It's pointless to look at questions of sanity from an outsiders point of view. If a detailed psychological study of you determines that you are unable to take c

It's pointless to look at questions of sanity from an outsiders point of view. If a detailed psychological study of you determines that you are unable to take care of yourself, and are detached from reality, then you'll have someone appointed to take care of you. To me, it's a bit cruel to think that one could go mad and everyone would simply stand around saying "oh well, it's your right to be insane." Britney's case boils down to two issues. 1. Complaints against the choices made under conservatorship. This has little merit as to start with, if one would make the exact same choices as their guardian then there would be little point in having a guardian. 2. Complaints that everyone is lying about the extent of her condition. This has merit. It should be studied, but we can't really determine it ourself by watching her public behavior under microscope. I understand that a-lot of people are unhappy as well with the extent of the limits Britney is under, but that presupposes she is mentally competent and these limits are thus extreme. E.g. Her boyfriend can't drive her in his car. Naturally letting her boyfriend have free access to kidnapping her isn't in her best interests if she's mentally incompetent. That her parents distrust her boyfriend that much is a huge red flag on his side. E.g. She is on birth control. If she is unable to take care of herself, then definitionally she can't take care of a child either. Is it really in her best interests to let said distrusted boyfriend impregnate her? He could demand child support and use their whole family situation to transfer the conservatorship to him. It's possible her father who has control now is pure scum and the courts are just slow to notice despite this being a high profile celebrity case, but does that sound credible?