My mother-in-law is still driving despite a near miss. How can we stop her?
My mother-in-law is still driving. After a near miss a few months ago, we told her she was no longer to drive with our children in her car, and we were grateful that she immediately agreed – but also puzzled that she didn't consider stopping altogether.
A year ago she developed cataracts and was told to stop driving. She coped well, using her free bus pass and walking, which she doesn't mind doing and knows is good for her health. However, when the cataract had been treated, the doctor told her she could drive again.
Recently, her car insurance was renewed, and she paid a hefty sum that we felt would have been better spent on taxis.
All her life my mother-in-law has been 'useful', and she is very proud that her four children have grown up to also be kind, helpful people. She continues to drive because it is useful, and she offers lifts to elderly friends which we fear is an accident waiting to happen. I love her dearly and would hate her to come to any harm.
We live slightly farther away than her other children, who help her the most with finances and some practical things. We realise that if she stopped driving she might need more help, which we don't have the capacity to provide. However, we feel the risks to herself and the community outweigh any inconvenience to the wider family.
Please give us a script we can use to express ourselves in a new way. Her other children continue to be dismissive of our concerns, and I don't know what to say to convince her that it's her turn to be looked after and chauffeured about by others.
This has become an increasingly common problem. I remember some years ago, talking to psychotherapist Chris Mills about a friend's mum who had dementia and was no longer safe to drive. He said something I never forgot: 'If we were talking about a gun, no one would hesitate over taking it off her. Yet a car can also kill.' So I went to Mills again with your letter.
'Your request for a 'script' is the easy bit,' he said 'as it doesn't sound as if you've yet said to your mother-in-law words to the effect of, 'We don't believe your driving is safe any more, and we'd like you to give up your car now and use other ways of getting around, before someone gets hurt.' It is absolutely your business to say this, because it is your own concerns that you're reporting.'
Realising you are at the stage of life where you can no longer do things is a huge deal. So you're right to tread carefully. I would stress how much you care about her and the help she is still able to give you.
'But,' continued Mills, 'before going ahead with this, I'm not clear why you are taking this on, rather than your husband – why you have written this letter, not him. He is her son and his siblings' brother. There is usually someone in the family who is the 'canary' and sees things before others can. But might you run the risk of being cast as the over-fussy interfering in-law?'
Sign up to Inside Saturday
The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend.
after newsletter promotion
Mills suggests your husband could contact her GP to request a reassessment of her driving ability. 'There's no guarantee that your mother-in-law or your husband's siblings will approve of any of this, but that shouldn't prevent him from doing what he believes is the right thing – ie in the absence of his mother's agreement, ensuring that the decision about her potentially dangerous driving is passed to the relevant authority.'
In England and Wales, the DVLA issues licences and can revoke them or ask for medical confirmation that someone is fit to drive. You can also report your concerns to the DVLA via their website.
Remember that this will be about so much more than just driving, so please reassure your mother-in-law about how much she is still needed.
Every week, Annalisa Barbieri addresses a personal problem sent in by a reader. If you would like advice from Annalisa, please send your problem to ask.annalisa@theguardian.com. Annalisa regrets she cannot enter into personal correspondence. Submissions are subject to our terms and conditions. The latest series of Annalisa's podcast is available here.
