1. Guardianship and administration matters should be determined in courts (federal or state Magistrates' Courts), with strict application of court rules and evidence law, and accessible appeals.
2. Valid powers of attorney, advance care directives, and wills made with capacity (or presumed capacity absent contrary evidence) should be upheld unless a court proves incapacity or undue influence at the time of creation.
3. Late-life wills and those made under illness, medication, or near death should be subject to heightened probate scrutiny due to risks of undue influence, particularly where capacity is not clearly established.
4. For individuals born with disability (vulnerable) unable to execute legal documents, next of kin should be automatically appointed guardians, with disputes resolved in court under evidentiary standards.
5. Powers of attorney and legal documents executed in vulnerable settings should be prohibited, and public trustees should be significantly reduced due to conflicts of interest.
6. The legal framework for creating and revoking powers of attorney and advance care directives should be tightened to prevent misuse and improper revocation without judicial oversight.
7. Guardianship and administration should be a last resort, prioritising existing family or support arrangements, with courts—not tribunals—resolving disputes. Public trustees must be federally regulated and accountable.
8. Applications for guardianship by institutions, strangers, or conflicted parties should only proceed with clear probative justification and thorough conflict-of-interest assessment.
9. Emergency “bedside hearings” must still follow court standards, include family notification and participation, provide legal representation, and be strictly evidence-based.
10. Supported decision-making consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities should be the default, with substitute decision-making limited to cases of clear risk or incapacity, and excluding financially interested institutions from decision influence.
11. Least restrictive alternatives (e.g., financial safeguards, partial authority, informal supports) should be prioritised before substitute decision-making is imposed.
12. Long-term patterns of a person’s wishes and behaviour must be considered alongside current expressed wishes, with recognition of cognitive impairment, coercion, or illness affecting judgement.
13. A national standard for capacity assessment is required, focusing on functional judgement and risk understanding, conducted by independent professionals in accessible, supportive conditions.
14. Restrictive practices should be strictly limited, regulated, and penalised if misused, particularly in care and institutional settings.
15. Vulnerable individuals should be supported to manage their own finances where possible, with capped fees, transparency, auditing only when necessary, and strong protections against financial exploitation.
16. Vulnerable individuals must retain legal rights and access to due process, including the ability to request changes to guardians/administrators under safeguards against undue influence.
17. Alternative professional administrators should be available where family is unsuitable, with regulatory oversight, fee controls, transparency, and options for review or replacement.
18. Suppression and gag orders should be highly restricted and subject to independent review; broad use should be abolished due to risks of injustice and lack of transparency.
19. An independent body should investigate misconduct to avoid conflicts of interest in self-regulated systems, with penalties for false allegations.
20. Vulnerable abuse should be explicitly criminalised and actively prosecuted, with stronger federal oversight and accountability of state systems.
21. Palliative care must be clearly defined in law, distinguishing it from withholding basic care, with criminal consequences for misuse.
22. Do-not-resuscitate orders and related medical decisions should only apply where clearly documented in advance directives or supported by clear evidence of the person’s wishes.
23. Medical research involving vulnerable people should be prohibited unless explicitly authorised in advance directives.
24. Involuntary euthanasia is characterised as murder; only voluntary, clearly expressed consent should permit euthanasia, otherwise defaulting to non-intervention.
25. Autopsy procedures and death certification should be standardised, timely, transparent, and fully disclose cause of death and relevant medical factors upon request.
