ReganJ., Intervention Through Adult Protective Services Programs, Gerontologist18(3): 250, 251 (1978) [hereinafter referred to as Intervention], citing MathiasenG., Guide to the Development of Protective Services for Older People (National Council on Aging, Washington, D.C.) (1973); ReganJ.SpringerG., Protective Services for the Elderly (Special Senate Committee on Aging, 95th Cong., 1st Sess.) (Committee Print, July 1977).
2.
Intervention, supra note 1, at 251.
3.
Id. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §46a-17 (West Supp. 1983); Wis. Stat. Ann. §55.02 (West Supp. 1982). See generally ReganJ., Protecting the Elderly: The New Paternalism, Hastings Law Journal32(5): 1111 (May 1981) [hereinafter referred to as Paternalism].
4.
See Paternalism, supra note 3.
5.
42 U.S.C.A. §§3021 et seq. (Supp. 1983).
6.
42 U.S.C.A. §§1397 et seq. (Supp. 1983).
7.
See, e.g., N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §131 (McKinney 1982 & Supp. 1983). See generally BurrJ., Protective Services for Adults: A Guide to Exemplary Practice in States Providing Protective Services to Adults in OHDS Programs (Administration on Aging, Washington, D.C.) (1982).
8.
Intervention, supra note 1, at 251.
9.
See, e.g., Ala. Code §38-9-1 to −11 (Supp. 1982); Md. Ann. Code art. 88A §§106-110 (1979 & Supp. 1982); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§161-D:1:6, 465-A:12 (Supp. 1981). See also Paternalism, supra note 3, at 1117-19.
10.
See, e.g., Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2111.02 (Page 1982) (providing for assistance of legal counsel); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2111.04 (Page 1982) (requiring prior notice to the proposed ward). See generally KappM., Legal Guardianship, Geriatric Nursing2(5): 366 (October 1981). For arguments that current guardianship laws provide inadequate protection, see MitchellA., The Objects of Our Wisdom and Our Coercion: Involuntary Guardianship for Incompetents, Southern California Law Review52(5): 1405, 1432–33 (July 1979); MitchellA., Involuntary Guardianship for Incompetents: A Strategy for Legal Services Advocates, Clearinghouse Review12(8): 451, 459 (December 1978); HorstmanP., Protective Services for the Elderly: The Limits of Parens Patriae, Missouri Law Review40(2): 215 (Spring 1975).
11.
See, e.g., Fla. Stat. Ann. §410.104 (West Supp. 1983) (no mention of any procedural rights for the proposed ward).
12.
See, e.g., N.C. Gen. Stat. §108A-106 (Supp. 1982) (emergency intervention may be ordered where “there is likelihood that the disabled adult may suffer irreparable injury or death if such order is delayed”) (emphasis added).
13.
Paternalism, supra note 3, at 1117.
14.
See, e.g., Tenn. Code Ann. §14-25-102(9) (Supp. 1980) (“services aimed at preventing and remedying abuse, neglect, and exploitation”).
15.
Paternalism, supra note 3, at 1118.
16.
See, e.g., Ohio Rev. Code §2111.13 (Page 1982) (duties of guardian of person); Ohio Rev. Code §2111.14 (Page 1982) (duties of guardian of estate).
17.
See, e.g., Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 43A §803(4) (West Supp. 1982-83).
18.
See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. §55-19-1(1) (Int. Supp. 1983) (impairment described as “infirmities of aging”); Md. Est. & Trusts Code Ann. §13.705(b) (Supp. 1982) (“senility”); Fla. Stat. Ann. §410.102(1) (West Supp. 1983) (“advanced age”).
19.
See, e.g., S.C. Code Ann. §43-29-30(1) (Law Co-op. Supp. 1982) (“individual is unable to provide for his own protection”).
20.
See, e.g., Horstman, supra note 10; Intervention, supra note 1.
21.
See, e.g., AtkinsonG., Towards a Due Process Perspective in Conservatorship for the Aged, Journal of Family Law18(4): 819 (1979–80); FrolikL., Plenary Guardianship: An Analysis, A Critique, and a Proposal for Reform, Arizona Law Review23(2): 599 (1981); RohanP., Caring for Persons Under a Disability: A Critique of the Role of the Conservator and the “Substitution of Judgment Doctrine,”St. John's Law Review52(1): 1 (Fall 1977); ShermanR., Guardianship: Time for a Reassessment, Fordham Law Review49(3): 350 (December 1980).
