Skip to main content

Advocacy for Persons with Senile Dementia

  • Chapter
Alzheimer’s Dementia

Part of the book series: Contemporary Issues in Biomedicine, Ethics, and Society ((CIBES))

  • 111 Accesses

Abstract

In its classic sense, advocacy means to call to one’s aid or to summon to one’s assistance. Individuals with senile dementia of the Alzheimer’s type (SDAT) have a special need for help in asserting their rights, a need that stems from three sources not dissimilar to those which also affect clients of mental health services (Kopolow, 1982). First of all, the nature of the illness itself makes it difficult for them to articulate their needs effectively. Secondly, the stigma attached to being a SDAT patient can lead to a tendency on the part of others to prejudge the capacity of patients and to underrate both their ability to function outside of an extremely controlled environment, and their ability to make decisions for themselves. Another stigma-related problem is the low priority given to patient concerns, simply because they are patients. Far too often, their wishes are denigrated, ignored, or treated as the ramblings of children who do not really know what is good for them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  • “Advocacy reaffirmed in Minnesota,” Au Contraire, 2(4), 1981, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Health Care Association. Draft Report of the Ad Hoc Group on the Problems of Questionably Competent Long Term Care Residents. Washington, DC, August 6, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Dyson, “New roles for clients: the client as board member.” Presentation to International Association of Psycho-Social Rehabilitation Services, Washington, DC, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Gert & C. Culver, “Philosophical Overview.” Presentation to NIMH Workshop on Empirical Research on Informed Consent with Subjects of Uncertain Competence, Rockville, MD, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert G. Griffith and Dana B. Henning, “What is a human rights committee?” Mental Retardation, 1981, 61–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. L. Kahn & S. S. Tobin, “Community treatment for aged persons with altered brain function,” in N. E. Miller and G. D. Cohen, (Eds.) Clinical Aspects of Alzheimer’s Disease & Senile Dementia ( New York: Raven Press, 1981 ).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Katz, “Disclosure and consent in psychiatric practice: Mission impossible?” in Charles K. Hofling (Ed.), Law and Ethics in the Practice of Psychiatry ( New York: Brunner/Mazel, Inc., 1981 ).

    Google Scholar 

  • L. E. Kopolow, “Patients’ rights and the therapeutic relationship,” in Rights of the Mentally Disabled, Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • G. O. Manasse, “Patient participation in facility management at a VA psychiatric hospital,” Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 1981, 32, 871–872.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • N. C. Paschall, “New roles for clients: implications for policy,” Presentation to International Association of Psycho-Social Rehabilitation Services, Washington, D.C., 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Prager and H. Tanaka, “Self-assessment: the client’s perspective,” Social Work, 25, 1980, 32–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Scallet, “The realities of mental health advocacy: State ex rel Memmel v. Mundy,” in L. E. Kopolow and H. Bloom (Eds.) Mental Health Advocacy: An Emerging Force in Consumers’ Rights (Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • “The Long-term Care Ombudsman Program: Development from 1975–1980.” Washington, DC: Administration on Aging, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toward A National Plan for the Chronically Mentally Ill. Washington, DC: Department of Health & Human Services, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Verwoerdt, “Individual psychotherapy in senile dementia,” in N. E. Miller and G. D. Cohen, (Eds.) Clinical Aspects of Alzheimer’s Disease & Senile Dementia ( New York: Raven Press, 1981 ).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1985 The Humana Press, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Paschall, N.C. (1985). Advocacy for Persons with Senile Dementia. In: Melnick, V.L., Dubler, N.N. (eds) Alzheimer’s Dementia. Contemporary Issues in Biomedicine, Ethics, and Society. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5174-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5174-3_6

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-9597-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-5174-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics