[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by Hopefull2009

So you think it's ok for a mentally disabled woman, who CANNOT take other forms of birth control, that is at extremely high risk for sexual abuse....you think it's ok that she maintains her "right" to produce a child which will be ANOTHER person she can't take care of?

Then why don't we just give her ALL of her rights and let her stay in an apartment on her own, pay her bills, work a job, manage her own healthcare insurance, her bank account.

I mean, if you are going to give them the right to make one legal decision then why can't you give ALL OF THEM to her?????

To me, the judge errored in the letter of the law.....if the aunt has guardianship to make ALL decisions then she should be able to make ALL decisions.

And if this woman who has the mental capacity of a middle-schooler is allowed to decide her medical fate, then I say let's be fair and give it to ALL of the children of all parents.

That way, if they need an emergency surgery, and they refuse b/c they are scared, then God forbid if we force a patient to endure a medical procedure...that's cruel right?

I have to suggest that you don't know the law the way you seem to think that you do. This is a grown woman, so the issue is conservatorship, not guardianship (regardless of the terminology used in the newspaper article). And like I said, the trend has been to deny full conservatorship in all but the most extreme of cases. Clearly, this judge, who has actually been to law school, applied the law as he understands it, not as he believes the world ought to be.

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

I have to suggest that you don't know the law the way you seem to think that you do. This is a grown woman, so the issue is conservatorship, not guardianship (regardless of the terminology used in the newspaper article). And like I said, the trend has been to deny full conservatorship in all but the most extreme of cases. Clearly, this judge, who has actually been to law school, applied the law as he understands it, not as he believes the world ought to be.

I think we need to be mindful that different states use different terminology and have different laws regarding the restrictions placed on those who "oversee" the care and affairs of disabled adults.

Guardianship is granted in some states, IL for example, and allows for full authority to make medical and mental health decisions, even against the will of the disabled adult. And yes, I do know this from personal experience.

[mercyteapot]

Well, of course full authority can be given. That is what this case was about in the first place. My point is that judges do not, by and large, grant full authority freely. To suggest that people who agree with this policy "haven't thought it through" or even more unlikely, "that the judge erred", both of which have been stated during this thread, is a bit presumptous.

[quezen]

I'm sure judges never err. Judges go to law school and so were lawyers for years, we know how infallible that group is!
Anyway, if that woman has a baby just think about all the money the various agencies involved will circulate in the economy.
Are you feeling ill dear taxpayer-then run to the drugstore for something OTC, there is NO money left for professional care for a regular working person like you!

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by quezen

I'm sure judges never err. Judges go to law school and so were lawyers for years, we know how infallible that group is!
Anyway, if that woman has a baby just think about all the money the various agencies involved will circulate in the economy.
Are you feeling ill dear taxpayer-then run to the drugstore for something OTC, there is NO money left for professional care for a regular working person like you!

The term err would mean that a technical mistake was made in applying the law. Thus far, no one on this thread has stated what that mistake was; what does the law say that this judge violated?

What seems to me more to be the case here is that there is a difference of opinion as to what decision would best serve the interests of this woman, or, in the case of the less charitable responses, economics. A judge isn't allowed to withhold the civil rights of a woman simply because it is going to be a financial burden on society to ensure that they are protected. Of course we all are entitled to our opinions, but they are just that- not necessarily what the law says.

[Hopefull2009]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

Well, of course full authority can be given. That is what this case was about in the first place. My point is that judges do not, by and large, grant full authority freely. To suggest that people who agree with this policy "haven't thought it through" or even more unlikely, "that the judge erred", both of which have been stated during this thread, is a bit presumptous.

The guardian already had full authority or the case wouldn't have went to court in the first place.

So yes, MY INTERPRETATION of what a guardian does is 100% correct.

The problem came when the woman to medical staffers was expressing her desire not to have the surgery done...to me, THIS is where the error came into play.

The aunt had total guardianship, not partial, not temporary, total.

This SAME woman, is not deemed capable of living by herself because she would be a danger to herself...she can't be trusted to fix a meal because no one knows if she would harm herself or others in the process.

However, the judge thought she was LEGALLY mentally capable of making her own medical decisions regarding her reproductive health?

