I can understand fully what you're getting at & if everything was black and white it would be easy enough to possibly pull off. 

.......

but, it's sort of a slippery slope as well.  Who declares an individual to be demented and how it is defined exactly are 2 really gray and fuzzy areas that could easily be abused by folks with less than good intentions.

Not to mention some folks just wouldn't stand for it when they were in the beginning stages of alzhiemers or the like.  "Invasion of privacy" screams out. 

------------------------

if everyone had a good heart and the best of intentions, it would be adopted by all at the drop of a hat, but that's not the case.

The o.p. was in regards to a family monitoring a demented family member.  Didn't say anything at all about whether the family member with dementia agreed to it or not.  Last time I checked, individuals still have some rights until they are 'declared' unfit in some way or other. 

At what level of dementia shall this start at?  The first time they forget what they walked into a room for?  When they forget to fill their vehicle full of fuel and it runs out?  When they forget to charge the battery on their phone? 

Who sets the standards for declaring the level of dementia one must suffer from, before allowing family members to start making choices for you?

----

There's a difference between an adult person voluntarily wearing a device to be monitored by others and someone forcing them to submit to monitoring. 

The point at which someone crosses the threshold of needing monitoring vs. not needing it will vary in the minds of many.

Some parents would probably like to force their 20-30 year old kids to wear a monitoring device so they could know where they are.  Most 20-30 year olds would resist I think.  If the parents could declare them demented, what would stop them.

I misunderstood your original post.  Sorry.

With the reference to the type of tracking devices law enforcement uses, I mistakenly took that to mean something that was involuntarily forced upon the individual by the family.

Yes there are monitors for criminals. They have to wear a leg device and be close to a phone. (the one's I'm familar with)  The ankle bracelet sets off a signal if the person tries to remove it, or,, you have to answer a phone when the monitoring station calls the phone electrically "hooked" (not physically) to the phone.

With people with dementia a device on their leg would be fairly upsetting in many instances. Might spend every day reattaching the ankle bracelet as they might cut the bracelet off.  The other issue is people suffering dementia aren't too good at answering any phone for any reason.  There again if they wandered off,, the monitors I'm familiar with doesn't track them,, the monitoring system just advises the people aren't in the vicinity of the phone tracking device.

A simple GPS device that would track anywhere would work but,, would require a power source.  And again,, trying to keep the person with dementia from removing the device would be pretty hard, and again if it was removed any monitoring device wouldn't know anyway. The monitoring device would just show the person hasn't moved,, yet the person could be miles away.

The main problem is any person not having any dementia problems would understand and accept the "device" (whatever shape or form) is there to help them if the need arrises.

People with dementia or reduced mental capability,, any device would likely only serve to disturb them, causing them more harm mentally than any good it would do physically.

I suppose something could be inserted like a heart pacemaker but then again,, if they were already suffering dementia it would be awful tramatic for them, and unless a person has complete guardianship the dementia patient could refuse to have it put in.  Without the guardianship papers the dementia patient most likely would not agree because they donot believe there is anything wrong with their memory etc..

There may be technology available I've not seen/heard of yet, so not saying it's impossible. The other issues are the legal and mental/emotional stress caused by having some sort of On star gizzmo on a dementia patient.

Perhaps something "wired into" their say,, Coat or shoes, pendant, etc.. is a possibility but,, still dependent on them remembering to put their coat or shoes,pendant, etc.. on when they go outside, which DOESNOT always happen. Especially in the later stages of dementia.

There is a point in life where Any sembelance of "quality of life" was long since reached-pasted- and not even a memory.  Yes,, Dr's have the skills and knowledge to keep the "physical person" living on for years and years. 

The mental aspect ???  Medicine has no clue about that.  The medical profession is more than willing to pull every "rabbit out of the hat" perform amazing medical marvels to continue a person's life. 

Still there is a "quality of life" issue especially for dementia patients. People with dementia will progress to the point they remember n.o.t.h.i.n.g.  They remember no one, even their own name as the dementia progresses.  EVERYTHING people take for granted in life people with dementia have no idea of.  Sadly,, they will revert to the mental capacity of an infant. Even the ability to interact with the people around them and physical neccessities of life are way beyond their ability to remember.

There is a point at which quality of life should overide the physical ability to keep people alive. Sadly,, when that point is reached/then exceeded,, the person in that situation no longer has the mental capability legally to actually choose any longer.

It only becomes a situation where the medical institution is full of knowledge-experience and pushes for doing every medical avenue available to keep a person medically alive.  Many, most if not all in the medical profession do NOT even address the "quality of life" issue,, only that they can perform some "medical wizzardly" and contine keeping the patient alive for as long as possible. (and,, I can guarentee they don't do that for free or out of the goodness of their hearts) 

It is impossible to describe all the facets of the situation but, suffice to say...   I seriously doubt there is anyone who would "choose" to continue the "physical life"  when mentally they are complete spectators in their life. Totally unable to communicate-interact-or even conprenend any facet of their life as it transpires around them.

