We just watched the movie, the acting was very good and the cinematography outstanding.
But I still cannot get over this ridiculous rule that the facility forces on spouses not to see their loved ones in the facility for the first 30 days.
I'm pretty sure Fiona would NOT have bonded with Aubrey (and nevertheless made friends with the other patients) if her husband could have seen her more often.
Would like to hear some more opinions on this topic.
Long time coming but I couldn't agree more. The first time I saw this, I had not yet had a parent in a facility. Now I do. The circumstances aren't the same but I see parallels.
Anyway, I'd tell any facility to go take a flying leap if they put those kind of restrictions on visiting. Like the nurse said, I see it as something that makes it easier on the staff. But I would think far more common is the facility (esp. the nicer private ones) that would rather the impression be that it goes out of its way to make sure the family is happy. They're probably happier to have fewer visitors (i.e., "interference") but they take great care to make sure to never give that impression.
And the supervisor (and maybe it's just Wendy Crewson that I don't like) is otherwise pretty obsequious. I do see how she needs to have the demeanor she has, but it's her imperiousness I would object to IRL.
I am compelled to watch this movie. I think it's a pretty fair RL depiction.
How many facilities impose this kind of rules?
my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings
Very good question...although I live in a welfare state, you still have to do pretty much everything for your relative in such a facility: clean clothes, administration, communication with the doctors,.... So how can you stay away for a month?
shareI've worked in six nursing homes, and my mother has worked in even more nursing homes than me (I spent a lot of time in those nursing homes.) I have NEVER heard of a nursing home having such an archaic rule. In fact, in the time since I began working in nursing homes (I started in 2003), I have always been told that those who live in nursing homes have more rights than those who do not live in nursing homes (even if this does not always look to be true). The idea that someone might not be allowed to have visitors (unless the POA -- in this case the husband -- of the individual has set restrictions on who can visit a resident with dementia) just seems utterly ridiculous.
I currently worked on an alzheimer's unit as an aide, and we definitely encourage family to visit. We've even had had family members ask if they should visit less frequently, and we balk of the idea. Yes, some families can be super annoying. Yes, some of the residents can become frustratingly agitated (severe depression, more wandering/trying to get out, etc.) after their family members leave. However, people with dementia live in the current moment. They have a lot more happy moments when they have a lot more time with family members.
Also, I still think that the lady would have created those bonds even with other residents. Some people are just more touchy/feely or big on socialization. We have residents who are like that. One lady started making out with another man on the unit the day she came. She didn't usually make out with strangers, but she was an affectionate woman who was used to only living in such close quarters with her husband. I think the male resident was her husband in her mind. This resident's husband was visiting every day, and he was understanding of the fact that his wife was making out with a random guy. The husband has bigger problems, such as the deteriorating state of his wife, to focus so hard on her uncontrollable behavior.
Didn't the administrator state that the residents feel as if they are being abandoned over and over again when visitors come and go in the first month? That the settling-in period helps to prevent this repeated misery?
I thought the story was pointing out the difficult fact that bonding with/taking care of Aubrey was very helpful to Fiona. When he was taken away, she fell into a depression and "progressed" faster than expected. Her husband selflessly acknowledged that he was no longer able to give her what she needed.
I've never heard of this rule before, and it makes no sense.
1. What if the resident passes away during that 30-day period? Imagine the
guilt and regret the family would face.
2. Wouldn't not seeing family members confuse an Alzheimer's sufferer and
contribute to their forgetfulness? The 30-day period might have only
helped Fiona forget her husband.
3. Frequent visits by family members right away would indicate to the
facilities how committed the families are to keeping in touch with the
patients--so staff members will not be tempted to neglect/abuse/steal
from the patients (which is not uncommon in such places).
I'm not crying, you fool, I'm laughing!
Hewwo.
1. What if the resident passes away during that 30-day period?
Imagine the law suits.
2. Wouldn't not seeing family members confuse an Alzheimer's sufferer.
Not only confuse but distress them as their family members would be their only constant.
3. Frequent visits by family members right away would indicate to the
facilities how committed the families are.
Absolutely right.
Personally I think the rule was there to allow the storyline to progress and nothing more. I think the only people who would have no problem with the rule in the real world, would be the relatives who couldn't care less and couldn't wait to get out of the care home, with plans never to visit or visit very rarely.
I think sometimes as viewers we get so drawn into a piece of fiction that we forget that's what it is. Of course that is a compliment to the writer because they have introduced us to characters and situations we care about.
My mother has been in two different assisted living facilities in New York, and neither of them had any type of rules restricting visitation at any time whatsoever.
shareYes. It's a goofy, inhumane, made-up rule. Munro's "Creative License." But the "30-day-rule" plausibly set up the tension and conflict for the rest of the movie -- just in swift way. Perhaps we could've watched a chunk of the movie devoted to the eventual "departure" of FIona's affections. But the effect's the same, right?
After a month, Fiona's forgotten Grant and has decided that Aubrey takes his place in her life. Same "effect."
The 30 days rule was an important plot point for the film.
Its that man again!!
I will be here in minority but that 30 days rule made sense to me. Imagine those people during first days begging you to take them home, many people would not be able to refuse such demand from their loved ones even if they knew it's better for them to stay there. So this kind of rule make it for sure easier for relatives and staff and in the end also for the people stationed there because there is no point to experience stress before settling again and again. While this practice may seem harsh I think there is good logical reasoning behind it. We can discuss if 30 days ain't too long and 1-2 weeks would not be enough but I am certainly not against this rule. Though of course if I would be in this situation I would probably not stand behind such neutral scientific approach.
share