Summary: Safety, Freedom, and the GPS in His Shoe

The dot is moving north on Oakdale Avenue. Martin Chaves, 69, watches it on his phone from the bathroom where he was when his father opened the front door and walked out. Eduardo Chaves is 88, has moderate Alzheimer’s, and has walked three miles every morning for fifty years. His body still wants to walk. His mind no longer reliably holds the concept that he cannot find his way home.

The GPS tracker is sewn into Eduardo’s left shoe, the brown one he wears every day, the one that survived the wearable phase (he removed the watch), the clip-on phase (he left it on a park bench), and the jacket pocket phase (he wore a different jacket). The shoe has been reliable. Eighteen minutes after Eduardo leaves, the dot stops at a diner three miles north. Eduardo is having coffee. He is perfectly content. He does not know where he lives.

Sixty percent of people with dementia will wander at some point. Among those not found within 24 hours, the mortality rate is approximately 50%. These numbers establish why the tension between safety and freedom exists and why it has no clean resolution. Eduardo has walked out four times in six months. Each time, the tracker allowed Martin to find him within thirty minutes. Each time, Eduardo was safe.

Eduardo walked three miles every morning for fifty years. The walk is not an activity. It is an identity. What does autonomy mean when the body wants something the brain cannot safely manage? A locked door preserves safety and eliminates the walk entirely. An unlocked door with a GPS tracker preserves the walk and accepts residual risk. No configuration produces perfect safety and complete freedom simultaneously. The dignity test applies with particular force: the GPS tracker serves Eduardo because it allows him to walk. The locked door serves the family because it eliminates the fear.

GPS trackers come in several form factors, and the form factor matters more than the feature set because the most sophisticated tracker is useless if the person removes it. Wearable watches have high removal rates. Dedicated devices like AngelSense and Jiobit are more reliable but Eduardo removed his. Trackers sewn into shoes or clothing are the most reliable option for people who consistently remove other devices. Geofencing alerts notify the caregiver when the person leaves a defined radius, calibrated over time to avoid false alarms.

The law distinguishes between capacity and confinement. Locking a person in their home without legal authority is unlawful restraint. A GPS tracker does not prevent movement. It monitors movement. Martin has not confined Eduardo. He has accepted Eduardo’s movement and added information to it.

Martin’s brother wants the door locked. Martin’s sister thinks the tracker invades their father’s privacy. Martin held the middle with his physician’s support. The family meeting lasted three hours and produced no consensus, only a decision Martin made as primary caregiver and power of attorney. Both siblings’ positions are honest. Neither is complete. The compromise accepts that the dignity of walking freely and the dignity of not being tracked are in direct conflict, and no technology eliminates the conflict.

Eduardo is pleased to see Martin at the diner. He asks if Martin would like coffee. The GPS did what it was designed to do: it allowed Martin to find his father without preventing his father from being found somewhere worth being. The shoe is by the door, ready for tomorrow.

Read the full article on BlueMirror.life.