Is it better sometimes NOT to have PoA?

I agreed to be a back up POA for my Mums partner never expecting to have to do it BUT she did die first and I would have been in a position to have to continue to be involved with a man I don't like and didn't really have a relationship with.
Luckily his DD found out and threw a tantrum and got a new one naming her instead. I have no idea how as he didn't really have capacity by then but I was so relieved I didn't question it - not that I was informed but I saw a bill from a solicitor I shoudln't have.

Yes, there are. Imo if you wouldn't normally be expected to be involved in someone's care, PoA is a huge burden.

However, if you are eg a child of a person receiving care, you will probably be involved whether you like it or not, and at least PoA or health potentially allows you to advocate for the person's best interests.

We only have PoA for finances and that is pretty much an unmixed good tbh, given the situation (sudden stroke and total loss of capacity overnight).

They made them for my Nanna in spite of my POA tbh. It was a thought time but the POA just left me responsible but with very little voice.

We’re wondering. We want access to her money as she has absolutely loads and should be able to buy in good quality care. Otherwise she’ll be dependent on what the local authority provide and charge her for, with no choices. I’m pretty sure she wants the best of everything and the only way to get it is to allow us to access her money to pay for it. I’m not removing money from my pension to pay for it!
Her reason for not wanting my sister to have health PoA is that she thinks Sis will skimp and go basic. I’ve pointed out that the council will go even more basic if it’s left to them!

Mine doesn’t want to make it evident that she only (just about) trusts me. It’s very sad.

I decided not to have POA for my mum, although it would’ve made some things easier.

i just don’t fully trust her and has a tendency to change her mind with stuff & I didn’t want the responsibility of it.

I think trust is key with POA.

If the person loses capacity, and no one is prepared to apply for a Deputyship Order, the Local Authority usually arrange for a solicitors firm with a large enough team to make the application.

Health wise, the doctors and Local Authority make the decisions.

DH has recently decided not to be one for different reasons. In his case it is debatable now whether the donor has capacity to consent so too late, but I was quietly relieved that DH isn't doing it. It is a huge responsibility and a lot of potential to go wrong.

Absolutely. If you are someone’s PoA it draws you firmly into their world and keeps you there. It puts you in a position of having to make judgement calls in their best interest, which is always going to be potentially awkward.
You do not have to say yes if you don’t want to become someone’s PoA. If you are asking the question here it suggests to me you should be saying a very firm ‘no’.

Yes, absolutely.

It only works if there is trust, if the attorneys can follow the donor's wishes, and if the donor does not take advantage and act abusively to the attorney.

If any doubt, just don't do it, from either side.