The Great Baby-doll Debate
Blog #17
It was one of my first days working in this particular memory care facility, so I did not know the residents or the philosophy on dolls and stuffed animals. I was learning, observing, and taking things in. Unfortunately, as I slowly approached a resident in moderate to late stages of dementia, she started to lean back on the love seat and kick towards me. Arms began to swing as she held ever firmly to her baby doll. Since an approach was not necessary, I used a calming voice, assured her that she and her baby were safe and I backed away calmly, giving her her space.
This story feels important to me as it shows within a few lines the complexities of the use of baby dolls. Some memory care communities provide residents with baby dolls and stuffed animals, claiming that they “soothe” the residents and allow them to tap into their inherent maternal, nurturing selves–so they are seen as a benefit.
But there is an opposing theory that is equally, if not more, compelling that supports baby dolls NOT being used. It is birthed out the concept of normalization, a term coined by Wolf Wolfensberger. This notion of normalization, which emerged in the 1960’s for the first time in history, suggested that those who were devalued by society (e.g.. those with disabilities or special needs) would benefit from being in environments that are “as close as possible to the norms and patterns of the mainstream society.”*
Using the theory of normalization, one can easily conclude that it would not be appropriate, dignifying, or age-appropriate to have older adults interacting with baby dolls or stuffed animals. This is the reason some memory care communities refuse to allow childish coloring pages or colors to be used in their communities or cartoons to be playing on the TVs in their living areas. To the contrary, it is thought to be most advantageous and age-appropriate to have real children, real pets/animals, real adult art projects and supplies for those with dementia to interact with as it is the more dignifying option and close to the mainstream society.
In addition, it is not difficult to see other complexities of using baby dolls in a memory care community. Staff and guests may be seen as a threat to a resident’s baby doll, thus the example of kicking and hitting. If a resident with dementia begins to believe that the baby doll is an actual human child, they are only left to respond appropriately when it comes to protecting it, worrying about it, and (on a simple level of concern) trying to feed the baby real food. This was often witnessed–the babydoll having chocolate pudding all over its mouth as a resident attempted to feed it real food. This quickly becomes a sanitation and hygiene issue.
Ultimately, I believe that everyone, including memory care communities, is doing the best they can for those they care for, and that may look and feel different between communities. That said, it is valuable to remember that our beliefs often follow our actions. There is always a risk of starting to believe that those with dementia are childlike and thus approaching care with low expectations or childlike treatment. When we consider those with dementia to be respected as our elders, engaging them in dignifying age-appropriate activities, we are more apt to have our beliefs and actions equate to respect and a recognition of maturity. This is the next generation of memory care and the only way we will raise the bar on truly dignifying care.