Does a disabled person have rights to be bad?

[Cutesie]

I have a question to ask. Let me do it by giving a recent example involving my autistic brother Ikey and me, from which you can extrapolate to all sorts of other areas of living.

There have been incidents in the news about people being attacked in the metro system. Ikey can travel by himself, but it was already a bit later at night (after 9), and the adults in his life - my mother and the staff of his group home - didn't like the idea of him using the train.

They wanted him to use an Uber, but he didn't want to do so. (I don't yet know the reason. Getting the truth from him, especially during an argument, isn't easy.) First, they simply told him, "We ordered an Uber for you." They (and I) tell him all the time what he has to do. When he refused to use it, his manager used persuasion and successfully convinced him to take it, but Ikey was seen as being unreasonable and not fulfilling the expectations of someone in his position.

In the eyes of the world, I am not disabled (developmentally; I do have a physical disability). My belief is that I am autistic, but I don't think that anyone - including professionals - take me seriously. I'm not diagnosed with anything other than depression and anxiety. Therefore, I have no supports and no restrictions.

If I travel late at night by train, all that my parents can do is worry. If I go walking for hours, in middle of the night, through bad neighborhoods and in unfamiliar towns (which I do), they could advise me not to do it. I'm an adult, though, so they can't do anything else.

As I said, this is just one example. The same differences exist with everything else: getting up on time, doing laundry, bathing, eating healthily, and on and on. My question isn't about myself. (It's a very complicated question of its own.) It's about whether controlling Ikey's life is appropriate. Also not being asked is whether there are better ways to communicate with him. There are, and I'm trying to learn what they are.

According to the laws and regulations here, the supports given to the disabled are supposed to be the least-restrictive necessary. Because Ikey is disabled, does that eliminate his rights as an adult to act against his best interests? If someone determines that a certain action (or lack of action) is detrimental, does it automatically mean that he can't do it? I doubt that anyone can give an answer that will satisfy me, but can you try?

 

[Outdated]

I think a lot more depends on Ikey's character rather than his disability. I really don't respond very well at all to people trying to control my life, that's one of the few times you'll see me act on impulse instead of clear and concise thought.

I also hate taxis, no idea why. The only time in my life I've ever used a taxi is when working late shifts until after public transport had closed for the night, and even then only because the employer was paying for them. I'd much rather catch a bus or a train instead. I also hate staying in hotels and would much rather pitch a tent in a campground somewhere.

 

[Crossbreed]

OP, the answer to your question (in the USA) depends on the legal determination of one's competency.* When one is declared legally incompetent, they do not attain the majority rights afforded to a typical 18yo.

Their guardian sits in the same position in their lives that parents occupy for minors.

1. They cannot vote.
2. They cannot grant sexual consent.
3. They must defer to their guardian for medical treatments & testing.**

During the court case, our daughter (effectively) had her own separate attorney (called a Guardian ad litem) to represent her interests in the matter.

*Based on my experiences in Wisconsin.
**On the forms that I filled out for my daughter's guardianship, there were provisions where a higher functioning ward could weigh in on some of these things.

 

[Crossbreed]

(I misread the topic as, "Does A Disabled Person Have Rights...?")

 

[Roisin]

Does he have rights to be bad...
I can't help but stumble on the idea of good and bad in this context.

Its a balance between rights and responsibilities from my perspective. Ikey has people supporting his rights, but contained within this is imo an exchange where he has responsibilities to those who support him, but is this a fair trade?

 

[Cutesie]

Does he have rights to be bad...
I can't help but stumble on the idea of good and bad in this context.

Its a balance between rights and responsibilities from my perspective. Ikey has people supporting his rights, but contained within this is imo an exchange where he has responsibilities to those who support him, but is this a fair trade?

I don't know if the question was phrased correctly by me. I'll try again, briefly:

If a person is deemed to need supervision over their activities, should the carers make him do everything that they think is best for him, or should he be allowed to make some poor choices like other adults are allowed to do?

More than asking a question, I'm really expressing empathy for my brother, screaming on his behalf, "It's not fair!"

 

[Neonatal RRT]

I don't know if the question was phrased correctly by me. I'll try again, briefly:

If a person is deemed to need supervision over their activities, should the carers make him do everything that they think is best for him, or should he be allowed to make some poor choices like other adults are allowed to do?

More than asking a question, I'm really expressing empathy for my brother, screaming on his behalf, "It's not fair!"

As I am reading this, the same could be asked of a parent-child relationship. The answer lies not in some set of "rules of conduct" per se, but rather this is more individualized.

As a parent, you're always wanting to be more in the role a mentor, an educator, or guidance counselor when it comes to the topic of "what the child is allowed to do". It is highly dependent upon the child in terms of their level of intellect and emotional control, and their personality. Some children can and should be allowed to experiment and make mistakes (little ones), as this is how learning and wisdom is achieved. For many children, the rate of brain growth and neuroplasticity is there that they literally have genius-like qualities in terms of their ability to learn. Too much controlling by the parent and it results in a very rapid decline in this ability, and worse, it prolongs dependence upon the parent. Not enough control and there is the potential risk of physical harm. Children are often quite intelligent, however the problem is they don't know what they don't know, and have a very limited view of their world. It's a balancing act.

