@Iceybirb
But if someone is actively extremely distressed, no longer knows who they are, no longer recognises their family etc, would they not benefit being sedated?
I have mixed feelings towards this personally, because sedation is restraint and restraint is to only be used when all other methods have failed and there's a risk of injury to the person themselves or others. They would basically have to be sedated to sleep, constantly, because sedation can actually make things worse in view of walking/falls, aggression and eating/drinking.
The problem is, within social care and hospital settings, the other methods take time and money and staff and quite often one, or all of those isn't available, sedating someone to 'keep them quiet' is abuse, but, if they injure themselves or someone else, it's the staff on duty that can be accused of failure of duty of care if they're not monitored.
Dementia is a nasty and ugly disease, it is nigh on impossible to manage in some circumstances and people will, and do, hurt themselves or other people, leave places, get into all manner of problematic circumstances.
IMO, we need to accept this as a society, and realise that practically without massive investment in the area as a whole, this is the kind of thing that will not just continue, but increase. Unfortunately no one has that magic wand that will prevent the behaviour or make someone understand.
I don't think it's right that this sort of thing happens, however it does, and even if OPs family are successful in getting 1-1 care funded, then the demand will shift to another patient and their family, somewhere else, having to do the same thing. That's not to say that I think the OPs family should suck it up, and in this particular scenario, then yes, repeatedly saying no and forcing their hand to provide 1-1 care protects OPs MIL and their family. However, that doesn't solve the wider problem that's led to the OP being in this situation to start with, and that's what needs addressing on a wider scale.
I do sometimes think that it would be kinder to sedate people who are desperately distressed, but who we cannot provide comfort for, who are wanting and needing something that cannot be given - like a long deceased family member, or who ask for a family member but the disease has removed their ability to recognise and be comforted by their presence. I feel it would sometimes be kinder than just letting them suffer psychologically through it. But it needs to be a very careful balance. Some meds for dementia, or associated problems do have sedative side effects , some people are prescribed mild sedation for their anxiety, but ultimately nothing is going to make that person understand or cure their dementia - it's the nature of a terrible disease.