22.
See AlexanderG., Premature Probate: A Different Perspective on Guardianship for the Elderly, Stanford Law Review31:1003 (July 1979); See GutheilT.AppelbaumP., Clinical Handbook of Psychiatry and the Law (McGraw-Hill Co., New York) (1982) at 241 (the primary negative impact on the individual of involuntary guardianship is the experience of coercion).
23.
See, e.g., Ala. Code §38-9-4(a) (Supp. 1982) (“All protective services shall be in conformity with the wishes of the person to be served unless the person is unable or unwilling to accept such services….”).
24.
BlackH., Black's Law Dictionary (West Pub. Co., St. Paul, Minn.) (5th ed.1979) at 1055.
25.
ReganJ.SpringerG., supra note 1, at 45.
26.
See Restatement (Second) of Agency, §122 (American Law Inst. Publishers, St. Paul) (1958).
27.
Uniform Probate Code §§ 5-501 to −505, Uniform Laws Ann. 8:28 (West Supp. 1983)
28.
Uniform Durable Power of Attorney Act, Uniform Laws Ann. 8:81 (West Supp. 1983).
29.
See Alexander, supra note 22; LibowL.ZicklinR., The Penultimate Will: Its Potential as an Instrument to Protect the Mentally Deteriorated Elderly, Gerontologist13(4): 440 (Winter 1973); MillerB., The Michigan Medical Decision Treatment Act, in Dilemmas of Dying: Procedures and Policies for Decisions Not To Treat (WongC.SwazeyJ., eds.) (G. K. Hall & Co., Boston) (1981); RelmanA., Michigan's Sensible “Living Will,”New England Journal of Medicine300(22): 1270 (May 31, 1979).
30.
See generally RosoffS., Living Wills and Natural Death Acts, in Legal and Ethical Aspects of Treating Critically and Terminally Ill Patients (AUPHA Press, Ann Arbor) (1982) at 186. See also KappM., Response to the Living Will Furor: Directives for Maximum Care, American Journal of Medicine72: 855 (1982).
31.
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Uniform Health Care Consent Act, approved and recommended for enactment in all the states at its annual conference, Monterey, California, July 30–August 6, 1982, reprinted in President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment (U.S. Gov't Printing Ofc., Washington, D.C.) (1983) at 423-28 [hereinafter referred to as Deciding to Forego Treatment].
32.
Id. at 145-48. “The Commission therefore encourages the use of existing durable power of attorney statutes to facilitate decisionmaking for incapacitated persons….” Id. at 149. LombardJ., Legal Problems of the Aged and Infirm — The Durable Power of Attorney — Planned Protective Services and the Living Will, Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal13(1): 1 (Spring 1978).
33.
See, e.g., Va. Code §§11-9.1, 11-9.2 (Supp. 1983).
34.
Cal. Civ. Code §§2400-2407 (West 1983); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§58-610 to −617 (Cum. Supp. 1982); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 201B, §§1-7 (West 1983–84); Wis. Stat. Ann. §243.07 (West 1982).
35.
Uniform Durable Power of Attorney Act, supra note 28.
36.
MeyersD., Medico-Legal Implications of Death and Dying (Lawyers Coop., Rochester, N.Y.) (Cum. Supp. 1982) at 50-51.
37.
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Uniform Law Commissioners’ Model Health Care Consent Act (Chicago, Ill.) (1982) at 4.
38.
Id. at 16.
39.
Deciding to Forego Treatment, supra note 31, at 145-48. “[T]he Commission's conclusion that both instruction and proxy directives are important for medical decisionmaking that respects patients’ wishes….” Id. at 145.
40.
Delaware's natural death act explicitly provides for the appointment of an agent for medical decisionmaking if the patient becomes incapacitated. Del. Code Ann. tit. 16 §2502(b) (1982).
41.
Returning the Mentally Disabled to the Community: Government Needs to Do More (Comptroller General's Office, Washington, D.C.) (1976).
42.
See generally on abandonment, AnnasG.GlantzL.KatzB., The Rights of Doctors, Nurses and Allied Health Professionals (Avon Books, New York) (1981) at 249-51.
43.
See generally on the caregiver/patient relationship, FiscinaS., Medical Law for the Attending Physician (Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, Ill.) (1982) at 3-32.
44.
See KappM., Promoting the Legal Rights of Older Adults: Role of the Primary Care Physician, Journal of Legal Medicine3(3): 367 (September 1982).