Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 43 Number 3 Mental Health, the Law, & the Urban Article 10 Environment 2016 Petitioning for Protection: Without Repeal or Reform of Article 17A, Can Practitioners Maintain Ethical Guardianship Practices While Simultaneously Protecting the Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities Maria Campigotto Brian E. Hilburn Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Recommended Citation Maria Campigotto and Brian E. Hilburn, Petitioning for Protection: Without Repeal or Reform of Article 17A, Can Practitioners Maintain Ethical Guardianship Practices While Simultaneously Protecting the Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities, 43 Fordham Urb. L.J. 869 (2016). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol43/iss3/10 This Editorial is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. PETITIONING FOR PROTECTION: WITHOUT REPEAL OR REFORM OF ARTICLE 17A, CAN PRACTITIONERS MAINTAIN ETHICAL GUARDIANSHIP PRACTICES WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES? Maria Campigotto & Brian E. Hilburn* ABSTRACT Despite calls for reform of Article 17A guardianships for more than twenty-five years, the statute remains unchanged and New York routinely subjects adults with intellectual disabilities to open-ended, plenary guardianships with few, if any, procedural protections. As non-profit legal service providers working in a medical-legal partnership, hospitals refer to our organization, LegalHealth, clients who seek Article 17A guardianships over their loved ones.