Should we abolish the guardianship in Bulgaria?
Mental illnesses are present in human history for thousands of years (the earliest evidences for their existence are the “covered with holes” skulls found approximately 50 000 BC – interpreted as the first attempts to cure the mental illness). We would have thought that humanity had enough time to find appropriate ways to treat or at least – to provide favorable conditions and care for those who suffer from them. Unfortunately, history shows otherwise. From accusing those suffering from mental illness being witches in the Middle Ages, up to cage them in institutions where they have been severely tortured in order to be “released from the demons” in the 19th century, the attitude to them is a shameful aspect of the human history. As late as the 20th century tangible changes are occurring – hospitals are being founded and medicines are being developed with the only reason to relieve their conditions. Despite the significant progress, nowadays situation is still far from the perfection.
In Bulgaria the deinstitutionalization of adults with disabilities is still not a fact. A frequent measure of “dealing” with people with mental illness is putting them under full or limited guardianship or in other words – entire or partial limitation of their legal capacity or their “voluntarily” accommodation at social institutions. When there is a need of putting somebody under full guardianship, the appointed guardian takes all legal decisions and in fact he entirely controls the life of the “incapacitated” person. As a result, the sufferer has no right to make an independent choice, neither the right to take any decision even when it concerns his/her treatment. It is not difficult to illustrate this “retention”:
Such is the case of K. B. – 43 years old man with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, who is put under full guardianship. The guardian is his mother, who is also suffering from a mild form of the same disease. She overtakes all of his functions, does not allow him to express his own opinion and ignores his desire to change his psychiatrist. He is extremely depressed and crushed and unable to develop a faith and confidence in his abilities – which could be the key for achieving results in his treatment.
The guardianship not only restricts people with mental illness, but also makes them one hundred percent dependent on the desires and wills of their guardians. Furthermore there is no adequate control over whether the guardians actually act in their interest or aiming to “protect them” (which probably was the will of the legislator nearly 70 years ago when regulating the guardianship system).
D.P., a 42 aged woman, is put under full guardianship. A social worker from the village where she lives is appointed as her guardian. Later she has been moved to a sheltered home in Sofia. The long distance between the village and the capital prevents the guardian from performing his duties. All attempts to appoint other person living in Sofia as guardian are unsuccessful because the social worker refuses to assist. According to him, he is not responsible for D. P. from the moment she leaves the village. As a result, D.P. can not even change her address registration and therefore – take any advantages of social privileges, such as discount card for transport. Similar is the case of M.D., a 61 year old woman put under full guardianship. Her address registration coincides with the permanent address of her guardian (her relative). The woman relies on him to send her the pension by post which is the reason it is usually late. The guardian loyalty is also in doubt because M.D. has not received anything from the income from her land.
Putting people who suffer from mental illness under guardianship not only eliminates their legal capacity and makes them dependent and vulnerable to manipulations and abuses by inimical relatives, disinterested social workers, but also it could become a precondition for committing criminal acts. An example for this is the famous case “Stanev against Bulgaria”. People like Mr.Stanev (who has been put under limited guardianship, therefore he should be able to make decisions for his own life) are being sent against their will in social institutions by public servants who are supposed to be their guardians even if they have never met them before. They are forced to live there in inhuman and degrading conditions of life which undoubtedly worsen their health. In this way, in practice, they are being deprived of liberty.
The sentence is a mental illness, and the punishment – guardianship.
The need for radical changes is obvious and urgent. Absurd ideas, as putting people suffering from mental illness under guardianship, do not contribute to improving their condition, neither to helping them to deal with the difficulties which accompany their diseases. On the contrary – it harasses them in extra, forcing them to seek different ways to overcome the obstacles, created long time ago by outdated laws – a product of antiquated concepts that completely contradicts to all global and international standards on the subject, but also this cuts across our confidence as a country which ensures:
“Universal human values: liberty, peace, humanism, equality, justice and tolerance… raising, as a highest principle, rights, dignity and security of the individual… proclaims … its determination to create a democratic, legal and social state” (Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, 1991).