Alzheimer’s Is The Liar

As a mediator, I have seen the same dynamic play out in many power of attorney disputes. Sibling A swears that the parent suffering from dementia doesn’t trust Sibling B, and wants Sibling A to act as POA for property and personal care. Sibling B tells me the opposite: the parent is highly mistrustful of Sibling A and insists that Sibling B is the only one that can be trusted to make substitute decisions about finances and health care.

Most of the time, I believe both of them.

I try very hard in our caucus meetings to ask questions aimed at encouraging each of the parties to explore whether both things might be true. I am surprised at how closed litigants are to the possibility that Alzheimer’s disease is the true villain in the dispute.

According to the Alzheimer’s Association, “a person with Alzheimer’s may become suspicious of those around them, even accusing others of theft, infidelity or other improper behaviour”.¹ Yet, in power of attorney disputes, siblings are often unwilling to consider that the parent’s suspicions about their sibling might be unfounded.

Another feature of dementia is confabulation. It is a natural coping mechanism which happens when a dementia patient attempts to fill in missing gaps in their memory with things that are untrue. Rather than confronting the painful truth that the patient has no memory of that meeting with the lawyer or that discussion with Child A, the diseased brain protects the patient by supplying false memories.

Alzheimer’s disease lies to the people suffering from it. Dementia patients commonly experience anosognosia – the inability to recognize their own memory and cognitive deficits.

Logic would dictate that when a parent suffers from Alzheimer’s, and says two different things to two different people, the most likely explanation is that the disease has rendered the parent an unreliable narrator. And yet, so many siblings caught up in POA disputes immediately dismiss the disease as a possible contributor to the dispute. They confidently conclude that the only possible explanation is that their “evil sibling” is a liar.

Perhaps it is less painful to believe their sibling is lying (particularly a sibling they never got along with) than it is to accept that the disease has already progressed to the point that the parent’s words cannot be relied upon anymore. When a child has spent a lifetime looking to a parent for support, advice, care and judgment, it is difficult to accept that certain aspects of the relationship are now gone.

Many years of litigating and mediating these disputes have convinced me that litigation is a terrible way of resolving them. Once litigants reach the mediation stage, they have spent tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees, making them even more entrenched in the righteousness of their position. Too often the stumbling block to settling these cases is the sunk costs of the legal fees already spent.

I can’t help but wonder: What if the siblings had pursued mediation from the outset instead of going to court first? What if they had consulted dementia experts first before going to legal experts? What if they had focused on dementia as the enemy instead of their sibling?

Footnote

1. https://www.alz.org/

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.