THAT is the aspect I am having an issue with. The woman stated she thought that having a baby would be 'cute' and she could 'watch it grow up'....the guardian would NOT be legally required to take that baby in.

WHY does this woman want to protect her reproductive health? She stated herself: To be able to retain the ability to give birth.

Again, a baby she would NEVER be legally responsible for from the moment it's born.

The aunt is protecting this woman...if she could take other forms of birth control (patches, pills, whatever), then I would be in 100% agreement that the procedure was done for convenience and a less invasive method needed to be tried first.

The aunt did that....and it didn't work. So plan B needs to go into effect.

Like I posted before, just ask social services what happens to these babies...it's not pretty.

[Hopefull2009]

Read the bottom of page 11....this is an entire pamphlet on Illinois guardianship.

It's called The Health Care Surrogate Act.

It provides for 2 things:

1. For someone to be quickly appointed as a guardianship for another in the event of an emergency of various types.

2. IF A GUARDIAN has already been appointed then ALL medical decisions can be made WITHOUT further court review.

http://gac.state.il.us/pdfs/GTAGII/G...anship2006.pdf

....unless someone challenges it.

This woman obviously didn't call someone to file a lawsuit..she isn't capable of doing that...someone associated with either the hospital or the healthcare provider, got that ball rollling for her b/c she was objecting to it.

My POINT is that either a court is going to give full authority to a guardian or it's not. I consider this a necessary medical procedure in this woman's case. Like I stated before, I would be right there with you arguing to the death if this woman was able to take some other type of birth control that the aunt could oversee and manage...just like any other medication.

However..she can't.

[mercyteapot]

What is with the caps? Obviously this woman doesn't have total rights to make these decisions because a court said she can't make this one.

I don't want the thread to deteriorate into a debate on semantics, but there is a difference between minor guardianship and adult guardianship, or what many states call conservatorship. To say that the aunt has total decision making rights in regard to her niece when this court ruled expressly that she doesn't isn't factual.

[Jolie]

Having personal experience as a guardian (not conservator) of a disabled adult in the State of Illinois, I can affirm that Hopefull 2009 is correct that, in certain circumstances, judges in IL do grant total responsibility and authority to a guardian for a disabled adult's physical healthcare, mental healthcare and personal affairs.

This is not a quickie process. It takes months to petition the court, undergo investigation, notify other interested parties (such as relatives, friends, healthcare providers, etc.) so that they may testify to the the necessity and appropriateness of such a guardianship arrangement, and provide an advocate and legal counsel for the disabled adult so that s/he may challenge the petition. Once this process is complete, the guardian must also post a significant monetary bond intended to compensate the disabled individual in the event that it is determined that the guardian failed to act in the interests of the disabled person. Court hearings are held at various points in the process, usually by different judges, so that at the time of the final decision, a ruling is made by more than one judge. Once granted, the guardian must keep in regular contact with the court.

It is definitely not a judgement that is taken lightly, nor should it be. But once granted, the guardian has full responsibility and authority for the charge. Hopefull 2009 is correct that if a case involving medical consent in a full guardianship goes to court in IL, it is because a 3rd party has become involved. Just like the case I discussed from PA, someone with little connection to the disabled individual likely contacted authorities, prompting a hearing regarding roproductive rights.

I seriously doubt that many posters here have any idea the overwhelming expense, responsibility and heartache that goes into being a guardian for a disabled adult. It is not a job for the faint of heart, and I can't imagine anyone vountarily undertaking it unless they have a deep love for the individual and a strong desire to be able to care for the individual in a dignified manner. Interference from outside parties does not help this process. If full guardianship is granted, it should be respected by all parties. If a guardian is found to be acting contrary to the best interests of the charge, then guardianship can and should be revoked, but as long as it is in place, other parties need to butt out. If they think they can do a better job, then they should apply for the guardianship themselves. I'm quite sure that would never happen, given the commitment it represents. Much easier to meddle than to take responsibility.

[mercyteapot]

Oh, it's a complex process, is it? I must not understand that, because it isn't as if I already mentioned that very fact.

Oh, wait a minute...