It becomes an issue of the loved ones fear of losing the loved one more than the love one even being able to acknowledge the loved one's presence. (which the medial profession will "milk" for everything it is worth)   It is a slow agonizing death measured in minutely but incremental steps and is harder for every one except of course the person it is happening to and they are completly oblivious to what is actually happening.  It is one thing to "not remember",, it is totally different when a person "doesn't remember that they don't remember".

It's not called the "long goodby" without good reason.  I don't think there is anyone who would willingly choose to have all their loved ones go through that process.

Was the situation referred to awful for the loved one's ?? Absolutely without a shadow of doubt. Is there a more painful way for a life to end ??   Absolutely, much much worse.

Just my thoughts.

.

It is the fear of personal loss, and a huge dose of reality of the cycle of life.  As much as people want to put their finger on the hands of the clock of life and stop the ticking......    that clock cannot be actually stopped,,,    it continues to tick-tock-tick-tock. 

Yes,, we have an entire sector of society who believes they can extend life and in the physical mechanics of life,, yes they have that capability. I completely disagree with their premise and actions when it comes to that "promise of extended life"  with a "special medication" or "just one more operation and they will live another "X" period of time.  I have experienced how the Medical profession prays like vultures over medical issues- (Dangles the bait of)  and the extension of "life",,, without any concern over the quality of life issues.

Read a report where something like 2/3's of all medical expenses are incurred in the last 8-14 months of a person's life. ALL in the name of "extending life".

..

That must have been a tough decision to make. (isn't it always??)  Think you are correct thou, it really comes down to quality of life issues and the "cure" being worse than the illness. 

There is only one guarentee in the cycle of life.  That is impossible for some people to comprehend and/or accept.

.

Even with it strapped around her neck...I doubt it'd did much good.

I know of several elderly folks that had the "life line" necklace....and never used it "cause they didn't want to bother somebody" or didn't think they're bad off enough to justify using it?

I have been there, done that, and lived it, approximately 10 years.

 Including having to go to court and get Guardianship of my parent. I too had to take her car and keys away from her, after I got Guardianship, I did not have the legal authority before hand.

In order for me to get guardianship I had 5 years of documented records of her behavior's, action's, etc.. Which were undisputable. It was very aversarial as the parent did not think there was anything wrong with her, do she fought the Guardianship action. Even thou the attorney the court assigned to her could fully see the situation for what it really was. In her lucid moments she loathed-hated-despised me and spared not one word of what she thought about me.  In her less lucid moments she didn't know who I was.... 

The actual day of the final hearing where the desision was going to be made she decided NOT to show up, period. There was complete agreement between the Attorney's and the Judge and the Court did assign me as her Guardian. Still  months and months later,, she refused to believe I had the legal authority over her, and went ballastic when I sold her vehicle.

There is very little joy or happy times in this type of situation and I can guarentee it only gets worse. Much worst.

I didn't read "blame" into USA's post,, only what he experienced and was told he had to do by the "legal community".  Expoding at USA refering him to a nimrod isn't the best either. I do believe he has his own scars from his experience with his parent's situation. I for one have no doubt  USA also "second guessed" his actions.  "Am I doing the right thing, making the very best decision for the parent?"  "How should I proceed from this point?"  And the list is endless...  

There are no "right answers" likewise there are no really "wrong answers" either.  It is almost completely a situation of choosing the "best answers" from a long list of "awful decisions to be made."  There is almost no proactive responses, everthing becomes reactive.  Ever action, every decision, every plan.  And it has to be fluid enough to be changed with secondary decisions as most of the time 1/2 way through reacting to one decision, the entire situation changes and the "best of the bad decisions" also has to change.

The above aside,, perhaps modifying Your post there JDH would also be appropriate ??  USA is like wise entitled to wear the "Been there-done that" badge too,,   Don't you think ?? 

..

I could recognize usafarmer's experience and understood what he was expressing in his situation and how he coped with the situation.

As I was talking about it's all about trying to make the best decision out of a pile of bad choices when it comes to trying to cope with a parent(s) with dementia issues.

Let them continue to drive (or whatever activity) or curtail or stop ? based on what certain set of circumstances ??  Should they be cared for at home or should they be placed in a memory unit housing ?   Will they go? Will they Want to go, will they resist or fight moving ?? If they stay home what/how to make the house safer ??  How long can or should they remain in their home ??

Just those few sentences of questions were the tip of the iceberg in the mountain of issues I had to deal with on a daily basis..  I had no one to help share the responsibility for care with.

Far as not talking about it.  Well yah, suppose I could not say word one,, but...  having been through that situation with zero guidance and zero help I can say it was not any picnic. I know I was not the first person who had to cope with a parent with dementia, and will not be the last.

So, if there's 1 thing I can point out or say that helps someone else why shouldn't I say something ??

