Thread by @FreedomFriesInc

(1) I cannot think of a mental health diagnosis that would require a previously mentally competent 39 year old woman to have an IUD in her body as contraception, apparently against her wishes. Note I said apparently, because...

https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1410413169781075975

(2) I do not have the full information about Britney Spears' case. In the US, as in NZ (where my legal knowledge is greater), there appear to be two types of conservatorship - personal and financial. This is as it should be.

I was concerned to hear about the IUD.

(3) I can understand that a conservator (whether family or professional) might think Britney's health is better served by having an IUD. But such measures are among the most controversial decisions a conservator or court can ever make.

Esp. if it has been in place for 12 years.

(4) In NZ law & (surely?) US law, the principle of intervening to the least amount necessary tends to override drastic measures like this. Episodes of mental illness that are temporary & treatable are different to say significant intellectual impairment that will never change.

(5) If, as Britney alleges, the IUD(s) has/have been there, against her will, since age 28 then the lengthy duration is tantamount to forced sterilization. In our kind of country that's pretty much illegal.

Any 39yo woman would face increased risk if planning a pregnancy.

(6) Not only is the ability to reproduce a sacred human right, an IUD is an extremely invasive and sensitive procedure, when other methods exist. I can't imagine the distress it would cause to a woman or girl who didn't choose it. It's not without risk, either.

(7) I hesitate to speak as if Britney's claims are true, but if they are true, have reporters been seeking further info about this?

That's another thing. In NZ such proceedings are always private, & parties & media can be found in contempt of court if publishing details.

(8) Whether or not Britney wants to have another child, or is physically able to, she should not be forced to have an IUD in place against her will. That's just so morally wrong. No wonder she has ongoing mental health issues.

Courts are meant to protect people from this.

(9) Also, Britney claims she did not know she could ask the court to end the conservatorship. Either the law doesn't grant a person the right to be given that information (and that should change) or she is confused, which is possible.

In NZ they must be given that info.

(10) I'm not trying to brag about NZ law in this respect - heaven knows there are plenty of flaws in our law & government systems.

I truly admire the protections of the US Constitution, and a ton of other things about the US. My friends & family are tired of hearing this, lol.

(11) I think there is a strong public interest in debating the principles behind legislation about the personal welfare of adults who may lack what is termed "competency" to make major life decisions. Incompetency can be temporary or permanent. Who gets to decide this, matters.

(12) NZ has several different laws designed to protect and assist such people. They share some principles in common: privacy, dignity, access to information, access to legal representation, and a ton of court procedure designed to make the process go as smoothly as possible.

(13) If the court finds that Britney Spears is so compromised by her mental health diagnosis that she cannot even be trusted to decide whether or not to have an IUD, then the court should not allow her to speak about it in public. However, checks and balances are needed.

(14) Where a vulnerable person has been protected from damaging his or her interests through being silenced, then there darn well better be robust protocols in place to ensure the person's welfare is not compromised while out of sight.

I care about laws that could harm others.

(15) I'm not taking an interest in her case in order to try to fight for her, or to gossip about her. I write about any kind of case that is an example of risks that you and I might one day face if things were to develop that way.

Everyone deserves legal protection and rights.

(16) Mental health is a topic we should talk about whenever we want or need to. The public are stakeholders in laws that could impact them one day.

You might have a family member who needs a conservator. You might be harmed by a stranger who should have been detained.

(17) It requires a culture change. When people get interested in the nuts and bolts of how vulnerable people are treated by the state, they can advocate for law reform.

Many American laws about such things are pretty antiquated. Your system was designed to be slow to change.

(18) And slowness has its strengths. It has been said NZ makes "the fastest laws in the West" (Geoffrey Palmer.) Neither extreme is ideal.

So I think the Britney Spears case is interesting in a number of ways. Many of us feel for her on a human level & want to see her do well.

(19) If I was one of the professionals involved I would want to see certain factual information presented to the public if that is necessary and would not cause more harm.

Because people are being sent a message about the law that is not good for anyone.

(20) If it's in NZ, I can explain to people how the various laws work and what the safeguards are. Such as access to legal advice, time periods for regular review etc.

But I am at sea when it comes to the laws affecting Britney Spears and others in her state and country.

(21) I have more questions than answers about this topic. If I get some that would be helpful to readers I will add them below.

It's been bugging me. And now there is confusion about the latest court decision, and her legal options.

Hollywood. Avoid it, or get good lawyers.