[Draft 2] - Mental Illness Conservatorship

[Simone Republic]

Motivation

I would have called this “Free Britney Act” if I can use real names. But this is, indeed, largely related to all the problems that arose from Britney Spears. I have no opinions on her music (I am not known for my music tastes anyway) but I believe the courts’ treatment of her welfare is shocking and disgusting.

This is an issue that I have wanted to tackle for a long time (since Psychiatric Care Act, so some two years ago) but not had the time to do.

There are only five likely scenarios where a guardian is required. Namely, if the person:

1. has not yet reached the age of majority in that state;
2. suffers from dementia or major cognitive impairment, usually from old age;
3. suffers from intellectual disability of some kind, usually at birth;
4. suffers from mental illness or disorder;
5. suffers from acquired brain damage due to accident or illness.

This resolution deals only with case (4) on the assumption that the mental illness or disorder may be curable. Other cases will be dealt with in due course. Note that in line with the language in GA299, the word "conservator" is used here, whereas in all other cases the word "guardian" is used. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am essentially dealing with the American version here and restraining it across the WA.


Category: Regulation/Legal Reform (can't find of a category that really fits, it's not totally civil rights and it's not really healthcare)

Draft 2

The World Assembly (WA),

Affirming the WA’s efforts to protect those needing mental and health support,

Noting that a temporary guardian ("conservator") may sometimes be imposed on an individual battling severe mental illness to manage the affairs of that individual;

Believing that imposing a conservator is intrusive and should only be done if strictly necessary;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. "Authority" means one or more judicial authorities in charge of conservatorship matters in a WA state and to enforce this resolution.
   2. "Conservatorship" means a mandate imposed on an individual suffering from mental illness (“conservatee”) by the said authority, in order to allow another individual (“conservator”) to manage the affairs of the conservatee on a temporary basis.
   3. "MHS" means a mental health specialist qualified according to the laws of that WA state.
2. Scope.
   
   1. This resolution governs only conservatorships imposed on a conservatee due to the individual being deemed by at least two MHSs to be temporarily mentally incompetent due to mental illness or mental disorder, and only if it is imposed
      under the direction of the judicial authority, and:
      
      1. only when it is expressly against the will of the conservatee; or
      2. with the views of the conservatee, however expressed, explicitly disregarded.
   2. This excludes any guardianship imposed where the individual:
      
      1. has explicitly affirmatively consented to the guardianship;
      2. has not yet reached the age of majority in that WA state;
      3. suffers from irreversible cases of dementia, major cognitive impairment, intellectual disability at birth, or acquired brain damage due to accident or illness.
3. Duty of care.
   
   1. A conservator has a fiduciary duty and a non-delegable duty of care to a conservatee.
   2. A conservator commits an offence if they are found to have been derelict in their duties as defined in sub-clause (3)(a) and clause (5)(a).
   3. A conservator can be a family member of the conservatee, or a professional guardian.
   4. A conservator can only be appointed by the authority.
   5. Fees for the conservator shall be paid for by the authority and not by the conservatee.
4. Qualifications. Anyone who acts as a conservator shall:
   
   1. Be at or above the age of majority in that WA state;
   2. Be capable of taking care of the conservatee;
   3. Be capable of actively promoting and protecting the interests of the welfare of the conservatee, in areas such as housing, food supply, medical care as well as in education, employment or in general care;
   4. Be free of any undue conflicts of interests with the conservatee, especially of a financial nature;
   5. Be willing and able to promote the conservatee’s interests ahead of the conservator’s own interests.
5. Finances.
   
   1. The authority shall determine if a conservator shall manage the finances of a conservatee as a trustee directly, or if a separate trustee is required, depending on the wealth of the conservatee.
   2. Any trustee managing a conservatee’s finances shall aim for full preservation of capital, subject to supervision by the judicial authority.
6. Conservator. A conservator can only be imposed by an authority on an individual as conservatee, subject to due process, if it deems that the individual:
   
   1. has a fully diagnosed temporary mental illness (as testified by two MHSs) of sufficient degree to warrant imposing conservatorship;
   2. is incapable of making reasonable decisions on their own circumstances, and
   3. the affairs of the individual can only be managed by a conservator and that no other less restrictive means are available.
7. Regular review.
   
