I have not read her published legal decision on this case, but I would like to know what justification under Massachusetts and United States law she used for her decision. Or did she just blow past the law and rule on her whim? If she ruled based on some law, then that needs to be fixed legislatively. If she just ruled based on her whim, then I hope this decision hounds her for the rest of her life and beyond.
I have not read her published legal decision on this case, but I would like to know what justification under Massachusetts and United States law she used for her decision. Or did she just blow past the law and rule on her whim? If she ruled based on some law, then that needs to be fixed legislatively. If she just ruled based on her whim, then I hope this decision hounds her for the rest of her life and beyond. In all 50 states, there are laws providing for judicial supervision of people who are not legally competent (e.g., severely retarded, mentally ill, in a coma, etc.). The court can either appoint a guardian for the person, or the court itself can make major decisions for the person (authorizing surgery, authorizing the filing or settlement of a lawsuit, making investments, etc.)
The concept itself is neither new (it goes back to English law) nor controversial in theory. It becomes controversial in a few cases (this one and Terry Schiavo come to mind), but judges in every state every day are making medical and other decisions for incompetent people.