By proceeding, I agree that I understand the following disclosures:
I. How We Work in Washington. Based on your preferences, we provide you with information about one or more of our contracted senior living providers ("Participating Communities") and provide your Senior Living Care Information to Participating Communities. The Participating Communities may contact you directly regarding their services. APFM does not endorse or recommend any provider. It is your sole responsibility to select the appropriate care for yourself or your loved one. We work with both you and the Participating Communities in your search. We do not permit our Advisors to have an ownership interest in Participating Communities.
II. How We Are Paid. We do not charge you any fee – we are paid by the Participating Communities. Some Participating Communities pay us a percentage of the first month's standard rate for the rent and care services you select. We invoice these fees after the senior moves in.
III. When We Tour. APFM tours certain Participating Communities in Washington (typically more in metropolitan areas than in rural areas.) During the 12 month period prior to December 31, 2017, we toured 86.2% of Participating Communities with capacity for 20 or more residents.
IV. No Obligation or Commitment. You have no obligation to use or to continue to use our services. Because you pay no fee to us, you will never need to ask for a refund.
V. Complaints. Please contact our Family Feedback Line at (866) 584-7340 or
[email protected] to report any complaint. Consumers have many avenues to address a dispute with any referral service company, including the right to file a complaint with the Attorney General's office at: Consumer Protection Division, 800 5th Avenue, Ste. 2000, Seattle, 98104 or 800-551-4636.
VI. No Waiver of Your Rights. APFM does not (and may not) require or even ask consumers seeking senior housing or care services in Washington State to sign waivers of liability for losses of personal property or injury or to sign waivers of any rights established under law.I agree that: A.I authorize A Place For Mom ("APFM") to collect certain personal and contact detail information, as well as relevant health care information about me or from me about the senior family member or relative I am assisting ("Senior Living Care Information"). B.APFM may provide information to me electronically. My electronic signature on agreements and documents has the same effect as if I signed them in ink. C.APFM may send all communications to me electronically via e-mail or by access to an APFM web site. D.If I want a paper copy, I can print a copy of the Disclosures or download the Disclosures for my records. E.This E-Sign Acknowledgement and Authorization applies to these Disclosures and all future Disclosures related to APFM's services, unless I revoke my authorization. You may revoke this authorization in writing at any time (except where we have already disclosed information before receiving your revocation.) This authorization will expire after one year. F.You consent to APFM's reaching out to you using a phone system than can auto-dial numbers (we miss rotary phones, too!), but this consent is not required to use our service.
*If I am consenting on behalf of someone else, I have the proper authorization to do so. By clicking Get My Results, you agree to our
Privacy Policy. You also consent to receive calls and texts, which may be autodialed, from us and our customer communities. Your consent is not a condition to using our service. Please visit our
Terms of Use. for information about our privacy practices.
As to the social media phenomenon, I've been wondering if it appeals to (1) some basic loneliness in people who need to connect with others but don't know how to make friends or engage in one on one contact, or (2) people who don't really have the social skills for extensive personal contact, or (3) people who just follow whatever the trend is without thinking it through.
Or maybe there's a larger social trend in process by which people disassociate with each other and instead segue back to being loners, such as the voyageurs and other early colonization explorers were - living alone and basically having minimal interaction with others.
Every so often PBS used to run a documentary about a man who moved to someplace remote, Alaska, I believe, built his own cabin, emphasized total self efficiency, and lived like that for some years. I don't remember his name.
I kept thinking how isolated his life must be, and wondered if he never even craved the company of others. I guess not.
I also recall an engineering professor I worked for several years ago in a brief stint to try business outside of law. This man was sooooo antisocial that it was an effort for him to just say good morning. He came into work, just grunted hello if even that, went into his office and shut his door.
If he's still alive, he's probably in 7th heaven, being able to have to deal with people w/o having interpersonal contact.
Someday, some of these privacy issues are going to end up litigated at the highest level. In the meantime, social media techies can roll in the dough they're making from commoditization of personal data.
The legality of it is another matter and one that sometimes can only be settled in court. Having owned an event video business and currently on the board of our local public access television, I can tell you that your sisters are putting themselves in shaky territory by their actions. The NH as well could be liable for invasion of patient privacy if they were to be challenged by either your father or someone acting in his behalf.
Someone mentioned that wedding pictures are on public display, so why not sick bed or death bed photos? There is a world of difference. A wedding is at least to some extent a public affair, while a hospital room or nursing home is not unless all concerned have consented to (a) being photographed and (b) having the photo published.
There was a famous case years ago when someone tried to sue Life magazine when he saw his image in a group of people on the cover. The picture was taken during New York's St. Patrick's Day parade and featured people celebrating while dressed in St. Paddy regalia. The judge ruled that the event was a public one and anybody taking part, especially when dressed in costume, was not under the protection of privacy laws.
I could go into more detail about the laws and the vast grey areas of what constitutes privacy, harassment, obscenity, etc., but the legal aspect aside, common decency demands that your sisters remove the photos from public view and refrain from any more such behavior. They need to find a better way to resolve the emotional rift between themselves and your father. When he is gone they will realize that their actions were simply wrong, but by then it will be too late.
I don't any discussion about the ethical or legal implications here have any real baring on a solution. This is just one more of those very sad dysfunctional family situations.
Try to explain to them what they did was something you all know he would never do himself..
How you stop this depends on how far you are willing to go, theoretically, as POA you might be able to have them banned from entering his room; but you really don't want to do that over something as small as pictures.
Your best option is to try to reason with them and make them understand how hurtful this behavior would be to your dad if he knew about it.
It also has some type of e-mail linking software. I was linked to several people once in a FB unsolicited "invitation" to join. One of them was someone who had e-mailed me once. That's all; no correspondence otherwise. Yet he was listed, along with some relatives, in FB's solicitation. There's no way they could have known unless they were cross checking his e-mail with others to me. I found that offensive, really, really offensive.
I think the younger generation has grown up with these social media sites, which seem to create their own laws and bills of rights, and accepts that this is the way life is. Those of us who are older, like me, just find this mass exposure of personal lives troubling, unwelcome and potentially dangerous.
I find the action of those relatives who posted photos of your mother in her coffin not only in poor taste but insulting to the rest of the family. I'm with you and your brother - there's no excuse for such behavior.
One of my aunts was tech savvy, learned to use a computer in her 80's. But she specified in her instructions to her family that she wanted a closed casket. In retrospect, and even though the attendees at her funeral were older and mature people, I think that a good idea.
I'm going to do some research to see if I can figure this out and disable the function.
I recall decades ago when tell-all books were somewhat scandalous, but I thought that movie starts needed some level of mass exposure that we noncelebrities don't need or want. There are a lot of unstable people in the world, and I wouldn't want them seeing my family, getting a location from the photo, and going after a vulnerable older parent.
Craigs List, although not a site for posting people photos, is a good example of how something with good intentions can be misused by someone with evil intentions. I had a close call once; that was enough.
At my mom's funeral, my family took lots of photos of mom in the coffin. I don't see the reason for that since they should have taken mom's photos when she was alive. Why now that she's dead and in her coffin? We even posed in front of it. Younger brother got pissed off that night when he saw in FB that a niece posted a photo of mom in the coffin. Another niece saw it and posted it on her FB also. He was so angry he told niece to take it down and to tell the other niece to take that down also. He said that mom and dad are very private persons. She would have hated her picture to be in full public view especially in a casket.
When going through my uncle's possessions after he died I came across pics of people laid out in their caskets. Creepy? Well, I guess not to whoever took them!
Something I admired for David Bowie is that his last work showed the reality of old age. Lazarus shocked people because they had been shielded from what old age looked like and its relationship to death. Bowie took off the mask of make-up they tend to cover stars with and showed what old age looked like. People were shocked. That had a huge impact on me and how I thought about old people being surgically altered and covered up with makeup... or hidden from view.
Things are shocking only if we don't see them often. Old people shouldn't be shocking if the photos are in good taste. I don't photograph my mother often because she wears terrible looking pajamas and looks awful. Those pictures would be in poor taste. But I did put some pictures on FB with her raking the leaves a few years ago and her holding her great-grandson recently. Nothing wrong with it and totally appreciated by my mother's family.
I really do see this as a rights issue, the right of someone not to unknowingly or w/o consent have his/her photo posted on a semi-public site. The adjunct issue is that if the site is FB, it is a commercial site, and as I've complained in the past, one that commoditizes personal information.
I wouldn't necessarily take the same position if the photos were e-mailed to family.
A few years ago a relative posted very unflattering photos of her mother in a coma, unresponsive, mouth gaping open, looking as if she was on death's door. She posted it on the hospitals portal forum, then notified family members of the photo.
I was appalled; the woman looked as if she was at death's door. I never showed it to my father as I knew he'd insist on immediately going to see her, even though she was unresponsive.
The rest of the family were also shocked, but the recalcitrant person just continued to post ghastly photos of her mother. (She was emotionally unstable, so that might have factored into this very poor decision.) However, to see those photos was very, very unsettling for other close members of the family.
I do think though that if the OP explained a bit more about her father's condition, where this took place, whether or not she and the sisters have since had a discussion on the issue etc., it would help in providing more targeted answers.
In this case we don't even know if it's FB, since Max hasn't told us anything. One thing I wonder if it is because the pictures are in bad taste. Or is it because old people are not so pretty to look at. We do tend to hide away old people like we're ashamed of them.
All I would say that, Max, your father is also your sister's father. If the pictures are in good taste and posted to a private audience, then chill if she doesn't want to take them down.
This is a different situation than your father's, but maybe it helps explain my easy acceptance of fb pictures of people clearly not at their best.
POA gives you the authority to act on your father's behalf on financial matters. You can pay his bills with his money. If you have Medical POA as well, that authorizes you to make certain medical decisions if he cannot make them for himself. I don't think you have any authority over pictures your sisters take of their father.
What kind of comments are these pictures getting? Are people saying things like, "Oh I am so sorry he has declined so much. It is good that he still has a twinkle in his eyes!" or things like "I'm not going to be able to get there this month. Thank you so much for sharing this picture." Or what is the reaction?
I'm going to make an assumption (which isn't always safe) that you and your sisters all care about your father and that none of you want to hurt him. You and your sisters disagree about the appropriateness of sharing pictures of him taken at this time. People disagree about such matters all the time. It isn't evidence of lack of love or respect. It is just a disagreement.
If you can persuade your sisters to honor your feelings, go for it! But I'd refrain from pulling rank "I'm the POA you know!" or citing legal issues. These women are going to be your sisters long after your mutual father is gone. Don't alienate them over an action which really has no impact on your father whatsoever.