corrvin | Heirloom? Because "takeback" is too tacky?

So in a recent Ravelry thread, someone is discussing what to make for her grandmother, who is elderly, in poor health (so doesn't go out much) and smokes. The main rationale for disclosing these things about Gramma is to delineate what sort of things she might like, and choose yarn wisely so she won't go up in flames if she drops a cherry. I think these are fine considerations and have no beef with them.

The thing that really tripped me out about this thread was the going on about how the knitter wanted to make an "heirloom" for her grandmother. Now, to me, there are two or maybe three different kinds of heirlooms:

Items handed down because the recipient has reached a milestone, such as a christening gown or wedding gown, which is handed down in time for the next generation to wear it.
Items handed down because the giver has reached a milestone, such as a sewing machine that the original seamstress is now too blind to use. (This is making me tear up.)
Items distributed at the death of the original owner. (It's kind of a special case of #2 there, in a way.)

So, my question is this-- if you're making an item for an older family member, and insisting that it be an heirloom, aren't you really saying that you're going to take the item back? And isn't it kind of, well, rude to say "I'm putting extra work and care into this, not because YOU will appreciate or need that extra care, but because I want this item to be in good shape when *I* get it again"?

Or am I totally misreading this handing things up the generational chain so that they can be handed back down? I just think the main point in giving a gift shouldn't be because you want that exact gift back.