In an opinion piece published in The New York Times, authors Emily Largent, Andrew Peterson and Jason Karlawish advocate supported decision-making, an alternative to guardianship that emphasizes and retains an individual’s agency and control.
It stands in stark contrast to the usual approach, which famously stripped Spears of all decision-making power and made her feel “traumatized.”
As the authors write in The Times:
Conservative Texans and liberal Californians disagree on much in politics. But legislators in both states agree on a new approach to giving people with cognitive impairments a greater chance for self-determination. It’s called supported decision-making, and it is shaping up to be the most consequential change in the care of older people and others with limitations in mental functioning since the rise of advance care directives in the 1990s.
“The difference between guardianship, the traditional way to help those with such impairments, and supported decision-making is analogous to the difference between a dictatorship and self-rule. Unlike guardianship, which creates an all-powerful guardian and strips the subject of the right to make decisions, in supported decision-making, the individual retains final control over key decisions. That person enlists one or more trusted others, such as family members or close friends, to aid him in making decisions. The supporters are there only to assist.
“The National Council on Disability rightfully describes this approach as ‘the most promising and comprehensive alternative to guardianship.” More support for these life-affirming arrangements is needed.
“Britney Spears’s public efforts to end the nearly 14-year guardianship she was under cast a light on problems with the arrangement that too often remain in the shadows. In seeking to end her guardianship, Ms. Spears testified in court: “I truly believe this conservatorship is abusive. I don’t feel like I can live a full life.’ A judge in Los Angeles concluded in 2021 that the guardianship was no longer needed and terminated it.”
More from Around the Web
More from Mad in the Family
Doubt. Britney’s jailors had her legally compelled to work to compensate them? Really doubt anything presenting itself as an alternative to that. These re-naming events are faux absolution ceremonies. Britney deserves better. Everyone does
This quote is yuck: “the alternative” is “analogous to the difference between tyranny and self-rule”. The admission of “tyranny” is foreboding in itself. An alternative to abject cruelty which maintains the same cruelty is also cruel, like “voluntary” inpatient under threat of force.
The real legislative alternatives to conservatorships are seperation of state and psychiatry, lawyers willing to defy psychiatrists, legal precedent, effective politicians, effective oversight committees and genuine third-party policing.