   1. Each authority must regularly review the need for conservatorship, based on the latest evaluation of the conditions of the conservatee as determined by at least two MHS.
   2. Each authority must also consider any review requests or appeals from a conservatee. No conservator may impede the ability of a conservatee to request for a review.
   3. The MHS appointed by an authority for each review shall be different from the MHS appointed at the time conservatorship is imposed, and different MHS shall be used for each subsequent review.
8. Recognition and appeals.
   
   1. No one who is (or was) employed by the WA or any of the committees or as a representative of a WA state to the WA may be placed under conservatorship, regardless of their sanity (or lack thereof).
   2. No WA state may grant recognition of a conservatorship from another WA state without a separate judicial process.
   3. All appeals against the decisions of the authority shall follow the judicial process of that WA state.
   4. If a conservatee exhausts the appeals processes of that WA state, the conservatee may directly appeal to the WA Judiciary Committee on a de novo basis.

Char count: 4,868

[Tinhampton]

The Britney Spears sound was possibly the single greatest musical innovation of the past thirty years... and especially of the early 2000s. Sorry, Christina.

Your BBCode is broken - it should look as follows:

Code: Select all

The World Assembly (WA),

Affirming the WA’s contributions to protecting the rights of those not legally competent (GAR 299);

Praising the protection offered to those in temporarily need of mental support such as GARs 176, 540, 696, and 703;

Noting that, in some unfortunate cases, a temporary guardian, also sometimes known as a conservator, is needed to assist in the affairs of those requiring such support;

Concerned that conservatorship is an extremely intrusive measure that should only be used in the most dire of circumstances, and horrified by allegations of abuse;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

[list=1]
[*][b]Definitions[/b].
[list=1]
[*]Authority means an entity designated to manage matters regarding conservatorship in a WA state, whether it is a judicial, juridical, or administrative entity. Such an entity must be a government entity.
[*]Conservatee means any sapient individual under the jurisdiction of a WA state and subject to a conservatorship by a conservator.
[*]Process means, for this resolution, a process of imposing a conservatorship on a conservatee by an authority.
[*]This is subject to due process (especially regarding appeals), and subject to the judicial, juridical, or administrative processes of that WA state.
[*]For the purpose of this resolution, anyone below the age of majority is legally incompetent due to age and not due to conservatorship.[/list]

[*][b]Conservatee[/b].
[list=a]
[*]No individual may be deemed a conservatee unless deemed temporarily legally incompetent due to temporarily lack of mental acuity or a mental or psychological breakdown.
[*]At least two competent medical professionals qualified on such matters are required to offer their opinion before a conservatee can be placed under conservatorship.[/list]

[*][b]Conservatorship[/b].
[list=a]
[*]Conservatorship is defined as the mandate granted to a conservator by an authority to manage the affairs of a conservatee as if the conservatee is not legally competent.
[*]The conservatorship should be strictly limited to matters strictly necessary to be handled by a conservatorship.[/list]

[*][b]Fiduciary duty[/b].
[list=a]
[*]A conservator owes an absolute fiduciary duty and an absolute duty of care to a conservatee.
[*]A conservator that fails to adhere to such duty commits a criminal offense.
[*]Any financial decisions made by a conservator shall be to protect the wealth and reduce the possibility of capital loss for the conservators.
[*]Such duties are owed regardless of whether any familial or bloodline relations exist between the conservator and the conservatee.
[*]Fees for providing conservatorship shall be paid for by the authority, and not by the conservatee, to avoid appearances of potential conflicts of interest.[/list]

[*][b]Contesting conservatorship[/b].
[list=a]
[*]A conservatee that is able to retain professional advice to contest a conservatorship is able to the resources of the conservatee for such purpose.
[*]A conservatee that can present a coherent argument to an authority on why a conservatorship should be removed is deemed by default to demonstrate the lack of a need for a conservatorship, subject to due process.[/list]

[*][b]Regular review[/b].
[list=a]
[*]Each authority must regularly and frequently review the necessity of a conservatorship, based on the latest evaluation of the conditions of the conservatee in accordance with clause (2).
[*]The professionals appointed by a court for each review shall be different from that appointed at the time conservatorship is imposed (per clause 2), and at each subsequent review (per clause 5(a)).
[*]The frequency of such reviews is defined by the authority.[/list]

