加拿大成年监护制度研究
|
摘要
在中国经济与社会快速发展的背景下，老龄化问题及欠缺行为能力成年人保障等问题日益突出。面对高龄老人，残障老人数量的增多及精神残障者数量逐年增长的社会现实，加之我国社会独特的“4-2-1”的家庭结构变化，传统家庭监护功能弱化等现实困境，如何建立有效的现实可行的成年监护制度成为一个迫切问题。加拿大素有“老年天堂”的美誉，其成年监护制度经历了从不全面到全面发展的过程，对我国成年监护制度的建立和完善有积极的借鉴和启示意义。
今日之加拿大在历史上曾经为英国和法国的殖民地，不同的宗主国迫使加拿大在法律发展的进程中接受了来自世界两大法系的制度和理念。普通法和大陆法同时在加拿大民法的疆域内运作，在增加法律制定和适用上的复杂性的同时，也使加拿大吸收到两大法系各自的优点，在一定程度上形成了独具加拿大特色的法律，也在世界各国法律中占有了一席独特的位置。
追溯历史的轨迹总是能更深刻的理解今天，文中首先从加拿大普通法和大陆法两个向度探究了加拿大成年监护制度的源头，英国的《国王权力法》和法国的《拿破仑民法典》为加拿大早期成年监护制度的确立奠定了坚实的基础。而继受于英法两国制度的早期加拿大成年监护制度由于其采用全面监护的方式，以全面他治替代自治，在最佳利益原则的掩盖下完全漠视被监护人，注重财产保护，而忽视人身保护，使人性迷失于以法律家长主义理念为主导的早期成年监护制度，从而导致加拿大的早期成年监护制度在其后的社会发展中饱受诟病。进入二十世纪后，随着加拿大人口的增长，加拿大社会于1951年即步入老龄社会的行列，而战后加拿大经济的腾飞奠定了加拿大养老保障制度的基础，加拿大在五六十年代颁布了一系列的养老保障法，随着政府和社会对老年问题的不断关注，以及精神医疗技术的发展，去机构化运动的影响，被监护人的人格尊严受到重视，成年监护制度立法理念发生了转变。以1978年的艾伯塔省《非独立成人法》为代表的加拿大成年监护制度开始采用部分监护的方式，否定了全面监护制度的单一化和僵化性，开始注重被监护人的人身保护，意识到被监护人能力的缺失或许不是完全的，他们也可能会有日常生活的能力，采用最小限度干预原则，保障被监护人的人身自由和尊严。同时，针对监护人缺位和滥用监护人权利等问题，构建公共监护体系，从国家的角度监督和保障监护制度的顺利实施。1982年加拿大宪法的颁布标志了加拿大成为了一个真正意义上的主权国家，宪法的重要组成部分，《自由与权利宪章》更让加拿大社会感受到了平等与自由的重要，个人自由意识受到普遍重视，普通法系英美各国的持续性代理权的广泛应用，大陆法系德法等国的禁治产人制度的相继废止，让加拿大看到了进行成年监护制度改革的必要和方向。二十世纪九十年代，安大略省的《代行决定法》和魁北克省《魁北克民法典》的颁布让加拿大的普通法和大陆法系的民法不约而同的选择了意定监护这一方式，从而为意思能力未来可能会欠缺的人提供了一个自由选择的机会，而能力鉴定体系的设立和公共保佐人制度的确立更为监护方式的选择和监护的实施提供了制度保障。意定监护制度对自我决定权的尊重使被监护人第一次有了选择监护方式的自由，自成年监护制度创设以来，被监护人的自由和尊严被提升到了又一个历史性的高度，人性在这里得到了释放。进入二十一世纪后，北美地区婴儿潮时期出生的人步入了老年行列，养老问题更加凸显，居家养老的大力推广，意定监护制度实践中带来的问题，促使成年监护制度寻求补充之前监护方式的不足，辅助监护制度应运而生。背离了之前各类监护的固定思维，辅助监护人不再是传统意义上代替被监护人决定的人。被监护人在被监护过程中依然留存有自我决定权，或者可与监护人共同做出决定，或者可在监护人帮助的前提下做出自己独立的决定。监护对象也从过去的无意思能力人扩大到帮助即可获得意思能力人，这一制度的创设让国际人权保障的正常化理念融入到了民法制度中，也让有监护需求的各类身心障碍的自然人沐浴在民法的光辉下。
加拿大成年监护制度为中国构建相应制度提供了有益的参照模式。我国现有法律中对成年监护制度的规制仅限于1986颁布的《民法通则》和其后的《民通意见》，以及《残疾人保障法》《老年人权益保障法》等法律法规中，尚未形成全面的体系化成年监护的制度构建。无论是成年监护的立法理念，还是监护方式的选择上皆与世界成年监护制度的当代发展相距甚远。我国未来可借鉴加拿大成年监护制度的基本制度架构，更新我国监护法律理念，采用最佳利益原则和最小限度干预原则，突出自我决定权和正常化理念，扩大监护对象，构建公共监护体系。
Under the background of China’s rapid economic and social development,problems like aging and the security of incompetent adults are becoming increasinglyprominent. Faced with the social reality of the annual increase of senior citizens,disabled elderly and mentally disabled people, coupled with practical dilemma like thechange of the unique“4-2-1 " family structure in our society and the weakening oftraditional family care functions, how to establish effective and realistic adultguardianship system has become a top priority. Canada, is known as "Paradise ofSenior Citizens", which adult guardianship system has developed from an inadequateone to an improved one, and provided China with positive inspiration for the futureestablishment of an adult guardianship system in China.
