Then the legal guardian has to try to prove in court that he's right and the 'permanent counsel' is wrong. If the 'permanent counsel' is doing his job, the guardian will only be able to prove that he's right if he is, in fact, acting in the ward's best interest.
To be sure, the notion of a state-appointed advocate poses many problems, but without somebody to oppose guardians' actions incapacitated wards would have zero protection.
How often was Terri represented in court by someone who both (1) wanted her to be rehabilitated rather than killed, and (2) had full access to her medical and guardianship records? If the only people with full access to a ward's medical records want the ward dead, that would seem to rather tilt the scales against the possibility of the ward being allowed to live, would it not?
So basically, the permanent counsel effectively has a veto over every single thing the guardian does, by the simple expedient of forcing the guardian into court to defend every single decision. And your family will be happy with this arrangement, where a complete stranger comes in and demands that they answer to him insofar as your care is concerned, will they? Seems a bit doubtful to me - if you don't think you or your family would enjoy being subjected to that, and I don't think that I or my family would enjoy being subjected to that, then odds are lots of families would object, and hence this is going nowhere fast.
... but without somebody to oppose guardians' actions incapacitated wards would have zero protection.
The guardians are supposed to provide that protection, as the ones who know you best and care about you most. I fail to see how replacing your loved ones with strangers "protects" you better. Now, granted, the law isn't perfect, and there will occasionally be cases that fall through the cracks, because the law isn't perfect. So the question is, is the attempt to perfect it worth the intrusion on families we're talking about? Because I'm pretty sure it's not...