Now, having said that, if the parent has fear-based behaviors, anxieties, controlling behaviors, etc. it can manifest itself into some truly toxic and harmful interpersonal interactions. No good comes of this.

Just some background here:

As a parent or caregiver, one is always assessing, or at least should be, whether or not the child is ready to take on additional challenges, skills, responsibilities, etc. Initially, this requires supervision and guidance. I am often in favor of the "see one, do one, teach one" method of learning. I show you how to do something, give you some guidance, then have you repeat it a few times, now flip the role and you teach me, so I know that you have some understanding. That said, not everyone is a good teacher in this regard. If you set the child or student up for failure, they probably will, and this is never good.

Some children simply have a limited intellect, poor emotional control (for their age), have poor concentration skills, and/or their personality is not conducive to giving the parent or caregiver the confidence in allowing them to act in their self interest. Now, the parent is in a situation where they sense that they need to "tighten up the guardrails" with this particular child. Of course, this often triggers the child to go on a rant about what is fair or not. "How come my brother gets to do this and I don't?" The reality is that, "You're not your brother. He's a totally different person, operating on a totally different level than you, and you're not ready for it just yet." Children, having a very limited view of their world, will see this as an insult and the parent is a horrible person.

So, within the context of someone with a physical or mental disability, the same basic rules apply. As a parent, you want the child to become an adult that is the least dependent upon other people/services as reasonably possible. It's best for everyone. Autonomy and self-reliance often has a positive impact on mental health. Control and dependence has an adverse effect. Again, within this context, a reasonable balance must be achieved. There is a responsibility of the parent/guardian to set some boundaries. How tight those boundaries are requires some assessment of an infinite number of variables.

Is there a possibility that your brother is being subjected to an excessive amount of control and manipulation? I couldn't say. I don't have all the information, but do consider that apart from some sort of toxic or harmful personality issues with the parent/guardian, there is also the reality of some degree of responsibility here. It's never as simple a situation as it may seem.

 

[Judge]

You have to consider your individual state's position over situations involving parental custody rights, power of attorney and legal guardianship. And the inevitably they are all likely to be adjudicated on a highly individual basis over competency concerns and any question of whether or not one has done something beyond the legal limitations and individual jurisdictions of such specified terms involving the welfare of another person.

In essence, if you are looking for some kind of generic answer to such terms of custody, you're not likely to find them. One thing for sure though, no one has absolute dominion over another person. That such responsibilities all inevitably have limits.

Something I learned firsthand after my mother authorized me as having power of attorney over her affairs given her decline in health. And how much our attorney emphasized not the responsibilities so much as the legal limitations under the state of California.

If this sounds complicated, it's because IMO it is.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

I find this question and its answers so far super interesting.

I work in child and adolescent psychiatry, so my workday sometimes involves determining whether a child or an adolescent is able (right now) to decide for themselves what's good for them. For example, when I (and my senior doctor) believe that a kid is in real danger of harming themselves in a dangerous manner if we let them go, then we recommend that, for the moment, they stay on the closed ward. If the kid refuses, the decision is ultimately up to their parents or legal guardian. If the parents refuse but we believe the child to be in serious danger (which doesn't happen often, usually the parents want their child to receive help), we can call the police who will contact child social services, and the kid stays.

Is this a massive step into the kid's autonomy? Yes, but it involves a life and death matter, is thoroughly assessed by us and by a judge, and will only be for as long as the kid really needs it. And we assume that, generally, acute danger to oneself or others is due to an illness.

Once they turn 18, the decision is no longer their parents but their own. Since I work in child psychiatry, though, I'm not entirely sure on the matter of what exactly happens if it's an adult.

Now, for kids, a severe danger can also be when a child or teenager behaves in a way that's not potentially lethal right now but can severly damage their further life. Examples are: A kid keeps taking hard drugs, a kid who's in an age where school is mandatory refuses to go to school for years (home-schooling is not allowed where I live), a kid does sex work, etc. In cases like these (and the kid doesn't respond at all to forms of intervention), measures such as a temporary stay at a children's psychiatry, a stay in a institution meant to educate children, or others can be also mandated by a judge, even if the child isn't physically harming themselves or others.
In short, children aren't "allowed" to do things which can cause real, long-term harm to their lives, because someone will intervene, against their will if necessary.

Cases of adults are much harder. In theory, an adult can do anything they want, including seriously harming themself, as long as it's not illegal, they're not harming others, or they're not endangering their own life and someone informs the authorities.
An adult who has a legal guardian is generally more limited because the rules which apply are more similar to a child's. If the person with the legal guardian is someone who clutters in a way that's a danger to their health and safety, then the guardian is in an easier position to demand that that person receives help, against their will if necessary. If a legal adult clutters their place, probably nothing will happen until it gets REALLY bad.