[*][b]No automatic mutual recognition[/b].
[list=a]
[*]No WA state may grant recognition of a conservatorship from another without a separate process.
[*]As an example, state A cannot grant recognition of a conservatorship granted by state B (regardless of whether state B is a WA state) unless the conservators from state B initiates a process in state A.
[*]The WA notes that different states may have vastly different criteria on whether someone would qualify for conservatorship (or to be released from it) and does not encourage mutual recognition.[/list]

[*][b]Appeals[/b].
[list=a]
[*]No conservator may impede the ability of a conservatee against conservatorship.
[*]Each authority is to enforce and interpret this resolution.
[*]All appeals against to the decisions of the authority shall adhere to the appeals process of that WA state.
[*]If a conservatee exhausts the appeals processes of that WA state, the conservatee may directly appeal to the WA Independent Adjudicative Office.[/list][/list]

With that said, however, I cannot support 8d as written. Final appeals should be properly directed to the courts of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee. The IAO, a compliance enforcement agency, is in no way suited for this task.

[The Ice States]

I agree with Tinhampton above; I'd also encourage you to do some proof-reading to improve grammar. Otherwise this looks good!

[Simone Republic]

With that said, however, I cannot support 8d as written. Final appeals should be properly directed to the courts of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee. The IAO, a compliance enforcement agency, is in no way suited for this task.

Moved.

I agree with Tinhampton above; I'd also encourage you to do some proof-reading to improve grammar. Otherwise this looks good!

Some clean up as my grammar is tricky as usual.

[The Ice States]

Another comment: how does 1d work if someone is legally competent and a minor? For example, New Zealand sets the age of majority at 20 despite essentially all rights associated with adulthood coming in at 18; many countries have mechanisms for emancipation of minors at an even lower age, eg 16.

[Simone Republic]

Another comment: how does 1d work if someone is legally competent and a minor? For example, New Zealand sets the age of majority at 20 despite essentially all rights associated with adulthood coming in at 18; many countries have mechanisms for emancipation of minors at an even lower age, eg 16.

I changed the line to:

"Anyone that is legally incompetent in a WA state due to being below the age of majority in that WA state is ineligible for conservatorship." Or maybe "may not be placed under conservatorship".

Parental abuse is not covered by this resolution as there's plenty of it elsewhere. (This includes such as parents being granted the legal right to eat their children without their parent's consent, as per your Cannibalism Act).

[The Ice States]

Another comment: how does 1d work if someone is legally competent and a minor? For example, New Zealand sets the age of majority at 20 despite essentially all rights associated with adulthood coming in at 18; many countries have mechanisms for emancipation of minors at an even lower age, eg 16.

I changed the line to:

"Anyone that is legally incompetent in a WA state due to being below the age of majority in that WA state is ineligible for conservatorship." Or maybe "may not be placed under conservatorship".

Parental abuse is not covered by this resolution as there's plenty of it elsewhere. (This includes such as parents being granted the legal right to eat their children without their parent's consent, as per your Cannibalism Act).

Honestly I'm not really a fan of 299 in general and wouldn't mind a repeal, for reasons including but not limited to the cannibalism issue. As to this draft in particular though your reword seems fine.

[The Overmind]

Support in principle and largely in practice.

--

Suggestions:

I strongly encourage you to carefully define or replace the terms "mental or psychological breakdown" as these are not actually terms in psychopathology, and, thus, cannot, without proper definition, be meaningfully evaluated by a competent medical professional qualified in such matters.

A conservator in dereliction of the aforesaid duties commits a criminal offense.

Suggested: A conservator must be held criminally liable by the member nation from which they derive their authority if found to be in dereliction of the aforesaid duties.

A conservatee that can present a coherent and convincing argument to an authority on why a conservatorship should be removed, or that is found competent by a medical professional qualified in such matters, is deemed to hold reasonable grounds to remove the need for a conservator, subject to due process.

The reason being that some people who are mentally competent may be unable, for unrelated reasons, to provide such an argument.

[Simone Republic]

I strongly encourage you to carefully define or replace the terms "mental or psychological breakdown" as these are not actually terms in psychopathology, and, thus, cannot, without proper definition, be meaningfully evaluated by a competent medical professional qualified in such matters.

I changed it to "suffering from significant mental or psychological issues, qualified by the following sub-clause."

All other changes made.