Due to the fact that Canada had been colonized by the Great Britain and France,different sovereign states forced Canada to accept the institutions and concepts of twolegal systems in the world. Common law and continental law, which were enforcedwithin the field of Canada civil law, increased the complexity of legal formulation andapplication. Meanwhile, Canada gained the merits of two legal systems respectively,shaping the unique law with Canadian characteristics to some extent and makingCanadian legal system play an important part in the world.
Reviewing the past is always giving us a more profound understanding of today.The origin of Canadian adult guardianship is studied in the first chapter of thisdissertation from the perspective of common law and civil law in Canada at first. It ispointed out that the Law of Parens Patriae in the UK and France’s Napoleon CivilCode contribute a solid foundation to the establishment of early Canadian adultguardianship system. Then, influenced by the two systems of England and France, the early Canadian adult guardianship used plenary guardianship, with full heteronomyinstead of autonomy, completely disregarding wards under the guidance of theprinciple of best interests, focusing on the protection of assets rather than physicalprotection which made the loss of humanity in the early system led by the concept oflaw paternalism. Hence, the early system is always criticized later during the processof adult guardianship systems. As Canadian population has been increasing, Canadaranked among the aging societies in 1951, and the foundation of the pension systemwas sufficed to be built on the ground of the economic boom in postwar Canada.Canada enacted a series of laws for senior-citizen security, with the increasingconcentrations on the aging of government and society, the improvement of technologyin mental medical treatment, the impact from American deinstitutionalizationmovement, the valued dignity of persons under guardianship, and the change of thelegislative concepts in the adult guardianship, a partial guardianship system wasadopted in the adult guardianship system,which typical example was Dependent AdultAct in Alberta in 1978, which denied the simplification and the ossification of thewhole guardianship system, and began to pay attention to the personal safety of thedependent adults; which came to realize the safeguarding ability of them that perhapsnot lack extremely that they may be competent in their daily life and developed theleast restrictive principle for the dignity and the freedom of them. In the meantime, inorder to solve the problems like the guardians’absence and the abuse of guardian’sright, the public guardianship system was established, therefore, the adult guardianshipsystem was ensured and legal regulations related to it were enforced smoothly underthe supervision of the public legal agencies.The promulgation of CanadianConstitution Law in 1982 marks Canada has been a truly sovereign state. Theimportant part of the Constitution, The Charter of Freedoms and Rights, madeCanadian society feel equality and freedom more important so that personal freedomwas stressed. The wide application of enduring power of attorney in theAnglo-American countries of common law system and the abolishment of thedeclaration of interdiction system of civil law system in countries like Germany and France made Canada notice the needs and direction of carrying out the reform of theadult guardianship systme. The promulgation of Substituted Decision Act of Ontarioand Civil Code of Quebec in 1990s brought intended guardianship into common lawand civil law to provide potential adult lacking competence with a chance to choose.And the establishment of the competency assessment system and the establishment ofthe Public Curator provided an institutional guarantee for choosing a mode ofguardianship and the application of supervision. The respect of self-determination inthe intended guardianship system brought the freedom of choosing the mode of theguardianship for the first time. Since the foundation of the adult guardianship system,the freedom and dignity of wards has been elevated to a historic height, the humanityhas been released. Baby-boomers in North America become aged people in thetwenty-first century. Guardianship for the aged becomes a serious problem. With thespreading of the aged home-support mode and the problem from the practice ofintended guardianship, adult guardianship is now engaged in finding out andsupplementing the shortcomings of previous guardianship, the result is that assistedguardianship arises. Different from other modes of guardianship, assisted guardians areno longer the conventional guardians who must make decision for represented adults.This guardianship allows represented adults who have self-determination rights andcan make decisions with guardians together or by themselves, or with the assistance ofguardians. The affected adults includes not only those adults who have no mentalcapacity,but also includes the adults who can have mental capacity with assistance. Theconcept of international human rights protection has been integrated into civil lawsystem as the result of its establishment and it also makes people happy who aresuffering from mental disorder, intellectual impairment or physical disability.