Comments on this piece are pre-moderated to ensure the discussion remains on the topics raised by the article. Please be aware that there may be a short delay in comments appearing on the site.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Starmer facing challenge to intervene on assisted dying vote after more than 50 Labour MPs demand Commons delay
Sir Keir Starmer is facing a major challenge for his government to intervene and delay a vote on assisted dying to go ahead on Friday this week. A group of more than 50 Labour MPs have this weekend written to the Leader of the House Lucy Powell asking her to intervene and postpone this Friday's final third reading vote on Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill in the Commons. Instead they are demanding that the government provides more parliamentary time to scrutinise a bill which will bring 'fundamental changes' to healthcare in England. The move marks a serious split over the issue among Labour MPs and in effect is a challenge to Sir Keir who is in favour of assisted dying. Even though the bill is a free vote as a conscience issue for MPs, it is now becoming a dividing line in the Labour parliamentary party. Sir Keir and the government have consistently insisted they are 'neutral' on the issue which has been the subject of a private members bill and have attempted to take a 'hands off' approach to it. But Labour MPs including Paul Waugh, Torcuil Crichton, Florence Eshalomi, Jess Asato, Adam Jogee, Polly Billington, Debbie Abrahams, Dawn Butler, Antonia Bance, Anna Dixon, Paul Frith, Daniel Francis and dozens of others now believe the limited private members bill procedure is not good enough for an issue which will deliver huge change. The letter to Ms Powell, seen by The Independent, says: 'On Friday, Members will debate and vote on perhaps the most consequential piece of legislation that has appeared before the House in generations. 'This is not a normal Bill. It alters the foundations of our NHS, the relationship between doctor and patient, and it strips power away from Parliament, concentrating it in the hands of future Health Secretaries. 'MPs will be arriving at Westminster on Friday morning without sight of the final version of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.' They noted: 'The sponsor of the Bill [Ms Leadbeater] has proudly stated that it has received more time in Parliament than some Government Bills have. And yet; MPs have had the opportunity to vote on just 12 of 133 amendments tabled at Report Stage. 'Just fourteen percent of MPs have been afforded the opportunity to speak in the chamber on this Bill Several movers of amendments haven't been able to speak to the changes they have laid.' One of the amendments not voted on was a protection against people with anorexia and other eating disorders being subject to assisted dying put forward by Labour MP Naz Shah. Even though Ms Leadbeater had indicated she would agree to the late provision, despite rejecting similar amendments before, it did not come up for a vote. The letter went on: 'Despite this, the Bill has been radically changed from the one presented to MPs at Second Reading in November. As it stands today, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is now longer than the Government's Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill with a staggering 64 clauses and two schedules. 'The fact that such fundamental changes are being made to this Bill at the eleventh hour is not a badge of honour, it is a warning. The private member's bill process has shown itself to be a woefully inadequate vehicle for the introduction of such a foundational change to our NHS and the relationship between doctor and patient. 'New Clause 2 was added to the Bill last Friday with a sizable majority. Such a profound alteration to this Bill at the last minute reflects the discomfort uniting the House about the current format of this Bill and the desire to further amend it to protect vulnerable people.' They added: 'This is no longer about debating the abstract principle of assisted dying. The Bill before Parliament has created real concern with medical experts and charities. MPs and the Government should listen to their expertise. 'We implore you as the Leader of the House to allocate more Parliamentary time to the scrutiny of this Bill, the valid concerns that Members have about its implementation, and the consequences it could have on vulnerable populations.' However, supporters of the Bill have complained about delaying tactics used by opponents. On Friday Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine, one of the Bill's sponsors, made a point of order claiming opponents were 'hiding in the lobby toilets' during votes, to delay the Bill's progress. The Independent has approached Ms Leadbeater for comment. Other signatories to the letter include Labour MPs Antonia Bance, Florence Eshalomi, Richard Baker, Neil Coyle, Gurinder Singh Josan, Dan Francis, James Frith, Anna Dixon, Siobhan McDonagh, Katrina Murray, Julie Minns, Scott Arthur, John Grady, Richard Quigley, Debbie Abrahams, Tom Collins, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Catherine Atkinson, Rachael Maskell, Kenneth Stevenson, David Baines, David Smith, Sarah Smith, Sean Woodcock, Kirsteen Sullivan, Laurence Turner, Polly Billington, Josh Newbury, Kate Osamor, Patricia Ferguson, Jonathan Davies, Ruth Jones, Katrina Murray, Paul Foster, Adam Jogee, Blair McDougall, Naz Shah and Valerie Vaz.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
My father died in a care home and all I got was denials and excuses
