The headline is unduly splashy. The issue surely has more to do with her having an IQ of 64 than with being autistic. The point is severe mental incompetence.
I agree. On the other hand, this court does seem to have a history of making similar decisions and it’s not entirely clear that they’ve exercised a reasonable degree of caution in making all of them.
They have a great deal of power in an area that’s particularly ethically complicated.
The headline is unduly splashy. The issue surely has more to do with her having an IQ of 64 than with being autistic. The point is severe mental incompetence.
I agree. On the other hand, this court does seem to have a history of making similar decisions and it’s not entirely clear that they’ve exercised a reasonable degree of caution in making all of them.
They have a great deal of power in an area that’s particularly ethically complicated.