[Tigrisia]

While we applaud the goal of this resolution, in its current draft, we won't vote for the resolution.
We believe that the resolution lacks a fundamental point: That conservators should support the ward. They should enable the ward to live a life as independently and self-determined as possible. The will of the ward has to be respected and followed wherever reasonable. That means if a ward does not want a particular conservator, they should be allowed to simply say "no".
OOC: For real-live laws, see for example the §1816 and 1821 BGB (Germany). Also take into account the UN CRPD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventio ... sabilities

[*]"Process" means, for this resolution, a process of imposing a conservatorship on a conservatee by an authority. This process itself is subject to due process (especially regarding appeals), and subject to the judicial, juridical, or administrative processes of that WA state.

We believe that due to the severety of this process, the question whether or not someone needs a conservator and if so, how far the rights and duties of this conservator go need to be decided by courts and should not be simply done by an administrative act.

[*]No individual may be deemed a conservatee unless deemed temporarily legally incompetent due to (i) a temporarily lack of mental acuity, or (ii) suffering from significant mental or psychological issues, qualified by the following sub-clause.

What about physical issues?

For the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia at the World Assembly
Ambassador Thomas Salazar
Head of Mission

[Simone Republic]

While we applaud the goal of this resolution, in its current draft, we won't vote for the resolution.
We believe that the resolution lacks a fundamental point: That conservators should support the ward. They should enable the ward to live a life as independently and self-determined as possible. The will of the ward has to be respected and followed wherever reasonable. That means if a ward does not want a particular conservator, they should be allowed to simply say "no".
OOC: For real-live laws, see for example the §1816 and 1821 BGB (Germany). Also take into account the UN CRPD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventio ... sabilities

This resolution is squarely aimed at the American version of conservatorship, where someone can be forcibly placed under conservatorship explicitly against their will, on the grounds that the court determines that the conservatee is not in a position to manage their own affairs due to mental ill health. It is not really something that is prevalent in Europe.

I'd look to tighten the wording further regarding duties, responsibilities etc.

What about physical issues?

Explicitly not included because even if someone has significant physical impairments, it does not prevent them from exercising their own mind.

[Tigrisia]

This resolution is squarely aimed at the American version of conservatorship, where someone can be forcibly placed under conservatorship explicitly against their will, on the grounds that the court determines that the conservatee is not in a position to manage their own affairs due to mental ill health.

OOC: That's the same in Germany. What I was thinking of is a right of the conservatee to say "no" to a specific conservator, not to conservatorship in general. Then, malicious conservators could be "fired" on request of the conservatee.

Explicitly not included because even if someone has significant physical impairments, it does not prevent them from exercising their own mind.

OOC: Yes, but they may still need a conservator (e.g. it is difficult for a person confined to bed to fight in court, hence they need someone to assist them).

[The Overmind]

Explicitly not included because even if someone has significant physical impairments, it does not prevent them from exercising their own mind.

OOC: Yes, but they may still need a conservator (e.g. it is difficult for a person confined to bed to fight in court, hence they need someone to assist them).

This is not what conservators do. In the case that they need a proxy to help them fight in court, etc., for physically disabling reasons, they would not do so through a conservatorship.

[Tigrisia]

This is not what conservators do. In the case that they need a proxy to help them fight in court, etc., for physically disabling reasons, they would not do so through a conservatorship.

OOC: I believe once again that this is due to differences in law. In Germany, this is one and the same. See above linked law.

[Simone Republic]

This is not what conservators do. In the case that they need a proxy to help them fight in court, etc., for physically disabling reasons, they would not do so through a conservatorship.

OOC: I believe once again that this is due to differences in law. In Germany, this is one and the same. See above linked law.

Yeah, the American version is different, and I am targeting that version, so I will revise the resolution to spell it out more clearly down the road.

Draft 1

The World Assembly (WA),

Affirming the WA’s contributions to protecting the rights of those not legally competent (GAR 299);

Praising the protection offered to those in need of mental and health support such as GARs 176, 540, 696, and 703;

Noting that, in some unfortunate cases, a temporary guardian, sometimes known as a "conservator", is appointed to assist in the affairs of those requiring such support;

Anxious that conservatorship is extremely intrusive and should only be used in dire circumstances against individuals with serious issues ("conservatees"), and horrified by allegations of abuse;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. "Authority" means an entity designated to manage conservatorship matters in a WA state, and to enforce and interpret this resolution.
   2. An "authority" can be a judicial, juridical, or administrative entity. Such an entity must be a government entity.
   3. "Process" means, for this resolution, a process of imposing a conservatorship on a conservatee by an authority. This process itself is subject to due process (especially regarding appeals), and subject to the judicial, juridical, or administrative processes of that WA state.
   4. Anyone that is legally incompetent in a WA state due to being below the age of majority in that WA state is ineligible for conservatorship.
2. Conservatee.
   