Canadian Adult Guardianship System provides a useful reference model for China.Among the existing laws of China, Only do a few laws and regulations include theprovision of adult guardianship system, like General Principles of Civil Law enactedin 1986, Suggestions on Civil Opinion, Protection of Disabled Persons and Rights ofthe Elderly Security Law etc. The comprehensive and systematic Adult Guardianship System has not been established. Meanwhile, China has a long way to go, comparedwith the world’s contemporary development of Adult Guardianship System, inlegislative concepts and in selection of guardianship modes. The basic structure ofCanadian adult guardianship brings inspiration to the Chinese establishment of AdultGuardianship System, like changing legislative notions, using the principle of bestinterests and least restrictive, emphasizing self-determination and normalization ,enlarging scope of represented adults and building a public guardianship system tobuild our future adult guardianship system.
今日之加拿大在历史上曾经为英国和法国的殖民地，不同的宗主国迫使加拿大在法律发展的进程中接受了来自世界两大法系的制度和理念。普通法和大陆法同时在加拿大民法的疆域内运作，在增加法律制定和适用上的复杂性的同时，也使加拿大吸收到两大法系各自的优点，在一定程度上形成了独具加拿大特色的法律，也在世界各国法律中占有了一席独特的位置。
追溯历史的轨迹总是能更深刻的理解今天，文中首先从加拿大普通法和大陆法两个向度探究了加拿大成年监护制度的源头，英国的《国王权力法》和法国的《拿破仑民法典》为加拿大早期成年监护制度的确立奠定了坚实的基础。而继受于英法两国制度的早期加拿大成年监护制度由于其采用全面监护的方式，以全面他治替代自治，在最佳利益原则的掩盖下完全漠视被监护人，注重财产保护，而忽视人身保护，使人性迷失于以法律家长主义理念为主导的早期成年监护制度，从而导致加拿大的早期成年监护制度在其后的社会发展中饱受诟病。进入二十世纪后，随着加拿大人口的增长，加拿大社会于1951年即步入老龄社会的行列，而战后加拿大经济的腾飞奠定了加拿大养老保障制度的基础，加拿大在五六十年代颁布了一系列的养老保障法，随着政府和社会对老年问题的不断关注，以及精神医疗技术的发展，去机构化运动的影响，被监护人的人格尊严受到重视，成年监护制度立法理念发生了转变。以1978年的艾伯塔省《非独立成人法》为代表的加拿大成年监护制度开始采用部分监护的方式，否定了全面监护制度的单一化和僵化性，开始注重被监护人的人身保护，意识到被监护人能力的缺失或许不是完全的，他们也可能会有日常生活的能力，采用最小限度干预原则，保障被监护人的人身自由和尊严。同时，针对监护人缺位和滥用监护人权利等问题，构建公共监护体系，从国家的角度监督和保障监护制度的顺利实施。1982年加拿大宪法的颁布标志了加拿大成为了一个真正意义上的主权国家，宪法的重要组成部分，《自由与权利宪章》更让加拿大社会感受到了平等与自由的重要，个人自由意识受到普遍重视，普通法系英美各国的持续性代理权的广泛应用，大陆法系德法等国的禁治产人制度的相继废止，让加拿大看到了进行成年监护制度改革的必要和方向。二十世纪九十年代，安大略省的《代行决定法》和魁北克省《魁北克民法典》的颁布让加拿大的普通法和大陆法系的民法不约而同的选择了意定监护这一方式，从而为意思能力未来可能会欠缺的人提供了一个自由选择的机会，而能力鉴定体系的设立和公共保佐人制度的确立更为监护方式的选择和监护的实施提供了制度保障。意定监护制度对自我决定权的尊重使被监护人第一次有了选择监护方式的自由，自成年监护制度创设以来，被监护人的自由和尊严被提升到了又一个历史性的高度，人性在这里得到了释放。进入二十一世纪后，北美地区婴儿潮时期出生的人步入了老年行列，养老问题更加凸显，居家养老的大力推广，意定监护制度实践中带来的问题，促使成年监护制度寻求补充之前监护方式的不足，辅助监护制度应运而生。背离了之前各类监护的固定思维，辅助监护人不再是传统意义上代替被监护人决定的人。被监护人在被监护过程中依然留存有自我决定权，或者可与监护人共同做出决定，或者可在监护人帮助的前提下做出自己独立的决定。监护对象也从过去的无意思能力人扩大到帮助即可获得意思能力人，这一制度的创设让国际人权保障的正常化理念融入到了民法制度中，也让有监护需求的各类身心障碍的自然人沐浴在民法的光辉下。
加拿大成年监护制度为中国构建相应制度提供了有益的参照模式。我国现有法律中对成年监护制度的规制仅限于1986颁布的《民法通则》和其后的《民通意见》，以及《残疾人保障法》《老年人权益保障法》等法律法规中，尚未形成全面的体系化成年监护的制度构建。无论是成年监护的立法理念，还是监护方式的选择上皆与世界成年监护制度的当代发展相距甚远。我国未来可借鉴加拿大成年监护制度的基本制度架构，更新我国监护法律理念，采用最佳利益原则和最小限度干预原则，突出自我决定权和正常化理念，扩大监护对象，构建公共监护体系。
Under the background of China’s rapid economic and social development,problems like aging and the security of incompetent adults are becoming increasinglyprominent. Faced with the social reality of the annual increase of senior citizens,disabled elderly and mentally disabled people, coupled with practical dilemma like thechange of the unique“4-2-1 " family structure in our society and the weakening oftraditional family care functions, how to establish effective and realistic adultguardianship system has become a top priority. Canada, is known as "Paradise ofSenior Citizens", which adult guardianship system has developed from an inadequateone to an improved one, and provided China with positive inspiration for the futureestablishment of an adult guardianship system in China.
