Is this morally wrong?

[NotPicasso]

I have an elderly family member. He lives about four hours away and no family live near him. His mental health is drastically declining and he’s now at a point where we have doctors/social services/police involved but he is refusing to move into a home, or closer to us. The big problem we have is that he is a wanderer, and will go missing for days so when we call to check, we can’t find him. When we visit, he often forgets we are due, and we will spend hours trying to find him in his local area. Last month he was missing for 8 hours and when he got home, he said he’d been in the supermarket (we had checked several times and didn’t find him in there). I’ve said I’d like to put an AirTag on his keys, so when he goes missing we can find him. He has no idea what it is, doesn’t have a mobile and doesn’t understand technology. He might consent to the tracking one day, but won’t remember the next. Would it be acceptable for me to put it on his keys anyway? He always takes his keys when he leaves, so I think it would be a good way to find him if he goes missing again?
obviously we are working to get the situation sorted, this is just a short term solution to try and keep him safe.

YANBU- track him
YABU- it’s violating his privacy and shouldn’t be done without him fully understanding and remembering it’s happening

So she should just stand by and wait for something to happen?

I think if you are doing it in his best interest and only using to find him in an emergency it’s absolutely fine!!

it’s not like you are stalking him all hours of the day for ill gotten gains

sounds really hard OP, hope you can get things in place soon

I care for my DH with dementia. I understand your consideration of the morality of tracking someone's movements. I had the same initial concern. However, it is absolutely necessary to track movements for someone with memory issues. See also the Herbert Protocol mentioned up thread. In essence notifying the authorities that someone is prone to wondering, where they live and what to do if they arrive somewhere in a confused state.

It can be quite frightening. DH has had numerous wanders. On holiday abroad coming out of a different entrance to a toilet and going for a walk down a busy street away from the hotel. Local police were very good.

Thanks for the responses. To answer the questions- yes we’ve asked SS for assessments and they’re in the process but everything takes forever. He has had carers in, but doesn’t like them and either won’t let them in, forgets they’re due and goes out, or doesn’t know who they are. We have PoA including medical and financial powers which makes it harder because I can’t ask anyone else because I’m the person who needs to give permission?

pretty much this. but does he accept he forgets things? Would it work to put a notice somewhere that he has signed saying that he agrees to it? Capacity isn't a binary thing and people who are likely to forget they have agreed to something can still benefit from the "something" provided that you can prove within reason that they have agreed to it and not under duress. Its a blooming difficult one because if he finds his way home again, is continent, eats and so on, it could be argued that he chooses to go out and has the capacity to make that decision. If you deo decide to do it ie he agrees, an Airtag is a good option IMO becasuse you can change the battery yourself and the new batteries don't cost much. If you visit on a monthly ish basis and change the battery every time there should be no problem with it running out, mine last much longer but I don't need to be sure they will never run out. In your circs, I'd do it if I possibly could but think whether if he doesn't want it or forgets why its there, he will try to remove it or break it or just start not taking his keys. Does he actiually get lost for days ie he has to be found and brought home? or does he get lost ie you don't know where he is but actually he is fine? I know what a hard time this can be for relatives, both personally and professionally.

@MrsTerryPratchett i don’t think he ever would have believed he would get to this state. If I’d asked him for someone else, I think he would have agreed it was a reasonable measure?

If you have POA and its activated (not sure if that's the right word) then do it if he will tolerate it.

I'm like a broken record with this but go onto the elderly parents forum who have been there seen it done it in relation to the elderly.

Its for his own benefit. In laws both have dementia and we filled in the Herbert Protocol for them. MIL's behaviour fell off a cliff so she has a DOLS on her and is in a dementia care home now. Until something happens (MIL was aggressive in respite and having delusional behaviour) things won't move quickly unfortunately.

That sounds good enough to me. I can't give professional advice because I am now retired and no longer registered but when I was working I would have considered that to be reasonable. You might like to ask his advice about "the dad of a friend" in the same situation if you think he would agree that "for a peson in that situation" it would be a good idea?

So she should just stand by and wait for something to happen?

