British Columbia resident Kathleen Palamarek, an elderly widow and patient in the Broadmead Lodge nursing home in Saanich, a community in Greater Victoria on Vancouver Island, will remain there indefinitely, after a Canadian judge ruled Tuesday that institutional confinement trumps family living.
Mrs. Palamarek’s daughter, Lois Sampson, has spent three years trying to free her mother from Broadmead, to no avail. The ruling from B.C. Justice David Harris, coming more than two months after the end of a trial in which Mrs. Sampson brought in myriad legal and medical experts who questioned the quality of Mrs. Palamarek’s care and the advisability of her continued residence at Broadmead apparently puts an end to the case.
Among the issues raised by her daughter was the drug regimen Mrs. Palamarek was administered in the nursing home. Mrs. Sampson maintained, and expert witnesses testified, that some of the drugs had harmful side effects, especially for elderly patients including heart attacks or strokes.
BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: Kathleen Palamarek has suffered what has been called a “severe cardiac event” at Broadmead Lodge Wednesday, May 4. According to an email to Lois Sampson from her brother, who maintains Power of Attorney over their mother’s affairs, “Regularly scheduled family visits have been replaced with this new order effective immediately.
If there is a need for Doctor or Staff intervention to treat Mom, you will be required to leave the room in order so that they can conduct their jobs effectively.”
Mrs. Sampson, aided by her husband Gil, elder care advocates, pharmaceutical experts and doctors, maintained that her mother wanted to leave Broadmead, and has repeatedly expressed a wish to do so. Justice Harris’s 70-page opinion, however, rejects every argument put forth by Mrs. Sampson’s witnesses, deferring instead to medical testimony provided by the Lodge, particularly on the types of drugs administered to Mrs. Palamarek, the widow of a World War II veteran.
- Kathleen Palamarek
He avers that even if some of the drugs prescribed to Mrs. Palamarek are known to be harmful and can cause death in the elderly, particularly those suffering from dementia, there was insufficient evidence to determine that these drugs were actually harming Mrs. Palamarek personally.
Justice Harris said that he finds the practice of over-medicating nursing home patients to keep them restrained “reprehensible” but could not determine that the medications prescribed for Mrs. Palamarek fell into that category. He claimed she had a history of delusional behavior, suffers from progressive dementia and the attending physician at Broadmead believed the drugs he prescribed were adequately addressing that condition.
Justice Harris also noted that Broadmead’s doctor instructed the nursing staff to monitor Mrs. Palamarek for signs for side effects but that none were reported.
Justice Harris further opined that Mrs. Palamarek may have said that she was unhappy living at Broadmead Lodge and wanted to move out because she was “delusional.” But the evidence he cites as valid came more from recent statements from Mrs. Palamarek who has demonstrably been heavily medicated – to the point of necessitating a 911 call in February and an ambulance trip to a nearby emergency room where she was administered an antidote for narcotic poisoning – rather than her wishes as expressed three years ago.
“Her more recent views, to the extent they are reliable, are more probative of the issue before me than what she said or did in 2008.” Well, if Mrs. Palamarek is in fact suffering from progressive dementia wouldn’t it make sense that she would have had a clearer mind three or four years ago than now?
So, why the contradictions?
The decision also states that during the trial it was discovered that the first lawyer retained to represent Kathleen Palamarek in the three year legal battle, had in his files two audio recordings Mrs. Palamarek made in July and August 2008 in which she clearly stated that she was unhappy living in Broadmead Lodge and wanted to leave.
That was four months before she left the lodge on Oct. 27, 2008 for three days of freedom before a squad of police, ambulance attendants and health authority personnel forcibly removed her from Lois Sampson’s condominium in downtown Victoria, under British Columbia’ mental health act, eventually returning her to Broadmead.
Justice Harris wrote that “Mrs. Sampson submitted that those recordings not only disclose Mrs. Palamarek’s strong desire to leave the Lodge and live with her, but also belie the opinions expressed by the experts (testifying for Broadmead Lodge) that Mrs. Palamarek was not oriented to time and place and was incapable of expressing reliable opinions about her medical care and who should look after her.”
Further Justice Harris states that while “in those recordings Mrs. Palamarek certainly expresses her unhappiness living at the Lodge … the audio recordings do not assist me in concluding that Mrs. Palamarek’s wishes, as stated in those discussions, are reliable and should be given weight.”