Due to the fact that Canada had been colonized by the Great Britain and France,different sovereign states forced Canada to accept the institutions and concepts of twolegal systems in the world. Common law and continental law, which were enforcedwithin the field of Canada civil law, increased the complexity of legal formulation andapplication. Meanwhile, Canada gained the merits of two legal systems respectively,shaping the unique law with Canadian characteristics to some extent and makingCanadian legal system play an important part in the world.
Reviewing the past is always giving us a more profound understanding of today.The origin of Canadian adult guardianship is studied in the first chapter of thisdissertation from the perspective of common law and civil law in Canada at first. It ispointed out that the Law of Parens Patriae in the UK and France’s Napoleon CivilCode contribute a solid foundation to the establishment of early Canadian adultguardianship system. Then, influenced by the two systems of England and France, the early Canadian adult guardianship used plenary guardianship, with full heteronomyinstead of autonomy, completely disregarding wards under the guidance of theprinciple of best interests, focusing on the protection of assets rather than physicalprotection which made the loss of humanity in the early system led by the concept oflaw paternalism. Hence, the early system is always criticized later during the processof adult guardianship systems. As Canadian population has been increasing, Canadaranked among the aging societies in 1951, and the foundation of the pension systemwas sufficed to be built on the ground of the economic boom in postwar Canada.Canada enacted a series of laws for senior-citizen security, with the increasingconcentrations on the aging of government and society, the improvement of technologyin mental medical treatment, the impact from American deinstitutionalizationmovement, the valued dignity of persons under guardianship, and the change of thelegislative concepts in the adult guardianship, a partial guardianship system wasadopted in the adult guardianship system,which typical example was Dependent AdultAct in Alberta in 1978, which denied the simplification and the ossification of thewhole guardianship system, and began to pay attention to the personal safety of thedependent adults; which came to realize the safeguarding ability of them that perhapsnot lack extremely that they may be competent in their daily life and developed theleast restrictive principle for the dignity and the freedom of them. In the meantime, inorder to solve the problems like the guardians’absence and the abuse of guardian’sright, the public guardianship system was established, therefore, the adult guardianshipsystem was ensured and legal regulations related to it were enforced smoothly underthe supervision of the public legal agencies.The promulgation of CanadianConstitution Law in 1982 marks Canada has been a truly sovereign state. Theimportant part of the Constitution, The Charter of Freedoms and Rights, madeCanadian society feel equality and freedom more important so that personal freedomwas stressed. The wide application of enduring power of attorney in theAnglo-American countries of common law system and the abolishment of thedeclaration of interdiction system of civil law system in countries like Germany and France made Canada notice the needs and direction of carrying out the reform of theadult guardianship systme. The promulgation of Substituted Decision Act of Ontarioand Civil Code of Quebec in 1990s brought intended guardianship into common lawand civil law to provide potential adult lacking competence with a chance to choose.And the establishment of the competency