But what about a mental patient's right to privacy?
There a bunch of people on this board taking treatments. Do you think we should dox them?
Maybe anonymize every case, use a case # instead of a name? Us that system for suspected sex offenders too, anything where the "suspect" may suffer libels even if innocent. Would you want your neighbors to know you were ever accused of kookiness?
It doesn't matter what some particular person might think is best for
him. The question is what's best for the
community. The only way to insure that the courts are functioning even close to how they should is to hold proceedings in public.
Every arrest is a public record; when anyone is charged with any crime their name is known, even if charges are later dropped or they are acquitted at trial. The media might choose to protect a rape victim's name, but it becomes a matter of public record when she has to testify in open court about what the defendant did, and his lawyer gets to cross-examine her.
You don't seem to understand that the issue is not anybody's mental health or treatment. Medical care is a private matter. The issue is that a conservatorship is a
legal proceeding that deprives the subject of their basic rights, usually for the rest of their lives, and it is intended for circumstances where someone is
permanently disabled by Alzheimer's, brain damage or other severe conditions. It is not supposed to be imposed in cases of ordinary treatable mental illness. There is extensive evidence that the conservatorship process has been abused to seize a subject's assets. Spears' case finally drew
public attention, after 13+ years, when she was finally allowed to speak for herself at a
public hearing.
Read this account of a conservator who ultimately went to prison, and get back to us about whether all these things should be kept secret.
In the United States, a million and a half adults are under the care of guardians, either family members or professionals, who control some two hundred and seventy-three billion dollars in assets, according to an auditor for the guardianship fraud program in Palm Beach County. Little is known about the outcome of these arrangements, because states do not keep complete figures on guardianship cases—statutes vary widely—and, in most jurisdictions, the court records are sealed. A Government Accountability report from 2010 said, “We could not locate a single Web site, federal agency, state or local entity, or any other organization that compiles comprehensive information on this issue.” A study published this year by the American Bar Association found that “an unknown number of adults languish under guardianship” when they no longer need it, or never did. The authors wrote that “guardianship is generally “permanent, leaving no way out—‘until death do us part.’ ”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights
I. "But what about a mental patient's right to privacy?" @
casebro
I agree there might want to be confidentiality with respect to patient records if the person wants to keep things such as a medical diagnosis, symptomatology, and medication, private, so that is not part of the medical record. But preventing certain information from being public could mask underlying abuse problems. Public records can help make things more transparent, traceable, and in return, make it easier to hold abusers accountable.
There is a balancing act between a person's right to privacy, and First Amendment rights of access to court records.
A good read about sealing court records is in the article, WHEN IT COMES TO SEALING COURT RECORDS, THE PRESUMPTION OF PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIRES THAT YOU “JUST SAY NO” by Senior Attorney Leslie Brueckner and Board Member Beth Terrell, on
publicjustice.net, Originally printed in the Trial News by the Washington State Association for Justice, June 2017, Volume 52, Number 10.
Aside from the U.S. Constitution, the article give some reasons Why You Should Care about the public right of access:
First, unwarranted secrecy in the courts undermines the public’s faith in the civil justice system and allows private litigants to highjack the court system for their own ends. The courts are created by the people, for the people. Secrecy perverts the system, and allows a public forum to become a tool for keeping wrongdoing secret. (12)
Second, in some instances, where public health and safety is at stake, the sealing of court records can put lives in danger. To give just one example, through the use of sealed court records and secret settlements, Remington Arms Company was able to conceal evidence that its most popular rifle can fire without anyone pulling the trigger. It wasn’t until Public Justice intervened in a case on behalf of one of Remington’s victims—the father of a young boy who was killed by one of the misfiring rifles—that court records involving the dangerous rifles were finally unsealed. (13)
Public record of medical information is a highly-sensitive subject.
Information can unfairly and unjustly be used against an innocent person. There can be stigma, and prejudice, against someone with a mental health diagnosis, even though that person poses no danger to themself or others.
II. "Every arrest is a public record..." @
Bob001
There may be instances where there is no public documentation of an arrest, or say, a citation.
Court records can be sealed, impounded, sequestered, lost, misfiled, redacted, or destroyed. There could also be issues that a certain field or fields of information in electronically-filed records weren't filled out by whoever was responsible for filling them out.
Courts seal records without adequate justification, I paraphrase from the article, Sealed cases, sealed documents, sealed opinions, by Eugene Volokh, that appeared in
The Washington Post.
From that article:
Too often, judges draw a curtain of secrecy around court proceedings. For example, courts have given special treatment to politicians, lawyers, celebrities, and other notables, sealing their cases to shield them from unwanted attention.
Clean Slate law in Pennsylvania from the mycleanslatepa.com website says:
"Clean Slate is the first law in the nation to seal certain criminal records from public view through an automated process."
When a record is sealed, it is hidden from public view, and in most cases you can deny it ever happened. The following can be sealed in PA:
- Criminal charges on which you were not convicted ("not guilty" or dropped charges), even if you were convicted on other charges in the case
- Summary offenses after 10 years
- Most misdemeanor convictions after 10 years without another conviction.
Not having certain records can make researching and/or investigating either difficult or impossible.
Public records could help show if there's a pattern, history, and/or connections between people, places, and things.
III. "...guardians...control some two hundred and seventy-three billion dollars in assets" @
Bob001
That quote from the article,
How the Elderly Lose Their Rights, by Rachel Aviv, for
The New Yorker, is an eye-opener. An
estimated $
273,000,000,000 (yearly) in assets are controlled by guardians (either family members or professionals).
I'll cover three issues with that quote; 1) the estimate is likely way low, 2) assets go to those not intended by the will of the ward, conservatee, or principal (person in a power of attorney), and 3) there's no true and accurate accounting.
1) the $273 billion estimate is likely way low
$273 billion dollars (estimated) divided by 1.5 million in guardianships (estimate) = $180,000 per person in guardianship.
The Founder of the Guardianship Fraud Program, based in Palm Springs, Florida, was quoted (although not in
The New Yorker article), as saying,
"It’s been estimated that there is approximately 250 to 300 billion dollars in the hands of guardians. We believe that is a very low estimate. We probably are over 500 billion, and probably even closer to a trillion dollars."
2) assets go to those not intended by the will of the ward
In abusive/exploitative/fraudulent guardianship, conservatorship, power of attorney authorizations, it's highly likely the wards', conservatees', or principals' wishes/will weren't followed. They were betrayed
3) there's no true and accurate accounting
Abusive conservatorships, guardianships, power of attorney authorizations, are prevalent. There is little to no accountability. There's little to no oversight. Rampant.
Think of the trauma a family member feels that they couldn't stop the abuse. Think of the trauma the conservatee, ward, or principal feels at being isolated, alone, not having contact with their trusted loved ones. They may have been taken out of their familiar, comfortable environment, once-surrounded by some of their treasured possessions, treasured relationships. Then they are can be taken to an unfamiliar place, unannounced, unplanned by them, but premeditated by the abusers.
The vulnerable are prey to the greed of the depraved. You can kiss your civil rights, civil liberties, dignity, property, relationships, and life goodbye.
You're a disposable good to be manipulated in the cruel hands of abusers.
It's plausible that Britney Spears could've died broken and betrayed by the conservatorship, that on its face,
appeared to protect and take care of her. But appearances can be deceiving. Like many other conservatorships, guardianships, and power of attorney authorizations, Britney was the victim of an abusive, exploitative, and fraudulent scheme, perpetrated by many cruel people.
Posted Friday, 01 Oct 2021, by Ernie Marsh, about 9:03 p.m. (EDT)