Justice Harris uses for rationale in this part of his decision the fact that Mrs. Palamarek brought hand-written notes to the meeting with her lawyer to help her keep on point, and that Mrs. Sampson apparently helped her write one of them before Mrs. Palamarek went to the meeting with her lawyer.
Justice Harris says this is evidence that Mrs. Sampson manipulated Mrs. Palamarek. There was no evidence that this was the case but Justice Harris opted not to use the absence of evidence as absence of an action, as he did in ruling in favor of the Lodge in other parts of the decision.
Progressing through the 70-page decision it is obvious that Justice Harris doesn’t like Lois Sampson and rejects out of hand every expert witness she provided. Justice Harris also relates statements from other family members who wanted to keep Mrs. Palamarek confined, that Lois Sampson is “controlling.”
But Justice Harris relied on other information to develop that opinion too – notes and other documents detailing what in the US would be privileged communications between Lois Sampson and her lawyer!
Justice Harris ruled during the trial that the entire file on the case maintained by the first lawyer who represented Lois Sampson should be released! That included many communications, including emails between Lois Sampson and her attorney discussing possible strategies, and handwritten notes made by the lawyer during his conversations with Mrs. Palamarek that Justice Harris used to impeach his later testimony.
Call me uniformed if you will, but I always thought that Canadian and American legal systems, having a common origin in the English law going back to the Magna Carta, included similar protections. I absolutely did not know that there is no lawyer-client privilege in Canada! (Sarcasm intended if not understood.)
I wonder how many Canadian citizens sit down with their barristers thinking that their conversations are between them only. I wonder how much they would tell their lawyers if they knew their words could be used against them in court. Apparently there is no Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in Canada either. (More sarcasm.)
This is a shocking revelation, especially since there are ongoing efforts to “harmonize” or meld Canadian laws with US laws, including or should I say, especially, those concerning elder abuse.
In the US we are constantly told that if we don’t agree with one doctor’s opinion or treatment to “get a second opinion.” Lois Sampson got second, third and fourth opinions, all of which agree to one degree or another that Kathleen Palamarek could live in a home-based care setting with essentially the same assurance of safety and treatment that she would receive in an institution.
But Justice Harris rejected those opinions, instead basing his decision on the opinion of a single doctor who had the biggest conflict of interest of all – he worked for Broadmead Lodge and it was his treatment regimen that was being questioned.
And Justice Harris rejected an equally valid second medical opinion because the doctor who rendered it did his own work in interviewing Kathleen Palamarek and reading her records. Justice Harris faulted him, however, because he didn’t interview Broadmead’s doctor to determine the factors he used in reaching his decision.
Has anyone in the US ever been told that they should get a second opinion but for that opinion to be valid it has to be cleared with the doctor who issued the first opinion?
Lois Sampson’s response to the ruling was straightforward: “Weep for my Mom. The judgment contains errors of basic fact, but most stunning is that he took pains to ignore all of the concrete evidence presented in court … and he carefully cherry-picked highly suspect, unsubstantiated statements by others … and treated them as Gospel. It’s still possible for us to be shocked at the corruption here.”
It is clear from this case that the United States is a far better country in which to live than Canada in terms of quality of life and freedoms, particularly in terms of our medical systems. Maybe I reached this conclusion because I believe in the sanctity of the family over bureaucrats and the rights of individual over the state.
But is also is crystal clear when one views the case of Kathleen Palamarek that individual rights and freedoms still rate very high in the USA.
But in Canada, not so much, eh?
Please those who have had problems with extended care facilities or hospitals we have to organize and let people know what we have been going through. The only consideration the judge should have taken into account is the fact that Lois Sampson wanted to take her home. That is what families are suppose to do is look after their young and their old. Lois could have hired 24-hour nursing, if need be. I do not care if she was a controlling bitch or not. Her brothers should be shamed. Someone should take a protest sign and stand in front of their homes. I hope that this case goes national in reporting. audreylaferriere@yahoo.ca 604-321-2276. Also every single director of Broadmead should be tarred and feathered for just refusing to do anything. I suspect the executive-director controls the Board of Broadmead and he has a contract with them that says he can do what the hell he wants. Mon-proftits are the greatest danger to our civil liberties. As for Mr. Harold Rusk, the lawyer for Broadmead, he is nothing more than an ambulance chaser.
