Do you consider this infantilization?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I interned at a group home during my college years. The law is if the residents were competent enough to meet basic requirements for their health or safety, they were allowed to come and leave from the group home as they pleased. We weren’t allowed to stop them from leaving. We weren't even allowed to say anything to their parents/family. We couldn't tell the parents what medication they were taking, if they are noncompliant, etc. Unless the resident is totally disabled or there is a court order, they were entitled to privacy just like any other adult would have. And also having a legal guardian did not exempt them from privacy. Some residents, for example, had a guardian to make medical decisions. We could only tell them information that is needed to make decisions for the resident. That's it. We couldn't tell them if Susie decided to have an abortion.

This is a private organization, not a group home. As long as they are not receiving government funding, they can set whatever rules they want. But this is wrong. I run programs for people with disabilities. The participants sign if pictures can be published on our website. We don't have permission slips for trips/outside activities. We just do RSVP. If the organization has a blanket policy that everyone must sign regardless if they are capable of signing, than this is wrong.

That's not really accurate. They are probably a public accommodation covered by the ADA's provisions regarding public accommodations. The same way that Macy's could not lawfully say that people with disabilities need a non-disabled guardian in order to shop at their stores, they probably cannot say that an adult disabled person needs a non-disabled person to "okay" their participation in the program. (Of course, it's different if the individual has cognitive disabilities such that they cannot give informed consent.) Imagine how this would play out if they told adults in wheelchairs that they needed an adult that was not in a wheelchair to sign their permission slips.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. They actually don't have legal guardians as none of the participants have intellectual disabilities.

How would you know?

OP, you don't actually know that none of the participants don't have intellectual disabilities, nor do you know who actually has a legal guardian or not.

Your beef is that on some field trip as a group, some random girl/woman had a petition, that the leader of the group did not allow them to sign. Having functional ability doesn't rule out intellectual disabilities. Nor does living on your own rule out guardianship.

Preschool kids who were on a field trip and siphoned off to sit for a political presentation by Carly Fiorina was exploitative, underhanded, and a violation of informed consent.

In the same vein, it's not convenient nor ethical--not to mention a huge violation of privacy for a chaperone to identify adults participating in a sponsored field trip without guardianship or IDs just so they can decide to sign a petition or not. There is also no way that a chaperone could ensure informed consent of those who decide to sign.

Parents of these adults have obviously entered into an agreement with the organization that their adult child participate in these field trips. The chaperone made the right judgement call, which was perfectly legal. These disabled adults were there to enjoy whatever it was--park, museum, restaurant whatever.

Also, "infantilization" is not a term used in many SN circles, so my guess is that you were the person with the petition and weirdly stewing over this. Let it go.