Home
Panel on life of R. D. Laing, dissident psychiatrist
Letter from advocate Charlie McCarthy about Ray Sandford's forced electroshock
Long-time mental health rights advocate Charlie McCarthy criticizes the "best interest" approach of Ray Sandford's general guardians, Lutheran Social Services of Minnesota [LSSMN] which is owned by the six Minnesota Synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [ELCA].
January 2, 2009
David Oaks, Executive Director
MindFreedom, International
454 Willamette, Suite 216 - POB 11284
Eugene, OR 97440-3484 USA
RE: Best Interest
Dear David:
I was reading your email about Ray Sandford and forced electroshock and noticed in the letter from Mr. Jonsgaard of Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ECLA) the following: “Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota has a long tradition of serving vulnerable children and adults, and careful systems are in place to ensure that decisions are made with the person's best interest in mind.” Lutheran Social Services across the country is very involved in the child welfare and adoption system, and they do great work on behalf of children and their families. It is unfortunate they have applied the “best interest” philosophy in their involvement with guardianship for vulnerable adults.
“Best interest of the child” is an established principle in child welfare. It is the basis on which court decisions are made whether to remove a child from a family and release him or her for adoption. Because the person is a child, it is assumed he or she has not reached sufficient maturity to make adult decisions. Often the child is not even asked what he believes would be in his “best interest”. It is assumed the child welfare professionals know best what is in the child’s “best interest”, and judges weigh heavily on such professional opinions.
Applying the “best interest of the child” philosophy to an adult with a mental illness or a senior with dementia is common in the adult system. In Montana, we have NAMI members and other advocates across our state who are court-appointed guardians for people diagnosed with mental illness. Many of these guardians and/or conservators have never met their ward, yet they are willing to make decisions for elective surgery, medication changes, or other significant decisions for the ward “because the poor dear has a mental illness and just does not understand,” which is what one person told me who has been a “guardian” for scores of mental hospital patients over the years.
It is this same paternalistic “best interest” that is being applied by courts and prosecutors, and by far too many public defenders and private attorneys who are legally and ethically supposed to represent their client. As a person employed by the state child welfare system for over thirty years, it was very difficult for me to understand, when I became a mental health advocate in a law firm, that we do not advocate for the “best interest” of our clients. We are to advocate for the client’s expressed interests. So, even if I thought ECT would be in Ray Sandford’s “best interest”, I would NOT be representing Ray if I said so, or if I advocated for what I thought was in his best interest.
Advocates for adult persons with disabilities have an obligation to continue to point out that adults with disabilities are not children in need of protection. Ray is perfectly capable of expressing what is in his own “best interest”, but his ELCA guardian is helping others to take his voice away.
Charlie McCarthy, Mental Health Advocate
Helena, MT
