highberg was confused and unable to care for herself, yet she was caring for "her incapacitated husband when she was in all likelihood more confused than he."
The Office of Aging then conducted an investigation that included a medical exam at the Highbergs' home by Dr. Robert M. Howse Jr., a geriatrics specialist. The doctor recommended placement in a dementia unit and appointment of a guardian to oversee the couple's affairs. He wrote that the Highbergs had lost the capacity for sound decision-making as long ago as January 2007.


Read more: http://lancasteronline.com/article/l...#ixzz2Clb3xvOj

The only facts presented in the story are that the husband was incapacitated and the wife was confused and unable to care for herself. Maybe that is completely untrue, but it isn't refuted anywhere in the story. Not sure of the point of the story or you posting it.

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

A doctor who swore an oath to do no harm. One who stated that they have not possessed the ability to reason in half a decade. I would be inclined to think his verdict on this decision was well concluded, but I concede that, although very unlikely, it could be part of a giant granny grabbing scheme.

A bureacrat who offered no evidence to support his claim.

His statement that they have not possessed the ability to reason since 2007 is actually just inflammatory bullshit if it's not backed up by a shred of evidence, and it sounds like a ****ing bureacrat trying to cover his own ass. You may decide to find it convincing. I don't.

I realize that it's a lot easier to mock this with inflammatory language of your own than it is to suggest that somebody actually check this out. But sometimes actually checking things out is the right thing to do.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

A doctor who swore an oath to do no harm. One who stated that they have not possessed the ability to reason in half a decade. I would be inclined to think his verdict on this decision was well concluded, but I concede that, although very unlikely, it could be part of a giant granny grabbing scheme.

And they've been fine for half a decade too, right? I just keep thinking about how distressed and angry and hopeless I would feel if someone just whisked me away and I could never go home again. I'd probably rather die, especially if I was that age.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

A bureacrat who offered no evidence to support his claim.

His statement that they have not possessed the ability to reason since 2007 is actually just inflammatory bullshit if it's not backed up by a shred of evidence, and it sounds like a ****ing bureacrat trying to cover his own ass. You may decide to find it convincing. I don't.

I realize that it's a lot easier to mock this with inflammatory language of your own than it is to suggest that somebody actually check this out. But sometimes actually checking things out is the right thing to do.

Just because it was not mentioned in this article does not mean that he had no evidence to his claim.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by loochy

And they've been fine for half a decade too, right? I just keep thinking about how distressed and angry and hopeless I would feel if someone just whisked me away and I could never go home again. I'd probably rather die, especially if I was that age.

There is no reference to what actions prompted the intervention. However, assuming it was random to support your position seems silly.

[cosmo20002]

If there's any anger over this story, it should be at the "newspaper" or whatever it is for publishing something so devoid of any relevant facts. Next up would be the poster for posting something so devoid of any relevant facts.

[Fish]

This is "Big Government"?

I've seen this situation many times. Recently went through it with my stepmom's parents. There's never just one side to the story. And it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the elderly couple's kids were involved in the decision to move them in. These kinds of decisions are never easy for anyone involved. Usually the kids don't want to have their parents go through this, but at the same time they don't have the time or resources to provide sufficient help.

It's really sad that you'd use a story like this to voice your opinions on government.

[J Diddy]

There are 5 pages to this article. Only the first being shown here. It does mention that the children stated they weren't allowed the option to move in but in regarding specific to her dementia the bureaucrat stated "The agency's court petition said Mrs. Highberg was 'so confused she could not even sustain a conversation. She repeatedly asked the caseworker who she was and made references to visiting the mountains."

Read more: http://lancasteronline.com/article/l...#ixzz2Cm8PY7OL

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

If there's any anger over this story, it should be at the "newspaper" or whatever it is for publishing something so devoid of any relevant facts. Next up would be the poster for posting something so devoid of any relevant facts.

Like I said. Much more to the article than what is posted on this page.

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Just because it was not mentioned in this article does not mean that he had no evidence to his claim.

So, one of two things happened here:

(1) The story was complete bullshit, and the removal of the couple was completely justified, or
(2) It was a legitimate story, and the removal of the couple was not justified.

Apparently you automatically choose to assume #1. The problem with that is that sometimes bureaucrats make bad decisions, either because they're incompetent, overworked, underpaid, lazy, or they simply don't care.