No @Nanny0gg not at all. Nor should she make sweeping decisions about his life without thought and consideration. It seems so harmless to just decide for people who lack capacity, or are older, or ill or children for safety. But what it is really about is control. When we have any modicum of control over someone, it behooves us to be considerate, thoughtful, legal, moral, honest and respectful of what they want now and would want if they had capacity.

I drink alcohol, used to smoke, do adventure travelling, have done extreme sports. If someone had control over me, they might decide all of those things are dangerous and I would be safer without them. I probably would be, but I have the right to do things, even if they are unsafe, because I choose them. People's choices when they are under the control of others should be considered more than other people's, not less.

I applaud the OP for thinking carefully. That doesn't mean a tracker isn't proportionate. It means that we need to take into account other things than just safety.

x-posted. Summary:

He lacks capacity as far as you understand it. At least some of the time.
You have PoA.
You believe he would believe this is proportionate.
He does consent when he is able.
The risks to him of not doing it are high and the (social and emotional) costs of doing it are low.

I probably would then. But lean on SS to do their capacity and other assessments.

You have to do what you have to do. It becomes like dealing with a toddler. You can’t ask their permission for things. As long as it’s in their best interest go ahead.

This absolutely. When I was at work I had to explain to in patient nurses why they couldn't "ask" aka "tell" home carers to only buy "healthy" food items for housebound people.

This is not true. It may be what you believe or what you believe is right but its not true. Even when someone no longer has much or any capacity, you have to make decisions based on what the person would have chosen from what you know about them. Its only if you cannot even do this that the "best interest" clause comes into play.

This sounds very sensible. My husband had a relative wander onto the motorway because she forgot the roads had changed in the last 30 years. Luckily a member of the public notices a frail octogenarian walking along the hard shoulder and contacted the police.

You can ask the person’s doctor or another medical professional to assess their mental capacity it doesn't have to be SS.

If you contact SS safeguarding and explain the situation, they may prioritise it.

Welfare POA won't kick in until they've been found to lack capacity. In the meantime, put a tracker on his keyring.

I think it would be morally wrong NOT to.

Agreed, if you have the POA just do it.

Our relatives use the Angel care one, it’s recommended by the NHS I think?

On a good day why don't you make up a story about your neighbour doing what you are suggesting and see what he says?
I'm on the fence.
Is he in danger when he goes out?
Is he a danger to others?
Is he suffering physically, dehydration etc because he's been wandering?
Has he ever forgot were he lives?
The time will come when this is needed, it's deciding if it's yet. It's the thin line between care and control.

I would agree that it is their best interests to have a tracking device added onto their keys or into their clothing

So he doesn't have the right to wander and the OP has the right to know were he is at all times? On what grounds?
I've had malteasers for lunch and I often go on the missing list (as far as my adult children are concerned), unless I've lost capacity and I'm putting myself in danger, I'll decide what my best interests are.

If you have POA, then you can make this decision in his best interest but the proper way to be still do a capacity assessment. This doesn't need to be formal. You just need to present him with information and make sure he understands the implications. If he cannot retain information for long enough to make this decision or doesn't show any signs of being able to understand what you are proposing, then you can assume he lacks capacity. You can absolutely do it yourself. It's not like SS have extensive training on how to carry out a capacity assessment. Anyone can do it, provided they are familiar with the basic principles of MH Act.
If he does have capacity and agrees to the device but then forgets about it, that's OK. But if he says "no" the next day and you check and conclude he has capacity to say no, then I'm afraid you have to respect his wishes.
Essentially, you just need to communicate with him continuously. If he forgets, you remind him and he may be OK with the device again so it's not really a big deal.
Whether you have POA or not, the best practice is still to check with the person about their wishes.

So he doesn't have the right to wander and the OP has the right to know were he is at all times? On what grounds?

On the grounds that he's elderly, goes missing for days and has declining mental health. It's called safeguarding, which is what you do when someone may be a danger to themselves.

Even if he consents once (which would be enough for me) he might not consent the next time asked (if OP asked again to confirm he was still ok about being tracked) so really it's Catch22 on the morality of tracking him. OP can't win.

I'd get his consent once & then go from there, never asking again unless the tracker got removed from the keys. Is best you can do.

You need to raise your concerns directly with his doctor.

He will fall, be hospitalised and then move to a nursing home. Best to get help sooner rather than later.