Here in USA, California specifically human rights and freedoms are no better. My ‘mother-in-law’ had her front door kicked in with the locked deadbolt splintering the door frame. She too is in an assisted living facility licensed by CA. Family including, living together significant other, daughter and older sister, had few restricted visitation from June to November 2010 and ZERO visitation since November 2010. Law enforcement insists that there is no criminal activity and nothing out of the ordinary.
Reviewing CA’s records shows this practice is common, here is an example:
Complaint Control Number 19-SC-20080514140913 dated May 14, 2008
“After the resident was admitted the facility followed the instructions from the resident’s agent and did not allow certain persons to visit the resident. Therefore, there is no personal rights violation and this allegation is determined to be UNFOUNDED.”
Title 22 gives the individual RESIDENT (not the resident’s agent) free access to any and all visitors until there is a Court Order preventing visitations from specific person. A conservator or person acting under power attorney doesn’t have the right to restrict visitations without first going to Court and getting a Court Order barring the visits.
Here’s the deal. They keep Granny alive and sorta well, although tranquilized, until the cost of keeping her is more than Medicare and Medicaid will pay. Then Granny dies. Like it or not; that’s the way it is.
It’s all about the money, or have you forgotten that? Oops! You should be forcibly moved to an assisted care or nursing facility.
#
her home. That is what families are suppose to do is look after their young and their old. Lois could have hired 24-hour nursing, if need be. I do not care if she was a controlling bitch or not. Her brothers should be shamed. Someone should take a protest sign and stand in front of their homes. I hope that this case goes national in reporting. audreylaferriere@yahoo.ca 604-321-2276. Also every single director of Broadmead should be tarred and feathered for just refusing to do anything. I suspect the executive-director controls the Board of Broadmead and he has a contract with them that says he can do what the hell he wants. Mon-proftits are the greatest danger to our civil liberties. As for Mr. Harold Rusk, the lawyer for Broadmead, he is nothing more than an ambulance chaser.
Reply
#
rich says:
May 5, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Here in USA, California specifically human rights and freedoms are no better. My ‘mother-in-law’ had her front door kicked in with the locked deadbolt splintering the door frame. She too is in an assisted living facility licensed by CA. Family including, living together significant other, daughter and older sister, had few restricted visitation from June to November 2010 and ZERO visitation since November 2010. Law enforcement insists that there is no criminal activity and nothing out of the ordinary.
Reviewing CA’s records shows this practice is common, here is an example:
Complaint Control Number 19-SC-20080514140913 dated May 14, 2008
“After the resident was admitted the facility followed the instructions from the resident’s agent and did not allow certain persons to visit the resident. Therefore, there is no personal rights violation and this allegation is determined to be UNFOUNDED.”
Title 22 gives the individual RESIDENT (not the resident’s agent) free access to any and all visitors until there is a Court Order preventing visitations from specific person. A conservator or person acting under power attorney doesn’t have the right to restrict visitations without first going to Court and getting a Court Order barring the visits.
Reply
#
Kitty Hegemann says:
May 10, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Here’s the deal. They keep Granny alive and sorta well, although tranquilized, until the cost of keeping her is more than Medicare and Medicaid will pay. Then Granny dies. Like it or not; that’s the way it is.
Reply
#
Kitty Hegemann says:
May 10, 2011 at 9:17 pm
https://ctwatchdog.com/2011/05/04/granny-snatching-canada-judge-rules-institutions-trump-homes-for-elderly
It’s all about the money, or have you forgotten that? Oops! You should be forcibly moved to an assisted care or nursing facility.
The nursing homes in British Columbia such as the Rest Haven Lodge in Sydney are abusing the elderly by chemically restraining them, and this is condoned by the VIHA and sanctioned by the provincial government.
The doctors who work in these homes should not be believed as the conspiracy to hide this legalized murdering of the elderly is of epidemic proportions. These lack of care homes only care about the bottom line. They are understaffed and the the elderly are indispensable. Many of the elderly do not have any visitors and are culled by these homes and the “Dr. Deaths” that assist in these legally sanctioned murders.