Since someone felt it was important enough to write a story about it, I don't see the harm in asking a third party to check it out. If it turns out the story was just a hatchet job, there's no harm done. But if the bureaucrat DID make a bad decision, it's a chance to save somebody's life from being ruined.

It doesn't seem like too much of a price to pay to me, and I know exactly what it's like to have to put a parent into a nursing home because they can no longer care for themselves. I've done it. It was one of the hardest decisions of my life.

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

There are 5 pages to this article. Only the first being shown here. It does mention that the children stated they weren't allowed the option to move in but in regarding specific to her dementia the bureaucrat stated "The agency's court petition said Mrs. Highberg was 'so confused she could not even sustain a conversation. She repeatedly asked the caseworker who she was and made references to visiting the mountains."

Read more: http://lancasteronline.com/article/l...#ixzz2Cm8PY7OL

The other four pages of the article support the argument that the Office of Aging made an arbitrary decision that went AGAINST the wishes of the family.

I really don't understand why anyone would defend this decision. It sounds pretty ****ed up to me.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

So, one of two things happened here:

(1) The story was complete bullshit, and the removal of the couple was completely justified, or
(2) It was a legitimate story, and the removal of the couple was not justified.

Apparently you automatically choose to assume #1. The problem with that is that sometimes bureaucrats make bad decisions, either because they're incompetent, overworked, underpaid, lazy, or they simply don't care.

Since someone felt it was important enough to write a story about it, I don't see the harm in asking a third party to check it out. If it turns out the story was just a hatchet job, there's no harm done. But if the bureaucrat DID make a bad decision, it's a chance to save somebody's life from being ruined.

It doesn't seem like too much of a price to pay to me, and I know exactly what it's like to have to put a parent into a nursing home because they can no longer care for themselves. I've done it. It was one of the hardest decisions of my life.

I never said I had a problem with anything being checked out. Of course it should be checked out. However there are 3 mentions of symptoms specific to dementia--2 by the children. 1) AoA stated that she couldn't carry on a conversation-with examples 2) Children took them to eat and they got confused and 3)despite living where they have been for decades they can't drive because "they would just lost"

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

The other four pages of the article support the argument that the Office of Aging made an arbitrary decision that went AGAINST the wishes of the family.

I really don't understand why anyone would defend this decision. It sounds pretty ****ed up to me.

With all due respect, if she could not carry on a conversation as stated in the court report and the family went on and did nothing, why should they listen to the family?

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I never said I had a problem with anything being checked out. Of course it should be checked out. However there are 3 mentions of symptoms specific to dementia--2 by the children. 1) AoA stated that she couldn't carry on a conversation-with examples 2) Children took them to eat and they got confused and 3)despite living where they have been for decades they can't drive because "they would just lost"

Originally Posted by J Diddy

With all due respect, if she could not carry on a conversation as stated in the court report and the family went on and did nothing, why should they listen to the family?

I don't think we read the same article. The family opposed the forced removal of this couple from their home, and the neighbors agreed with the family.

The bureaucrat had ONE conversation with her and concluded that she couldn't carry on a conversation and has been senile since 2007.

I stand by my original suggestion: get a second opinion. If the family had agreed with the bureaucrat's decision, it would be a totally different situation. But they don't agree. That's a problem.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

I don't think we read the same article. The family opposed the forced removal of this couple from their home, and the neighbors agreed with the family.

The bureaucrat had ONE conversation with her and concluded that she couldn't carry on a conversation and has been senile since 2007.

I stand by my original suggestion: get a second opinion. If the family had agreed with the bureaucrat's decision, it would be a totally different situation. But they don't agree. That's a problem.

First I'd like to point out that you are assuming this person is a bureaucrat. That his only goal is to remove people from homes. This has not been the case as stated here:

In each of the past three years, the Office of Aging investigated an average of 1,300 reports of suspected abuse, neglect or financial exploitation. About 640 of those cases had merit, and the office each year sought guardianship in about 70 cases.

Second, leaving them there to fend for themselves when the.y are incapable of doing so is just like child abuse. They felt they were in danger and made a move. How would you feel if they investigated, didn't make a move, and suddenly everything went to hell? Would it still be there fault?

Third, like I said. There's no mention of not being allowed to get a second opinion.