found while looking for something else:
nyt blog
July 29, 2008, 9:03 am
Single, Childless and =91Downright Terrified=92
By Jane Gross
Solitary seniors. (Joshua Lott for The New York Times)
It=92s tough to rely on one=92s children and tough to care for a parent.
But who cares for the single and/or childless people? =97 Posted by
Cathy.
I=92ve never married, have no children and, apart from my mother, do not
have a close family. I have a =93caretaker=92=92 personality, helping
elderly neighbors, new parent neighbors, pet owner neighbors (and
homeless pets), but there is no one to take care of me=85. I am
downright terrified. =97 Posted by EMC.
Many of us who are unmarried and without children are wondering who is
going to care for us when the time comes. =97 Posted by Kathleen.
As a single childless woman, I share the fear of my readers, above,
and no amount of financial preparation for a prolonged old age calms
me. For sure, my long-term care insurance policy will buy me a home
health aide and pay to retrofit my house if I=92m able to remain here,
or contribute to care in another setting. I have the luxury of savings
and a mortgage that will be paid off by the time I=92m 70. If I need a
geriatric case manager, I=92ll probably be able to afford one. I count
my blessings.
But, having witnessed the =93new old age=92=92 from a front-row seat,
I=92m
haunted by the knowledge that there is no one who will care about me
in the deepest and most loving sense of the word at the end of my
life. No one who will advocate for me, not simply for adequate care
but for the small and arguably inessential things that can make life
worth living even in compromised health.
My friend Esther has my health care proxy and will use it wisely, I
know. But with a large family of her own, she cannot be my daily
mainstay, as I was my mother=92s (and she was hers). My friend Jill=92s
grown daughters have vowed, in their words, to =93feed me creamed
spinach=92=92 when the time comes. My reply: =93You=92ll only be able to
do
that, my darling girls, if your own parents don=92t need you at the same
time.=94
Another friend, Ann, shares my fantasy of setting up joint
housekeeping, assuming she outlives her husband. Our thinking goes
something like this: If one of us can see and the other hear, if one
of us is mobile and the other cognitively intact, we=92ll muddle through
as long as we can and then pool our insurance premiums to hire home
care. We=92d prefer to use the benefit for a masseuse and a manicurist
but know it would be a hard sell to persuade MetLife that those were
the kinds of =93activities of daily living=94 our policies cover.
I=92ve written before about pairs or small groups of unrelated women who
are already doing this, some even constructing houses designed for
their old age. But these arrangements, however cozy and comforting,
exist outside the law, since friend****p remains, and likely will
always remain, an unsanctioned relation****p with none of the legal
rights granted to parents, children, spouses and, in some locations,
domestic partners. Friends helping friends through illness or old age
is a luxury of those who can afford to do it with no help from the
government or their employers.
The handful of benefits available to family caregivers are not
available to friends who have taken on the identical role. The most
obvious example of this is the Family Medical Leave Act, which
excludes friends (and also siblings!), even if they are around-the-
clock caretakers, as I was for a beloved colleague during a 10-month
siege of brain cancer. An A.C.L.U. attorney, at the time, was chomping
at the bit to file a class-action lawsuit to try and establish that
right, with me as the lead plaintiff. But =97 and here comes another
=93count your blessings=92=92 moment =97 my employer voluntarily cut me
all
the slack I needed and I was not about to reward generosity with
litigation.
All of this came to mind last month when I stumbled upon an essay in
The Boston Globe by Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow. She examines the =93second
class=92=92 status of friend****p in =93the American hierarchy of
relation****ps=92=92 and describes a nascent movement to grant it legal
status. The subject seems ripe for conversation at a time when more
and more of us are approaching old age outside of nuclear families.
+++
boston globe thing:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/06/08/i_now_pronounce=
_you____friend_and_friend/
--j_a
|
