 |
| Britney Spears in Femme Fatale Tour in the city of Toronto, August 14, 2011. — Photo: hnkkk via Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 2.0) |
The revelations about Britney Spears’ nothing less than grotesque guardianship have been truly grim. The nature and legality of guardianship actions are now in serious question, and those questions MUST be answered. Can people do these things?
So far the news is anything but clear on this subject. The sheer squalor of some of the information and the questions it raises aren’t helping much:
- Why would a “permanent” IUD be required? Is it medical best practice? Seems very unlikely. To my admittedly non-professional knowledge, it’s definitely not best practice, and could cause problems.
- “Debilitating medication”? Has there been any independent scrutiny of this medication? If not, why not? Why didn’t the court appoint a review?
- Privacy? Not mentioned, but doesn’t seem to exist in any normal sense of the word.
- Self-determination? Obviously not. How much control over your life could you have, in that situation?
In the world of stardom, however, these cases aren’t unknown. My mother met Judy Garland on her trip to Australia. Garland was treated like a dog, no more, no less. “Stand up, Judy, sit down Judy, shut up, Judy,” were the entire story. Australians expecting to meet a glamourous Hollywood starlet met an oppressed and miserable kid.
It’s no mystery at all. Money makes monsters, and some of those monsters are in a position to do things like that. It’s actually pretty well-known. The problem is that a lot of people are in similar, totally unpublicized situations, or could be if guardianship is abused. Spears is actually paying for this guardianship out of her own money. Why? Shouldn’t a trust be doing that and oversight expenses? If not, why not?
Not just about her
This case has raised a lot of critical issues affecting many more people. worldwide. Spears’ case should have awakened the law to some obvious opportunities for abuse at the very least.
The wider question of the rights of people in guardianship is very much in question. Financial exploitation is just one of the issues. Mental and physical abuse isn’t unknown, either, including isolation and other high-stress situations. This New York Times article has some very worrying statistics and case studies that emphasize the vast range of grey areas in this area of law.
The sheer scale of loss of individual rights is appalling in some cases. People in guardianship can lose rights, including the right to marry, drive…? Not a good look, at best, an atrocity at worst. Ending guardianship is also complex. Exactly who can be a guardian, and proper review of guardianships, is also pretty vague.
To be clear –
Some guardianships are for disabled people who are truly unable to run their own lives. This is very much necessary. For those in guardianship who aren’t disabled, however, reasons for guardianship are barely mentioned.
Why would anyone not disabled need guardianship?
The need for guardianship should be 100% clear and verifiable:
- Psychological reasons? That’s verifiable, and cross-checkable.
- Medical reasons? Ditto.
- Temporary circumstances? It happens to quite a lot of people who routinely aren’t put in guardianship.
Spears’ case is far from settled. Nothing has been fixed, and the mess remains a mess. The company managing her “estate” (she’s not dead) has asked to withdraw from that role.
What madness is this?
Is it really true that an American court can’t make a decision on the right ways to manage a guardianship? Why? It’s starting to look like it’s the courts that need to be in guardianship. There’s a pile of basic medical practice a mile high that hasn’t been addressed so far.
The legal obligations and liabilities (remember that very important word) of guardians are also apparently sacred non-topics. Why? The law is supposed to be applied, isn’t it? If injury (like medical) is done to the person in guardianship, what are the consequences for guardians? Not mentioned.
It’s not even possible to believe that the court had any intention of
dealing with these issues. Nothing at all has been resolved. This can
never be good enough. Until the rights of people in guardianship and
their recourse to support are clarified, guardianship is a legal loose
cannon putting many people at possible risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment