Lifelong Living

What is Lifelong Living and How does it Relate to Quality of Life?

Harvey E. Jacobs, Ph.D., Michael Blatnick, B.S., and Jean Sandhorst

Go to previous page

Go to next page

Page 2

 

Where Does Lifelong Living Programming Occur?

Residential setting is only one option in lifelong living programming. Most people return to non formalized living settings post injury, typically with a family member or alone in the community 7. Except for programs serving the catastrophically disabled (e.g., persistent vegetative state), few formalized programs are capable of providing for all lifelong living needs. It is also unlikely that such comprehensive programs would be desirable. Social, vocational, financial and other major life issues, that affect the daily life of each person, are just as important as habitat 8. Providing needed services outside of the natural fabric of the social environment, where these activities usually occur, would be to deny opportunities for normalization and personal destiny.

Programming must begin within a normalized environmental focus, with supports, added as needed to help each individual maximize the quality of their life, as any other member of society. Hence, the community is the obvious place to begin considering programming functions 9-11. Schools, jobs, recreation centers, counseling programs and other community services may be the first line of inquiry and involvement for those with minimal impairment.

Obviously, some people may need levels of support that are beyond local resources. More specialized programs may then be appropriate. Non-community based programming is also a viable option, when it best serves the needs of the individual. Thus, the sheltered workshop which is the bane of one individual, may be the aspiration of someone else with other interests, resources and challenges. Balances between personal aspirations and viable options, are realistic challenges that must be faced on a daily basis in every person's life, whether they or someone else directs their lifelong living program. When someone besides the individual in question takes this responsibility, however, there is greater pressure to assure that the best interests of the dependent person are being addressed.

Finally, programming must be dynamic and respond to the ever changing needs of the individual and their environment. This includes variables such as ageing, personality, community development, family changes, financial issues, physical changes, medical events, etc. The complex inter-relationships of these variables can make it difficult to predict the future. However, it is possible, and critical to develop a strategy to address life needs over time.

Beyond Therapy

The rejection of a therapeutic model as the basis for lifelong living programming does not refute the importance of therapeutic intervention within daily living. Obviously, persons who continue to experience disabilities are likely to benefit from appropriate therapeutic intervention. In addition, just like any other member of the community, new problems or challenges may arise that require the assistance of others, including professional services. Prospective assistance may also be sought to develop new skills, enhance self awareness and aid personal growth. Again, a variety of options may be open to the individual to address these interests, including therapeutic intervention and formal education. The benefit of educational systems may lie in their cost, opportunities for mainstream socialization, and self esteem that they provide. Regardless of the type of intervention utilized, it is preferable to focus on new skill development rather than the amelioration of existing deficits.

At a minimum, this distinction focuses on future ability instead of past loss. While some may feel the distinction is splitting hairs, it is never less important. It helps to focus on the fact that in a lifelong living program, therapeutic services are used by the individual to enhance their abilities and quality of life. In essence, services are directed by the consumer towards personally directed goals rather than directing the goals of the consumer.

Rights and Responsibilities

Someone (most frequently the individual themselves) must assume the implicit responsibilities for each living person. Although the residual sequela following a traumatic brain injury may require a different role for the individual post trauma, each person (or their conservator) still retains the same social responsibilities of all members or society. Accordingly, each individual has the right of self determination as well as the responsibility for the choices they make. Each person has the right to secure or defer services and treatment as well as the obligation to find the resources to cover accrued expenses. Refusal or unavailability of these services or treatment may not be sufficient cause for deferral of personal responsibility. Each person has the right to be viewed for their abilities rather than their deficits. However, this right comes from the active demonstration of such skills rather than via the expectation of respect for "potential."

Exercising these rights requires personal responsibility, advocacy and coordination of effort among individuals. In a society where opportunities are abundant, but rewards are the product of effort, individual persistence and social competence are critical in determining quality of life. Hence, returning and remaining in the community are often two different issues. The resources and ability of the person with a traumatic brain injury to achieve each of these goals must be individually considered.

For those who are not capable of self-determination or community tenure, there is still the question of who is ultimately responsible. Family members have traditionally assumed responsibility for many dependent persons. However, the life span of the family unit is generally shorter than that of the dependent person. Parents die, spouses separate, siblings and children grow apart, resources are inadequate to meet presenting needs, or personal interests change. Determining what level of responsibility society maintains for this individual remain unanswered 4, with services being provided on a take what you can get approach. This frequently results in a substandard level of living in which the individual is more aptly considered a survivor; a person who is literally hanging onto the fringes of society, instead of a contributor. It also makes prospective long term planning difficult.

Turning to public resources does not guarantee cost-effective or qualitative programming. Each person in our society has a right to access public services regardless of handicap. However, entitlement and access are often two separate issues. Public funds can be scarce and subject to political winds. A myriad of regulations designed with the intent of safeguarding the individual

often work towards the detriment of the person. A number of programs are skeletons of their original intent. This is frequently caused by program mandates that are beyond their level of funding, requiring cuts and compromises in services. The issue is not the goals of such programs, but their ability to carry out their objectives. Legal and legislative remedies to take time. When such challenges are successful, they are often at the expense of other programs.

Obviously many public programs do work. Similarly, private, non-profit and proprietary programs present their own challenges and levels of success. While it can be generally assumed that one cannot get something for nothing, the provision of money is no guarantee of quality. Each program or service must be judged on its operational merits and not on theory or assumptions. Lifelong living programs are complex and multi-faceted, requiring a blend of resources, priorities and opportunities.

Ultimate solutions to these challenges are not available, which in fact may indicate how "normalized" lifelong living programming presently is. Few people in life have crystal balls or guaranteed futures. This does not, however, absolve our responsibility to seek better answers or neglect those who are dependent or in need. The question remains how.

 

Go to previous page

Go to next page

Click here to view or download the entire document in PDF format
You will need Adobe® Acrobat® Reader to view PDF documents.
Click here to download a free copy from the Adobe Web site

Back to the top