assessment system and the establishment ofthe Public Curator provided an institutional guarantee for choosing a mode ofguardianship and the application of supervision. The respect of self-determination inthe intended guardianship system brought the freedom of choosing the mode of theguardianship for the first time. Since the foundation of the adult guardianship system,the freedom and dignity of wards has been elevated to a historic height, the humanityhas been released. Baby-boomers in North America become aged people in thetwenty-first century. Guardianship for the aged becomes a serious problem. With thespreading of the aged home-support mode and the problem from the practice ofintended guardianship, adult guardianship is now engaged in finding out andsupplementing the shortcomings of previous guardianship, the result is that assistedguardianship arises. Different from other modes of guardianship, assisted guardians areno longer the conventional guardians who must make decision for represented adults.This guardianship allows represented adults who have self-determination rights andcan make decisions with guardians together or by themselves, or with the assistance ofguardians. The affected adults includes not only those adults who have no mentalcapacity,but also includes the adults who can have mental capacity with assistance. Theconcept of international human rights protection has been integrated into civil lawsystem as the result of its establishment and it also makes people happy who aresuffering from mental disorder, intellectual impairment or physical disability.
Canadian Adult Guardianship System provides a useful reference model for China.Among the existing laws of China, Only do a few laws and regulations include theprovision of adult guardianship system, like General Principles of Civil Law enactedin 1986, Suggestions on Civil Opinion, Protection of Disabled Persons and Rights ofthe Elderly Security Law etc. The comprehensive and systematic Adult Guardianship System has not been established. Meanwhile, China has a long way to go, comparedwith the world’s contemporary development of Adult Guardianship System, inlegislative concepts and in selection of guardianship modes. The basic structure ofCanadian adult guardianship brings inspiration to the Chinese establishment of AdultGuardianship System, like changing legislative notions, using the principle of bestinterests and least restrictive, emphasizing self-determination and normalization ,enlarging scope of represented adults and building a public guardianship system tobuild our future adult guardianship system.
引文
[1]王立民主编．加拿大法律发达史[M]．北京：法律出版社，2004：6．
[2]参见徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：1．
[3]参见向荣．16、17世纪英国政治文化中的父权主义[J]．史学月刊，2001(1)：95-96．
[1] See Kleinig J.Paternalism [M].Totowa,N.J:Rowman &Allanheld, 1984:8．
[2] See Johns A.F.，Bowers V.J.Guardianship Folly.The Misgovernment of Parens Patriae and the Forecast of itsCrumbling Linkage to Unprotected Older Americans in the Twenty-First Century—A March of Folly? Or Just AMask of Virtual Reality? [J].Stetson Law Review,1997,27(1):16．
[3] See Johns A.F.,Bowers V.J.Guardianship Folly.The Misgovernment of Parens Patriae and the Forecast of itsCrumbling Linkage to Unprotected Older Americans in the Twenty-First Century—A March of Folly? Or Just AMask of Virtual Reality? [J].Stetson Law Review,1997,27(1):16．
[1] See T W S. Creditors' Rights in the Administration of Insane Persons' Estates[J].Virginia Law Review,1938,24
(6):646．
[1] See Renton W A. Comparative Lunacy Law [J]. Journal of the Society of ComparativeLegislation, 1899,1(2):253．