   1. No individual may be deemed a conservatee unless deemed temporarily legally incompetent due to (i) a temporarily lack of mental acuity, or (ii) suffering from significant mental or psychological issues, qualified by the following sub-clause.
   2. At least two competent medical professionals qualified on such matters are required to offer their opinion before a conservatee can be placed under conservatorship.
3. Conservatorship.
   
   1. Conservatorship is defined as the mandate granted to a conservator by an authority to manage the affairs of a conservatee as if the conservatee is not legally competent.
   2. The conservatorship should be strictly limited to matters absolutely necessary to be handled urgently by the conservator.
4. Fiduciary duty.
   
   1. A conservator owes an absolute fiduciary duty and an absolute duty of care to a conservatee.
   2. A conservator must be held criminally liable by the member nation from which they derive their authority if found to be in dereliction of the aforesaid duties.
   3. A conservator is required to have the professional skills and expertise necessary to act as a conservator, as defined by the authority.
   4. Fees for providing conservatorship shall be paid for by the authority, and not by the conservatee, to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
5. Contesting conservatorship.
   
   1. A conservatee that is able to retain professional advice to contest a conservatorship is able to the resources of the conservatee for such purpose.
   2. A conservatee that can present a coherent and convincing argument to an authority on why a conservatorship should be removed, or that is found competent by a medical professional qualified in such matters, is deemed to hold reasonable grounds to remove the need for a conservator, subject to due process.
6. Regular review.
   
   1. The WA intends for conservatorships to be placed on individuals on a temporarily basis and only in dire circumstances only.
   2. Each authority must regularly and frequently review the necessity of a conservatorship, based on the latest evaluation of the conditions of the conservatee in accordance with clause 3.
   3. The professionals appointed by a court for each review shall be different from that appointed at the time conservatorship is imposed (per clause 3), and different for each subsequent review (per clause 6(a)).
   4. The frequency of such reviews is defined by the authority but should be reasonably frequent according to the calendars of that WA state.
7. No automatic mutual recognition.
   
   1. No WA state may grant recognition of a conservatorship from another without a separate process.
   2. As an example, state A cannot grant recognition of a conservatorship granted by state B (regardless of whether state B is a WA state) unless the conservators from state B initiates a process in state A.
   3. The WA notes that the definition of mental health may vary between species and therefore an individual deemed to require conservatorship in one WA state may not be deemed to require conservatorship in another WA state.
8. Appeals.
   
   1. No conservator may impede the ability of a conservatee to appeal against conservatorship.
   2. All appeals against to the decisions of the authority shall adhere to the appeals process of that WA state.
   3. If a conservatee exhausts the appeals processes of that WA state, the conservatee may directly appeal to the WA Judiciary Committee.

[RemiorKami]

Will give more substantial feedback later.

[Simone Republic]

This has gone to Draft 2. Due to the somewhat choppy grammar and the fact that this topic needs very careful consideration, this would likely go through some further changes.

[ATLANTIARIV]

Motivation

I would have called this “Free Britney Act” if I can use real names. But this is, indeed, largely related to all the problems that arose from Britney Spears. I am not a fan of Britney Spears (in terms of her entertainment) but I believe the courts’ treatment of her welfare is shocking and disgusting.

Note that this does not include cases such as dementia or old age/not reaching age of competence etc., which is being handled separately. It's very specific to temporary health issues affecting acuity, say mental health breakdowns, effects of recreational drugs etc. Old age issues involve crossing many other resolutions so it's more complicated.

