3 ms·
It doesn't seem particularly difficult. A discerning judge, a caring social worker, and an honest doctor with adequate time to consider the issue carefully sho
by LeifCarrotson 9y ago
It doesn't seem particularly difficult. A discerning judge, a caring social worker, and an honest doctor with adequate time to consider the issue carefully should have little problem seeing the right course of action.
It only becomes difficult when you also have to fight against the incentives.
When the 'guardian' gets to bill the estate when their doctor friend writes something down, and the judges are listening to the letter of the law as argued by the expert lawyers rather than the flabbergasted victims, then it's a hard problem.
- waqf 9y agoYeah, there is no way they should be allowed to bill the estate which they themselves are administrating. In a normal country with a social welfare program, the guardian would have to bill the government — if the government doesn't agree to lay down money to say that this person needs protecting, nobody gets paid. (In an honest no-government-programs libertarian paradise like the US sometimes pretends to aspire to be, the guardian would have to bill some kind of health insurer that covered this specific care: and again, the insurer would take on the task of scrutinizing the claim.)
- logfromblammo 9y agoIt is likely that the person in charge of quality of life and the person in charge of financial decisions should be different people, and somewhat adversarial. Neither should be paid directly out of the estate, and there would have to be a significant disincentive for any collusion between them that does not objectively benefit the ward.
- lazyasciiart 9y agoOh, I see. 1. ???? 2. ???? 3. Now we staff the whole system with attentive, caring, intelligent people who have time to spend on each case.