(Impossible to resist!)

This particular case you cite , and I agree with your concern, seems one of caregiver's ethics. I can appreciate fully a director or helping professional wanting to give full participation in life to all persons under his/her care… however, for professionals (not parents, friends et al) 'the appearance of conflict of interest' has to be sidestepped whenever possible.

When I sat on the Colorado State Grievance Board for 13 years, hearing cases …. helping to decide who had and who had not stepped over the lines of law and ethics (with a State DA riding shotgun representing The People) … we saw many cases where a professional's heart sometimes overwhelmed their following the clear-cut ethics of their profession, and the requirements of the law– and that I believed, especially when I chaired the Board, was reason for nuanced response when possible….

but we also saw far too many cases of professionals pressing their own advantage with patients. That required another response altogether, mostw often clearly proscribed, and legal.

One of the most important issues weighed in such matters, rested in part, on the imbalance of power between patient and professional; that is, the ease of influence by one over another.

I think too that some five year olds I've met in life truly would be able to understand the nuances of elections. Certainly many adults who are deemed 'retarded' are able to grasp the principles of 'what is good' for a nation, perhaps more clearly than people with lots of fancy thinking… Certainly I'd say that people with chemicological disorders, which some call 'mental illness' or 'mental disiorders' can still evaluate and choose to vote who and what they believe is useful from their point of view. I have a sense all these decades that idiosyncratic voting, were it to occur, belongs to all of us, not just those designated as 'different.'

But the issue you mentioned, seems one of caregiver ethics. Just my two cents worth

again Jazz, good topic. thanks for bringing it; it's a hidden side of our culture, isnt it? esp now.

This comment is limited to advanced dementia issue: Just to add to janet444's first-hand experience as a witness to her loved one with dementia…. the issue of mental illness, or non compos mentis is written into state Constitutions in some states, and some mental health disorder advocates have sucessfully overturned at least one such. The Federal law is in play also. But the particulars are carefully weighed in the court cases about such.

For instance Sarro's case (he killed two persons, one a mental health patient) and Sarmento's case (he murdered two children 9 and 6 years old) in which each were, years ago, found NOT guilty of murdering persons by 'reason of insanity,' approached the courts via lawyers recently to have their voting rights reinstated.

However, if a court has, after carefully reviewing findings and following the State's laws in presidio, and whichever Federal laws apply, declared a person incompetent by legal measure, then that person's right to vote may apparently, also be rescinded legally.

There is however, in the helping professions, a very clear ethic about NOT inducing persons who are known to be in mid and late stages of dementia, and those in perpetual semicomotose states, to sign any document…. and further that they ought be protected from those who would have them sign documents while non compos mentis. Ethics are higher than the law in most cases.

janet444 regarding your mom, hang in there. Having an immediate family member with Alzheimer's does, you are accurate, require a higher degree of sheltering and protection often…

Dr.E

That sort of thing happens way to much and on both sides.

Anyway, lots of questions. I think what's clear is that if someone — either those who registered her or those who facilitated the voting — tried to manipulate her, there's certainly an ethical breach there, but I think we have to let elderly/disabled people vote, across the board. Then again, I have an uncle who will just vote however his pastor tells him; who's to say he was less or more manipulated than this older woman? If we can agree she should have the right to vote, can't we agree that she also has a right to watch the news and be “manipulated” in whatever way the rest of us are? Sure, nobody should push her to vote one way or another while physically helping her to vote, but outside the “No campaigning beyond this point” sign, I don't see a problem.