But, legally, a legal guardian doesn't have endless rights either. A person under guardianship can decide to smoke, to drink (within normal limits). Same as no doctor and no judge would force a kid into psych because the child drinks or smokes sometimes, even if the parents forbid it. Things must be kept in perspective.
I am no expert when it comes to legal guardianship for adults, so please see what I write about that with caution.

 

[Outdated]

It's a very difficult topic, it seems in some cases there simply are no good solutions.

A decision to be placed under public guardianship is haunting Margaret

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

A person with disabilities has the same rights (rights is a legal term) as people without disabilities, at least in the USA.

No one has the right to be bad, if that means hurting others, breaking the law, stealing, etc.

All adults have the right to conduct their lives and make choices as they wish, provided these choices do not break the law, etc. as above.

The question I think people here are trying to address is: does a person who is perceived by others to be making a poor decision, have the right to make choices that are bad for them.

Example: Should a person with moderate intellectual disability be permitted to smoke cigarettes? If smoking is bad for your health and can kill you, and this is well established and well known, should “we” allow someone with ID to smoke? Let’s stipulate the person with ID does not and cannot understand the risk.

Why would we restrict the right of the person with ID to smoke, but not the rights of people who can and do understand the risks? It seems to me the people who need the restriction are the ones who know what they are doing is “bad.”

Example 2: The same person as above needs surgery. Surgery has risks. The person (so stipulated) is unable to understand the risk - benefits of the surgery. The patient (in the USA) must sign a document called “informed consent.” This means the surgery with its risks and benefits have been explained and understood by the patient. The doctor can clearly see the patient has ID and does not understand. There is no guardian. The doctor is unable to perform the surgery. Why would we deny life saving or life-improving surgery for someone because they cannot understand it? Or: Who are we to make these decisions for someone else?

Both of these examples illustrate situations in which there is no right answer. It depends on individuals involved, the situation, the location, the extent or absence of an emergency.

In practice there are ways some people find to wiggle around these situations, but they put themselves and others at risk when they do so.There are others who will not budge and hold to the letter of the law. Most don’t know what the law is and will insist on this or that and it is nonsense.

In the USA we attempt to resolve this problem by having the courts step in to decide if and how many of the adult rights a person can have removed and granted to a guardian. The court relies on the assessment and testimony of three expert witnesses (a doctor, a nurse and a social worker, previously certified by the court.)

In my state, there are 12 adult rights. Some of them are: the right to sue and defend, the right to make medical decisions, the right to make financial decisions, the right to decide where to live, the right to have a job, the right to decide where to live, the right to marry, the right to choose one’s own friends, etc. (The law also can separate guardians of the person from guardians of the property.)

Some of these rights can be assigned to a guardian. A legal guardian can assume the rights to sue and defend, make medical decisions, make financial decisions, make decisions about where to live, etc. Other rights cannot be assigned to any guardian, and these are the right to marry, the right to have a job. This means that if the court takes away the right to marry, this person cannot marry no matter what. This person cannot hold a job no matter what, if the right to work is removed.

IRL, most people look the other way for benign violations of these laws. If Johnny’s guardian decides he can do some supervised work somewhere, no one is going to take him to court over permitting it.

There are also Human Rights that no one can legally take away. These include the right to medical care, the right to go to school, the right to food, etc.

The laws are complex and difficult to understand. Every time I went to court with a client I would learn some new wrinkle in the system.

I am just getting started on this topic and I’m sure few have even read this far.

Some readers may think I am opposed to guardianship for people with disabilities and this is not the case. Some people benefit from some kinds of guardianship or even plenary guardianship. Others do not. Some guardians care and try the best they can, others are detrimental and even exploitive of the client.

The point I’m trying to make is that it is a complex topic and people should educate themselves on it fully before making guardianship and other major decisions about a person’s life.

 

[velociraptor]

If I travel late at night by train, all that my parents can do is worry. If I go walking for hours, in middle of the night, through bad neighborhoods and in unfamiliar towns (which I do), they could advise me not to do it. I'm an adult, though, so they can't do anything else.

My habit of doing things solo freaks my wife out and she has occasionally dragged my mental health into it. By which I mean I go camping by myself in snowstorms or I will go paddle boarding by myself in questionable weather.

https://flic.kr/p/2qkEXVj

The last fight didn't go well because I snarled back at her that I would rather spend what life I have actually LIVING rather than spending my evenings dozing to crappy geriatric murder mysteries aimed at a demographic that passed away three decades ago. My marriage is obviously not in wonderful shape right now to the point where I sometimes question why others here would seek one out.

Anyhow, yeah. If you do anything even a bit sketchy with a mental health history you'll have your nose rubbed in it. Never mind that I recently passed a physical that certified me as stable enough to drive a school bus despite also having a schizophrenia diagnosis.

Neurotypicals, yay.

 

[Cutesie]

Thanks to everyone for your input. I read it all (including yours, @WhitewaterWoman). Perhaps I'll have more to say later.

 

[Outdated]

I would rather spend what life I have actually LIVING....

This has also been my philosophy for most of my life. You only get one go at it.