[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by Hopefull2009

If you had bothered to read the section and any of the pamphlet at all, it referred to both minors and impaired adults.

You wanted a legal reference. Well now you have one.

No, I wanted a specific legal example to document that the judge erred by making a decision that he was charged to make. Your response hardly qualifies as one.

[bollweevil]

I think those who cannot take care of themselves, such as this s/p head trauma/mentally disabled person, should not be allowed to procreate. What is so wonderful and important about being able to procreate when one is unable to care for onesself and for the children one produces?

It is soft-hearted but improper, IMHO, to not be more concerned with the children of such parents. Who is going to care for the children of these incapable parents? Do we need more state wards? More foster children? More adoptees? What can we possibly be thinking if we care more about someone's so-called right to reproduce than about the children who would be produced, the innocent victims of someone's "right to reproduce no matter what"?

And that's not even mentioning the rights of those who will support these kids - and their disabled parents! Namely, the US taxpayer. I can hardly support myself and my own kids. Why do I have to support KJ's kids, too, just because she says how nice it would be to watch them grow?

If some think it is sacreligious to prevent pregnancies, that is their right. But, somehow, the taxpayer still winds up paying. Religious organizations might help but our real fall-back, the deep pocket of last resort, is the taxpayer. And some taxpayers are atheists or otherwise not religious. Or they may be religious but think it is immoral or unethical or just doesn't make any sense to bring more children into the world than parents can properly care for.

In the case at hand, the aunt guardian is probably older and unable or unwilling to take responsibility for the niece's babies, should she have any. Who are we to tell the aunt she must or should? I applaud her wish to have the incapacitated niece sterilized. Since that will not be allowed, she can get shots for the niece, maybe, or other long-acting, infrequently administered birth control, I hope.

[bollweevil]

Originally Posted by 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.

The public guardian here doesn't seem to worry too much about his charges. He has, so far, taken more than 2 years to move on a certain matter that I am aware of.

[mercyteapot]

The judge didn't say that she couldn't give the niece birth control. The aunt claims that the niece can't take it for medical reasons, but didn't provide sufficient documentation of that claim in court.

[morte]

Originally Posted by bollweevil

I think those who cannot take care of themselves, such as this s/p head trauma/mentally disabled person, should not be allowed to procreate. What is so wonderful and important about being able to procreate when one is unable to care for onesself and for the children one produces?

It is soft-hearted but improper, IMHO, to not be more concerned with the children of such parents. Who is going to care for the children of these incapable parents? Do we need more state wards? More foster children? More adoptees? What can we possibly be thinking if we care more about someone's so-called right to reproduce than about the children who would be produced, the innocent victims of someone's "right to reproduce no matter what"?

And that's not even mentioning the rights of those who will support these kids - and their disabled parents! Namely, the US taxpayer. I can hardly support myself and my own kids. Why do I have to support KJ's kids, too, just because she says how nice it would be to watch them grow?

If some think it is sacreligious to prevent pregnancies, that is their right. But, somehow, the taxpayer still winds up paying. Religious organizations might help but our real fall-back, the deep pocket of last resort, is the taxpayer. And some taxpayers are atheists or otherwise not religious. Or they may be religious but think it is immoral or unethical or just doesn't make any sense to bring more children into the world than parents can properly care for.

In the case at hand, the aunt guardian is probably older and unable or unwilling to take responsibility for the niece's babies, should she have any. Who are we to tell the aunt she must or should? I applaud her wish to have the incapacitated niece sterilized. Since that will not be allowed, she can get shots for the niece, maybe, or other long-acting, infrequently administered birth control, I hope.

bingo, it would seem to me, that if you can not legally consent to marry, you should not be able to have childre

[bollweevil]

Originally Posted by oooooooooo

Its seems to me that the aunt is not fulfilling her end of the guardianship and is looking for a fix that alleviates her from doing so. If she were truly watching out for this young woman's welfare, then the young woman would not be exposed to men who would take advantage of her. Just my .

There is only one guaranteed method of birth control.

Maybe the aunt is worried that she is not always going to be able to protect the niece - like when she becomes institutionalized eventually, which is what happens to most incapacitated people in the US, I think. Rape at the Board and Care. It happens.

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by bollweevil

What is so wonderful and important about being able to procreate when one is unable to care for onesself and for the children one produces?

It is soft-hearted but improper, IMHO, to not be more concerned with the children of such parents.

I don't think any of us who wish for more caution in this area want this young woman to have a child. For me this isn't about that but about making sure, darn sure, that the disabled are not treated like less than human.

And to make sure a judge takes time to consider that is all I'm asking.

There is an unfortunate aspect in society that considers the disabled as something to be thrown away (i.e. Dr. Peter Singer) . . . Singer argues that "infants similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood - "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" and therefore "simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.". Simon Wiesenthal says about old Pete: "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."

steph

[JustaPatient]

It scares me because that is how hitler got started. Sterilizing the disabled.

[Hopefull2009]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

No, I wanted a specific legal example to document that the judge erred by making a decision that he was charged to make. Your response hardly qualifies as one.

Oh yeah, it qualifies as one allright, and just because you post it doesn't, doesn't make you correct.

The entire purpose of that pamphlet is to let people know how legal guardianship works, how it's determined, and what LEGAL RIGHTS a guardian has over someone that they have full guardianship over.

One of those, is medical decisions.

The aunt had the legal right to make medical decisions over her disabled neice, or else a court case wouldn't have been necessary....that is a fact of the case that you keep overlooking because it's easier than to admit it.

Sorry it didn't "make" your case.

[Hopefull2009]

Originally Posted by JustaPatient

It scares me because that is how hitler got started. Sterilizing the disabled.

What Hitler did by sterilizing the diabled was a COMMON practice in asylums throughout nations that did have them.

It's not as barbaric as you may think.

Asylums back then were horrifying places to have to go to. Raping of female patients by the male staff or other patients was common...there was no such thing as birth control to be given to the patients, and then some patients that had IQ's if infants were having sex with each other.

Guess what happened to the babies that were born? Some of them were killed at birth by their mothers who didn't understand what had happened to them or didn't tell anyone that they were in labor. Some of the babies were born with horrific birth defects due to the high doses of medications/sedatives that were given to the patients at the time.

Adoption was not widespread as it is today, again, because babies were in an oversupply...so a baby born to an "idiot" as it was called back then, was PLACED in an asylum and a horrific cycle continued.

It was done for population control because there was no other way to control it, and there was simply not staff or the means to keep these people locked away from each other 24/7.