Talking With The Dead…About The Living – A Series

Peter,

  We are just about done here.  Mom is in decline physically and mentally and you are still in the role of advocate for her care. You and Darlene undertook her care by methods and means that you will one day have to account for, if not legally, at best spiritually. That you continue to hold on to a false sense of virtue in your negligence and lack of any real empathy for your own mother will make self examination and redemption very difficult for you, for as long as you shall live or before you suffer the same lack of self awareness that our parents went through as they lost cognition. If you cannot recognize your failings in your duty of care, or at least allow true empathy to guide your behavior, you are lost.

  A nurse may have incorrectly told me that mom scratched herself badly enough to warrant stitches but if you were more open and forthcoming about mom’s care, I would not have been compelled to challenge you on it. To find resolution and relief for mom’s long standing and progressive skin condition was your and Darlene’s responsibility. I raised the issue with nursing staff and with you on numerous occasions but her suffering continued. You both had regular access and opportunity to ease mom’s suffering but seem more concerned about the filling in of the sacred calendar on her door than actually providing care and drawing pay for her care. You had your reasons for usurping mom’s directives but empathetic and honest care do not seem to be among them. To criticize me for not cleaning mom’s nails really get’s to the root of your character, and Darlene’s too for that matter. It was appalling to hear from Elli that you complained of having to trim mom’s nails and how hard it was on your eyes, as if you were some virtuous hero in having to struggle with an inconvenience. I can only wish that our mother had the same level of family support as Elli has. Shame on us.

  Before you allow your God to forgive and redeem you for your past behaviors, try very hard to reconcile them on your own. When I was advocating for dad, after I had adopted a caring prospect over our past history, I discovered your history with him. I now see the same pattern with mom. To discount reality, to engage in false virtue to mask malfeasance or ignorance is a pattern not easily broken. Try.

  I have had my own struggles to be sure but I am in a better position now to understand the gifts of adversity and perseverance and to appreciate my family history, good, bad or indifferent.  I have taken responsibility for my failings and moved on. If I could remove mom from your ‘care’ and look after her myself, I surely would. I will have to accept the things I cannot change but will continue to visit my mother if only to be there when she recovers her ‘self’ ever so briefly to remember and have a brief conversation. I am torn between wanting mom to be cognicent so that we could connect like we once could, and her being fully aware of her situation and surroundings provided it causes no pain. I can feel that she knows but she cannot protest or comment. So it is.

I truly hope that you and your families remain healthy and that you find some peace and resolve no matter what may come. May you not experience what you are doing to, or not doing for our mother.

Sincerely,

Alfred Neitsch

  Following are some words and definitions that you might consider in your future advocacy for our mother’s care.     

HYPOCRISY:

The term ‘hypocrisy’ is said to derive from the Greek words ‘hupokrasis’ and ‘hupokrinesthai’, the former meaning ‘acting a part’, and the latter meaning ‘to act on a stage’. The element of play-acting reflects how the phenomenon of moral hypocrisy is commonly understood within philosophy. According to one long-standing tradition, hypocrites are those who advocate moral principles that do not reflect their underlying commitments, and who do so in order to mislead or manipulate others. A second tradition parts ways from the long-standing association between hypocrisy and pretence, however, and understands hypocrisy primarily in terms of exception-seeking. The latter family of views takes hypocrites to be those who apply moral standards to others that they do not apply to themselves. The different elements of hypocrisy that each tradition emphasises is a testament to the multifaceted nature of the phenomenon, whose complexity raises a host of philosophical questions. Among those questions that have attracted the attention of philosophers are whether hypocrisy must be intentional, what explains its moral undesirability, and whether it is always criticisable.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE:

What is cognitive dissonance?

When someone tells a lie and feels uncomfortable about it because he fundamentally sees himself as an honest person, he may be experiencing cognitive dissonance. That is, there is mental discord between one thought (in this case, knowing he did something wrong) and another (thinking that he is honest).

Cognitive dissonance proposes that people are averse to inconsistencies within their own minds. It offers one explanation for why people sometimes make an effort to adjust their thinking when their own thoughts, words, or behaviors seem to clash with each other.

When one learns new information that challenges a deeply held belief, for example, or acts in a way that seems to undercut a favorable self image, that person may feel motivated to somehow resolve the negative feeling that results—to restore cognitive consonance. Though a person may not always resolve cognitive dissonance, the response to it may range from ignoring the source of it to changing one’s beliefs or behavior to eliminate the conflict.

Sent from Mail for Windows