What I can suggest to anyone facing this sitution is pre-plan, pre-plan, pre-plan. In the case of Guardianship I actually had to submit a written plan to the court for about every contingincy then have a "backup" plan for the primary plan.

One specific instance was,, When can she no longer live at home ?  I happened to choose 3 instances of her wandering off. 1st is a fluke, 2nd is an indicator, 3rd ??  Ok,, now there is a diffinate pattern developing.   Then what ?   Well in my case I had not 1 but 3 different places on a list of homes, from that I chose one and kept the other 2 available as secondary plans.

That's the issue,, For people just being confronted with this situation it's tough to almost impossible to weed through the mountain of "what should I do or decide"..

So yes  I will offer suggestions to others.  It is simply a "pay if Forward" as I see it.

On a "lighter humorous note"  (which becomes almost non-existant)  one that stands out is having a discussion about the parent's medical condition with the Doctor.  He had prescribed a weekly calcium booster pill which over time became almost impossible for her to swallow. I got very direct with the Dr. about the necessity of the pill.  The Dr's Finally kind of exploded,,stated,, "WELL SHE MIGHT GET OSTEOPROSIS!"   I responded with,, "she MIGHT get osteoprosis??  MY GOD she's 85 years old and you think she needs to endure taking these pills because she MIGHT get osteoprosis" !?!!??"   Up to that point the Dr. had not explained the physical situation well at all and led me to believe the pills were actually medically necessary as she had osteoprosis !!

The take home message here is get the legal authority necessary to discuss ANY MEDICAL, Financial, etc.. decision that has to be made for a parent with dementia. And,, DO NOT ever give in,, or go along with, fail to ask because it would be un-polite, or whatever.  If it sounds or looks wrong QUESTION IT and Continue to do so till the situation IS resolved !!

(yes there are a couple of people on this site who do contact me thru my email)

The last issue is, faced with this highly emotional situation,, everyone is different and react  much differently.  What they may say or not say is going to be different and is largely based on how they were raised to deal with adverse situations such as this.  Doesn't mean they don't care or are indifferent, etc.. they are expressing their situation based on their experiences and how they were raised.

..

Cell phone with GPS.   Ok,, good idea except,,,,  "what is that, I don't know what it is".....

The working premise that a person with dementia would carry or allow a cell phone around their neck,etc...  all hinges on the concept they would understand what a cell phone or any phone is-what it is for- and how to use it.  Therein is the problem,, they no longer can grasp that concept.

Likewise tracking devices for kids, "should work for adults too."

There are a couple of issues here....  1st,, Kids will accept help and parents good intentions,, AND they will accept the device is there to help them from being lost or as a protection.  Parents have the legal authority to put a tracking device on their children to protect them.

Second Issue,,  Kids do NOT have that same right with their parents regardless of how old, physically or mentally feable a person may be or become.  Once a person reaches adulthood, there are certain rights which are protected regardless of how dementied a person becomes.   Logic would dictate it is perfectly reasonable to put a "tracking device" on a person with dementia. Legally there is no way to make that magically happen. IF the person suffering memory issues don't want to wear/carry it, there is no way to make that happen.

*Edit* Didn't sound exactly right after posting,,     Actually there is one way to make that happen a person has to Legally become the "parent" which the courts can allow. The parent's legally become the "children" and the Children become the "Parent. ie: Guardianship.      Otherwise,, just trying to make a person with dementia wear a tracking device is pointless if the person refuses to do so for whatever reason, they cannot be forced to.

As a response to,,

 " State Police said do it now or we will do it and you will not like the outcome if the State gets involved."   

That is a whole nother issue. The State/local/County Police are ONLY looking at protecting others. They are sorta tasked with protection of the general welfare of the motoring public and that is about It period.  They "Law Enforcement" has the authority to actually prevent accidents in a few instances,, this being one of them.  The other side of this is does the "kids" actually have the authority to "withhold" legally lawfully owned property from their parent..???   NO they do not.  Regardless of what tough Talk the Police used, legally they can only prevent the person from being on the road endangering others. 

In this case the Police were talking out their arse about, "you will not like the outcome if the state gets involved".  The Police have NO Authority to hold a "kid" responsible for the actions of their 'Parent'.   Inherently,, the Police can only tell you what you cannot do,, they cannot tell you what you can do,, Legally.   In this specific instance ALL the Police could to is state the Parent cannot drive on a public road. It is illegal for them to tell you to withhold property from another adult.

Almost everything that has been mentioned (or will be mentioned) although seems completely rational, logical, and reasonable,,,   really is not,,,   with very good reason. 

 The right of the individual law abiding person..

You have a right to your personal property. You have a right to decide for yourself.  You have a right to refuse to do anything you do not wish to do. You have a right to do anything which is legal as long as it does not endanger others.

...

Might try one of these. I had to wear one at work when I was still in the Oil Patch and they worked reasonably well in the foothills and mountains of Alberta.
Regards,
Dave.

http://www.findmespot.com/en/