Category: Regulation/Legal Reform (can't find of a category that really fits, it's not totally civil rights and it's not really healthcare)

Draft 2

The World Assembly (WA),

Affirming the WA’s contributions to protecting the rights of those not legally competent (GAR 299);

Praising the protection offered to those in need of mental and health support such as GARs 176, 540, 696, and 703;

Noting that a temporary guardian, sometimes known as a "conservator", is appointed to assist in the affairs of those suffering from mental incapacity, sometimes known as "conservatees";

Anxious that conservatorship is extremely intrusive and should only be imposed in the most critical circumstances;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. "Authority" means a government entity designated to manage conservatorship matters in a WA state, and to enforce and interpret this resolution. An "authority" can be a judicial or administrative authority.
   2. "Conservatorship" means a mandate granted to a conservator by an authority to manage the affairs of a conservatee due to the conservatee being deemed to suffer from mental incapacity (defined in clause 4(a)).
   3. "Process" means a process of imposing a conservatorship on a conservatee by an authority. This process itself is subject to due process, and subject to the judicial or other administrative processes of that WA state.
2. Scope.
   
   1. This resolution governs only conservatorships imposed on the direction of the authority, and when the imposition is expressly against the will of the conservatee or with the views of the conservatee expressly disregarded by the authority.
   2. This resolution does not govern any guardianship imposed with the consent of the conservatee, or imposed on anyone deemed legally incompetent due to that individual not having attained the age of majority, or other conditions such as dementia or permanent brain damage.
3. Duty of care.
   
   1. A conservator has a fiduciary duty and a non-delegable duty of care to a conservatee.
   2. A conservator shall be held liable by the WA state from which they derive their authority if found to be in dereliction of the aforesaid duties.
   3. A conservator can be an immediate family member of the conservatee, or a professional guardian appointed by the authority.
   4. Anyone acting as a conservator shall ensure that they are free of potential or actual conflicts of interest.
   5. The qualifications of a professional guardian shall be determined by the authority.
   6. Fees for providing conservatorship shall be paid for by the authority, and not by the conservatee.
   7. The conservatorship should be strictly limited to matters absolutely necessary to be handled urgently by the conservator.
4. Conservator. A conservator can only be appointed if the authority deems that:
   
   1. the conservatee has a mental disorder or mental handicap of sufficient degree (together, "mental incapacity") to warrant an imposition of conservatorship, and that at least two competent medical professionals qualified on such matters have testified to the lack of mental capacity of the individual;
   2. that the mental incapacity limits the ability of the individual in making reasonable decisions on their own personal circumstances; and
   3. that the individual's affairs can only be managed by a conservator and that no other less restrictive or intrusive means are available.
   
   
5. Regular review.
   
   1. The WA intends for conservatorships to be placed on individuals on a temporarily basis and in strictly necessary circumstances only.
   2. Each authority must regularly and frequently review the need for conservatorship, based on the latest evaluation of the conditions of the conservatee as determined by at least two competent medical professionals.
   3. Each authority must also consider any review requests from a conservatee. No conservator may impede the ability of a conservatee to request for a review.
   4. The medical professionals appointed by a court for each review shall be different from that appointed at the time conservatorship is imposed (per clause 4(a)), and different for each subsequent review.
   5. The frequency of such reviews is defined by the authority but should be reasonably frequent according to the calendars of that WA state.
6. No automatic mutual recognition.
   
   1. No WA state may grant recognition of a conservatorship from another WA state without a separate process.
   2. As an example, state A cannot grant recognition of a conservatorship granted by state B (regardless of whether state B is a WA state) unless the conservators from state B initiates a process in state A.
7. Appeals.
   
   1. All appeals against the decisions of the authority shall follow the judicial process of that WA state.
   2. If a conservatee exhausts the appeals processes of that WA state, the conservatee may directly appeal to the WA Judiciary Committee.

Char count: 4,859

™️
You know how to talk to me,

[Simone Republic]

I strongly encourage you to carefully define or replace the terms "mental or psychological breakdown" as these are not actually terms in psychopathology, and, thus, cannot, without proper definition, be meaningfully evaluated by a competent medical professional qualified in such matters.

I changed it to "suffering from significant mental or psychological issues, qualified by the following sub-clause."

All other changes made.

Further changed "mental illness or disorder". The wording is adopted from English law.

This is not what conservators do. In the case that they need a proxy to help them fight in court, etc., for physically disabling reasons, they would not do so through a conservatorship.

OOC: I believe once again that this is due to differences in law. In Germany, this is one and the same. See above linked law.

The resolution is subtly aimed at the American version and to reduce abuses of any state that adopts the American version of conservatorship.

[Simone Republic]

Clause 8a has been added:

No one who is (or was) employed by the WA or as a representative of a WA state to the WA may be placed under conservatorship, regardless of their sanity (or lack thereof).