Supported Decision-Making Service

69 / 80

69
Supported Decision-Making Service for Persons with Disabilities | Service Model
The Human Rights Center for People with Disabilitis
The criticism of the procedural aspects of the appointment of guardians for senior citizens touched
mainly on the following issues:
A.1.2.: The "invisibility"of senior citizens in guardianship proceedings
Testimonies and studies in this field indicate that in guardianship proceedings involving senior
citizens, their voice is not heard, they are not represented and the courts make decisions regarding
their person and property without seeing and/or hearing the senior citizens personally and directly
(Doron and Casdi, 2004; Waxman, 2010). This issue was also raised by the State Comptroller who
found that in certain cases, senior citizens were not even summoned to the hearings which were
scheduled in the applications to appoint a guardian in their matter. As a result of this reality, senior
citizens are deprived of their fundamental liberty without receiving the right to be heard, without
receiving the opportunity to defend their case, and consequently the courts are unable to formulate
an opinion of their position based on a direct and personal impression. This reality is obviously in
direct contrast to the rules of natural justice and the basic principles of administrative law.
A.2.2.: Lack of "professionalism" in the medical evaluation procedure
Testimonies and studies in the field indicate that there are no clearly defined rules regarding
the level of professionalism required of physicians writing reports in guardianship proceedings
at the basic level of primary or secondary legislation. Moreover, executive circulars ostensibly
addressing this issue fail to specify the medical criteria and standards by which the capacity of
senior citizens should be examined in the medical evaluation. Consequently, studies conducted in
this area indicate these reports are relatively meager and lacking in scientific-medical basis. Here
too, the result is that senior citizens are "put" under guardianship without undergoing the required
professional medical and scientific examinations and evaluations.
Criticism regarding substantive aspects of guardianship appointment proceedings for senior
citizens touches mainly on the following issues:
A.2.3.: Deprivation and very severe violation of human rights, liberty and autonomy
of senior citizens
Testimonies and empirical findings indicate that in almost all cases in which applications are filed
for a guardian appointment for senior citizens – the application is indeed accepted. Moreover, in
the majority of the cases "global" guardianship is granted, for both person and property matters
in a manner which deprives them, almost sweepingly and absolutely, of their legal independence.
A.2.4.: Ageism
Another substantive and interpretive criticism in this field holds that the "unbearable lightness" with
which Israeli courts take the liberty to appoint guardians for senior citizens in Israel in such a sweeping
and total manner stems from ageism on the part of the judges and the Israeli legal system. Ageism –
like racism or sexism is the negative and stereotypical social structuring of senior citizens due to their
chronological age and their tagging as "elderly" (a comprehensive overview of this term exceeds the
scope of this schedule. For further discussion see: Doron I. (2013) (Editor) Ageism in Israeli Society:
Social Structuring of OldAge in Israel. Jerusalem: Van Leer).
A.2.5.: Less injurious alternatives are not used
Finally, one of the additional substantive criticisms against the manner in which guardianship
procedures are applied in Israel pertains to the fact that the possibility of applying alternative
legal planning tools as an alternative to guardianship is hardly ever considered as part of the