The situation at The Firs care home in Nottinghamshire, which was shut down in April, is dreadful for patients, families and staff ('How did it get to this?' What happens when care in a residential home breaks down, 7 June). But the Care Quality Commission (CQC) is not the only body to blame for failings like this. It can't investigate individual complaints – this is mostly down to the local government and social care ombudsman (LGSCO), but also the parliamentary and health service ombudsman (PHSO). It depends on who funds the care; in theory the same care home could be dealing with two ombudsman staff unaware of each other. Both are equally damned on Trustpilot with overwhelmingly negative reviews. My dad died two days after he had been moved to a home for palliative care. So much went wrong on that awful day, with staff who didn't care and with no involvement with any senior staff. I complained to the manager and then the company headquarters. I received many denials and excuses, one of which was so clearly untrue that I thought I'd caught them out. I told the PHSO everything. I waited for eight months, only to have every ridiculous excuse parroted back to me as a reason for not investigating. I don't believe the LGSCO would have been any better. The care home company knew I had complained and had time to prepare for an investigation, which never came. All I did by complaining was show what it could get away with. Other homes in the same organisation have been graded as inadequate or requiring improvement, with poor staffing levels and attitudes to patients especially marked. So criticise the CQC, but don't spare either and address supplied Your article made me cry. My parents (90 and 92) have, since February, suffered deterioration in their health such that both now need full-time care. Three of the four local-authority-provided 'rehab' places have so far been utterly woeful. The home that my father is currently living in is disastrous for a person in his position. My sister and I are desperately trying to sort an alternative for him, but it takes time and every day he is there is a day too long. And as for whistleblowing, we tried that when a carer was verbally abusive to my mother. The difficulties we are having moving her because of her record of 'very difficult behaviour' are not and address supplied
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Lucy Letby supporter claims neo-natal unit where baby serial killer worked was 'not fit for purpose'
The Countess of Chester Hospital's neo-natal unit was 'not fit for purpose' before Lucy Letby started murdering babies, a former nurse who worked there has claimed. Michele Worden said redundancies led to a loss of senior staff and plumbing issues created a 'perfect storm' for care failings. The former advanced nurse practitioner left the Countess after being made redundant in 2007, four years before Letby started working and eight years before her killing spree began. She told the Nursing Times that when the unit was downgraded in around 2006 and stopped caring for very premature babies under 27 weeks, senior nurses were replaced with junior staff who were asked to care for infants 'above their capabilities [and] training.' She said: 'It wasn't just the neonatal unit that wasn't fit for purpose, the whole maternity and paediatric and gynaecology… was not fit for purpose. 'The problems with the sewage and blocked sinks were not just [on] the neonatal unit, it was on the labour ward, it was all over.' Ms Worden said she believed the situation at the Countess of Chester was 'no different' to other NHS hospitals where maternity scandals have been uncovered in recent years. 'Hopefully Lucy will be exonerated,' she said. 'Chester is no different than Shrewsbury, Nottingham, Morecambe Bay. Women and children's healthcare has never been a high priority.' Letby, 38, is serving 15 whole life terms after being convicted of the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of seven more, including one baby girl she tried to kill twice. Plumber Lorenzo Mansutti, estates manager at the Countess, was the only witness called by Letby in her defence at her Manchester Crown Court trial. He admitted drainage problems were a 'weekly' issue at the hospital's 50-year-old Women's and Children's Building and told the jury that he remembered an incident when raw sewage backed up into sinks in the intensive care nursery. But he said it was a 'one off' and insisted that at no point were staff unable to wash their hands because the hospital had 'backup' portable handwashing units on site. The problem was not logged as a formal incident, so no exact date for the incident could be found. Letby's trial heard that none of the seven babies who died collapsed due to a bacterial infection associated with poor sewage. Cheshire police are continuing to investigate the former nurse and last year confirmed they had questioned her in prison in connection with more baby deaths. But, following a presentation from 14 international experts in February, who claim none of the babies were murdered but died due to poor care, there has been a continued chorus of people questioning the safety of her convictions. Letby has twice applied and been refused leave to appeal, but her new legal team have submitted a file of evidence to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the body that investigates potential miscarriages of justice, in a last ditch attempt to get her convictions overturned. They claim the testimony of lead prosecution expert Dewi Evans was biased and that he changed his mind over the method of murder of one of the children murdered by Letby, a boy known as Baby C. Dr Evans has denied this and the Court of Appeal has already dismissed claims he was not suitably qualified or lacked independence. Yesterday it emerged that Dr Evans, who has been subjected to intense trolling online from Letby supporters, had been involved in an online row with one of them - an anonymous statistician who Dr Evans accused of being motivated by a sexual attraction to Letby. According to the statistician, Dr Evans wrote: 'You seem very intense, and it's not unusual for men to have the hots for pretty young blonde females. A nursing uniform is a turn-on for some by all accounts. 'I would suggest you need to get out more, find yourself an available pretty young blonde female, with/without nursing credentials. But one who doesn't go to work intent on murdering her patients.' The statistician said it was 'absurd' to say he believed Letby was innocent because she was 'blonde and pretty' and insisted he had come to that view after reviewing the transcripts of the trial.
