Important conversations with the people we love

Most of us know that we should plan ahead. And yet many of the conversations that matter most such as ageing, responsibility, loss of capacity and eventually death are often the very ones we quietly avoid.

Not because we don’t care. More often because we worry about saying the wrong thing, upsetting someone we love, or opening a conversation we’re not quite sure how to finish.

Recently, we hosted a small, informal breakfast event in Exeter called “Be Prepared! – Hard Conversations and Planning Ahead”. The aim was simple: to create space to talk about some of life’s more difficult topics – what happens if we lose capacity, and how we’d want things handled when we’re no longer able to speak for ourselves.

What struck me most wasn’t the legal or technical detail, but how reassuring people found the conversation itself. There was a shared sense of relief in realising that many of us feel unsure where to start. And that this uncertainty is entirely normal.

We were joined by three expert speakers: Victoria Green and Amelia Carling from Ashfords Solicitors, who work closely with families around Powers of Attorney, and Tina Naldrett of Camomile Ceremonies, who supports people with funeral planning and end‑of‑life conversations. Although their areas of expertise differ, the themes that emerged were remarkably aligned.

Willingness isn’t the same as readiness

One idea came up again and again. Saying “yes” to responsibility. Whether as an attorney, or as a family member, stepping in during a crisis is only the start.

I shared my own experience of recently being asked to act as attorney and executor for my godparents. I didn’t hesitate to agree. But it didn’t take long to realise that knowing someone well isn’t the same as knowing how they would want decisions made if circumstances changed.

I had many unanswered questions. What would they prioritise if choices weren’t straightforward? How much risk would they be comfortable with? And, when would they want me to pause and seek professional advice rather than deciding alone?

As Victoria explained at our recent event, acting as an attorney doesn’t mean stepping neatly into someone else’s shoes and carrying on exactly as before. It’s a formal legal role, exercised under scrutiny, and guided by the donor’s best interests – which can feel very different from what we might instinctively do as a spouse, child or friend.

One of the most common misconceptions she encounters is the assumption that a husband, wife or adult child can “just deal with things” if capacity is lost. In reality, without a Power of Attorney (POA) in place, families can face delays, restrictions and additional costs while implementing a deputyship – often at precisely the moment they’re least able to cope with added stress.

Doing what they would’ve wanted isn’t always enough

A particularly powerful discussion centred on a real‑life example.

An adult child acting as attorney for their mother wanted to help fund adaptations to a sibling’s home. The sibling had a severe, degenerative and terminal condition. The mother had more than enough assets, and everyone involved felt strongly that this was exactly what she would have wanted.

And yet – despite the kindness and logic behind it – the situation was legally problematic.

Drawing on her experience advising attorneys, Amelia explained why phrases like “it’s what they would have wanted” can be so risky. An attorney’s duty is to act in the donor’s best interests, which isn’t the same as doing what feels morally right, or what the donor might once have chosen for someone else.

This isn’t about the law being cold or uncaring. In fact, the rules exist to protect both the donor and the attorney from future challenge or unintended consequences. In this case, the correct route might have involved advance planning, clearly documented wishes, or an application to the Court of Protection. Importantly, none of those options questioned the intent – they simply provided a framework for carrying it out properly.

It was a reminder that good intentions, on their own, don’t always protect us.

The conversations that matter most are rarely about money

Across both sessions, something became very clear. The most useful conversations are rarely about balances, forms or numbers.

Victoria spoke about the importance of understanding someone’s decision‑making style. Would they want an attorney to be cautious or pragmatic when there isn’t an obvious answer? Would preserving capital always come before comfort, or would quality of life take priority? Would they prefer a professional opinion early, or only if absolutely necessary?

These conversations don’t create a checklist. They give an attorney a compass.

Tina approached this from a different angle. In her work supporting families with funeral planning, she sees how hard it can be when loved ones are left guessing. Families rarely regret the choices they make; they regret not knowing whether those choices felt right.

She spoke candidly about the practical realities people are often unprepared for – decisions that feel urgent (but sometimes aren’t), the emotions and family dynamics that surface, and even practical but easily overlooked details, like what ashes are actually like to handle. These aren’t morbid topics. They’re real ones. And talking about them in advance often reduces far more anxiety than people expect.

Tina also spoke about how often families default to a very traditional send‑off simply because they don’t realise there are alternatives. Her podcast, Good Goodbyes, explores many of these areas and helps make these conversations feel far less daunting.

Quality of life, red lines and relationships

Another helpful reframe was shifting focus away from outcomes and towards values.

What does “quality of life” really mean to you? Independence, familiarity, comfort, staying at home, not being a burden – these ideas mean different things to different people, and they often evolve over time. Even small, everyday preferences such as food, routines, familiar comforts can have a big impact on wellbeing. Yet they can be easily overlooked if someone can no longer advocate for themselves.

Equally important are emotional red lines. Is there something you would hate, even if others thought it sensible? When would you want someone you trust to say “no” on your behalf? And whose opinions would you want taken into account – and whose might you feel comfortable setting aside?

All three speakers emphasised that clarity here doesn’t just guide decisions – it protects relationships. Conflict so often arises not because people disagree in principle, but because nobody is clear whose view should carry weight when the pressure is on.

Planning as an act of care

What stayed with me most from the morning was how much the framing matters. Planning ahead isn’t about control, pessimism or tempting fate. It’s about removing guesswork from moments that are already emotionally heavy.

Whether we’re talking about POA or funeral planning, the same truth applies: clarity is kind.

These conversations aren’t easy – but they don’t have to be overwhelming. Starting small, with just one question or discussion, is often enough. As Tina put it so perfectly, the aim isn’t perfection; it’s permission. Permission for the people you trust to act with confidence when confidence is hardest to find.

And when these conversations happen early – before they feel urgent or frightening – there can even be space for warmth, openness, and occasionally a smile, as plans are made together.

If this article encourages even one conversation at home, then it will have done its job.