[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by Hopefull2009

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.

I don't have a case to make here. This young woman had one, it was made and the judge issued his decision. You keep claiming this aunt has legal rights, which she did, but they were challenged and she lost. Not because I said so. Because that's the way it happened. All your shouting in caps about legal guardianship doesn't changed what happened in this particular case.

[JustaPatient]

Originally Posted by Hopefull2009

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.

But it started him down a slippery slope, and if we do not remember history we are destined to repeat it.


Hitler started with the mentally handycapped. Then moved to the physically handycapped (LIKE ME), the to the jews.

Should I be forcibly sterilized because my child might have a birth defect, that I might give them since I have it? Beause there is an oversupply of children (which there still is)? Where do we put our foot down?


Also just because something is a common practice does it make it right?

[Hopefull2009]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

I don't have a case to make here. This young woman had one, it was made and the judge issued his decision. You keep claiming this aunt has legal rights, which she did, but they were challenged and she lost. Not because I said so. Because that's the way it happened. All your shouting in caps about legal guardianship doesn't changed what happened in this particular case.

...but you aren't getting the point...

The neice had her rights taken away because she was NOT deemed legally capable of making any decisions for herself.

Yet she was deemed capable of making this one when she obviously, even from her own testimony, cannot comprehend that a baby is not a doll but a live human being that needs to be taken care of--a baby she would never be allowed to take care of...and a burden that would be thrust upon the guardian.

That is where the judge made an error.

You can't deem someone 100% mentally incapable of making decisions and then pick and choose which medical decisions to let them make. Either their mind works or it doesn't.

And for the record, if you don't like my cap use, then don't read my posts. The only people that get that bent out of shape over occasional use of caps are my neices who are still in high school.

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by Hopefull2009

...but you aren't getting the point...

The neice had her rights taken away because she was NOT deemed legally capable of making any decisions for herself.

Yet she was deemed capable of making this one when she obviously, even from her own testimony, cannot comprehend that a baby is not a doll but a live human being that needs to be taken care of--a baby she would never be allowed to take care of...and a burden that would be thrust upon the guardian.

That is where the judge made an error.

You can't deem someone 100% mentally incapable of making decisions and then pick and choose which medical decisions to let them make. Either their mind works or it doesn't.

And for the record, if you don't like my cap use, then don't read my posts. The only people that get that bent out of shape over occasional use of caps are my neices who are still in high school.

Again, I didn't deem this young woman one thing or the other. As for the judge, he can and did make a decision that the law you claim doesn't allow he to make. I get that you disagree with it. That doesn't mean it was a legal error or that the aunt's civil rights have been violated here. There is a process and it was followed.

As far as your cap use, how on earth would I know a post includes caps before I read it? This is my thread and I read every post in it.

[subee]

Originally Posted by JustaPatient

But it started him down a slippery slope, and if we do not remember history we are destined to repeat it.


Hitler started with the mentally handycapped. Then moved to the physically handycapped (LIKE ME), the to the jews.

Should I be forcibly sterilized because my child might have a birth defect, that I might give them since I have it? Beause there is an oversupply of children (which there still is)? Where do we put our foot down?


Also just because something is a common practice does it make it right?

This "slippery slope" is a tired cliche. Having a physical disability in no way resembles a mental "handycap." Hitler was Hitler. He no way resembled the ethics committees that have to advise patients, staff and families. Ethics is based on facts. This mentally "handycapped" women in this particular case sounds like she is unable to just say no to sex and exposes her self to pregnancy and STD's. Are we not responsible for her physical safety since she is unable to protect herself from predatory men? Does she not have the right to not become casually pregnant? Does the aunt have the right not to have to take care of another child? There is a oversupply of children on the planet right now - that's why thousands of people can be killed in a single natural disaster because people are forced to live in places not fit for habitation. No one is suggesting that people in these countries be forcibly sterilized.

[Spidey's mom]

I still don't see anyone arguing for anything other than making the process hard - it shouldn't be easy to take away people's rights. Regardless of their mental or physical capabilities.

And what do you mean by "handycap"?

steph

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by subee

No one is suggesting that people in these countries be forcibly sterilized.

No, but a number of you on this thread are arguing against the process by which this decision was made. You know, the process that was put in place to protect everyone's rights? But when that decision isn't the one you all want to hear, then all of a sudden that process is wrong.

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

No, but a number of you on this thread are arguing against the process by which this decision was made. You know, the process that was put in place to protect everyone's rights? But when that decision isn't the one you all want to hear, then all of a sudden that process is wrong.

Exactly.

steph

[morte]

if there is judicial error here, i would think it is the fact that the case was heard at all......if the aunt/guardian had the right to make medical decisions, who is this judge to second guess the first one? that is, the one that gave guardianship in the first place......

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by morte

if there is judicial error here, i would think it is the fact that the case was heard at all......if the aunt/guardian had the right to make medical decisions, who is this judge to second guess the first one? that is, the one that gave guardianship in the first place......

I agree wholeheartedly. If the judge doesn't believe the aunt should have the authority to make such a decision, then he needs to revoke the guardianship outright. It is not reasonable to expect a guardian to be responsible and accountable for a disabled adult's well-being while at the same tying the guardian's hands on such an important issue.