[2] See Means R,Smith R. From Poor Law to Community Care[M].Bristol: The Policy Press,1998:89．
[1] See Means R, Smith R. From Poor Law to Community Care[M].Bristol: The Policy Press,1998:78．
[2]参见魏树发．论我国成年监护制度改革[D]．福州：福建师范大学，2010：16．
[3] See Butler R N, Lewis M I.Ageing and Mental Health [M]. St.Louis:Mosby,1973:67．
[1] Gray K G.The Mental Hospitals Act,1935[J].The University of Toronto Law Journal,1937,2 (1):106．
[2] See Renton W A.Comparative Lunacy Law [J]. Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation,1899,1(2):258．
[3] Dana H,Porter G F,Curtis, et al.Survey of Canadian Legislation[J].The University of Toronto Law Journal,1938,2 ( 2 ):379．
[1]参见王立民主编．加拿大法律发达史[M]．北京：法律出版社，2004：4．
[2]参见李桂山．加拿大社会与文化散论[M]．北京：北京航空航天大学出版社，2008：10-13．
[3]参见肖厚国．民法法典化的价值、模式与学理[J]．现代法学，2001(4)：8．
[1]参见张霄．法律文化特征考察—兼论法国民法典的价值取向[J]．福建省社会主义学院学报，2004（3）：46．
[2]参见拿破仑民法典[M]．李浩培译，北京：商务印书馆，1981：65．
[3]拿破仑民法典[M]．李浩培译，北京：商务印书馆，1981：65．
[1] See Frankenburg F. The 1978 Ontario Mental Health Act in Historical Context [J]. Journal of the History ofCanadian Science, Technology and Medecine, 1982,6(3):172．
[2] See Dana H,Porter G F,Curtis,et al. Survey of Canadian Legislation[J].The University of Toronto Law Journal,1938, 2 ( 2 ): 376．
[3] Gray K G.The Mental Hospitals Act,1935[J].The University of Toronto Law Journal,1937,2 (1):105．
[1] See Frankenburg F.The 1978 Ontario Mental Health Act in Historical Context[J].Journal of the History ofCanadian Science, Technology and Medecine,1982,6(3):174．
[2] Hale, B. Mentally Incapacitated Adults and Decision Making: The English Perspective [J]. International Journalof Law and Psychiatry, 1997,20:70.
[3] Frankenburg F.The 1978 Ontario Mental Health Act in Historical Context[J].Journal of the History of CanadianScience, Technology and Medecine,1982,6(3):174．
[1]参见徐国栋主编．《魁北克民法典》的世界[J]．中外法学，2005(3)：260-261．
[2]参见徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：7-8．
[3] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:48-49．
[4] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed. Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:49．
[1] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:49．
[2] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:49．
[3] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:49．
[4] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:49．
[5] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:50．
[6] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:50．
[1]See Kultgen J.Autonomy and Intervention:Parentalism in the Caring [M].Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,1995:45．
[2]陈聪富．契约自由与定型化契约的管制[J]．月旦法律杂志，1991：76．转引自李霞．成年监护制度研究[D]．济南：山东大学博士，2007：101．
[1] McLaughlin,Re[1905]A.C.343(P.C.)
[2] See Ridler.Re.65 O.L.R.539[1930]4D.L.R.597(H.C.)
[3] See Young Re,[1942]O.R.301.[1942]3D.L.R.185(C.A.)
[1] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:50．
[2][日]大木雅夫．比较法[M]．范愉译，朱景文较，北京：法律出版社，1999：74．转引自易继明．私法精神与制度选择—大陆法私法古典模式的历史含义[M]．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2003：248．
[3] See Feinberg J.Legal Paternalism[J].Canadian Journal of Philosophy,1971,1(1):105．
[1] Thomas McCord. The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed. Montreal: Dawson Brothers ,1870: 51．
[2] Thomas McCord. The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed. Montreal: Dawson Brothers ,1870: 52．
[3] [德]黑格尔．法哲学原理[M]．范扬，张企泰译，北京：商务印书馆1982：54．
[1]参见李节传．图本加拿大通史[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2011：236．
[1]参见张秋霞，宋培军，郭平主编．加拿大养老保障制度[M]．北京：中国社会出版社，2010：10．(按照世界卫生组织的标准，一个国家以65以上为老人，80岁以上为高龄人，65岁以上人口占社会总人口的7%即属于老龄化社会；占14%，属于高龄社会；占24%，属于“超高龄社会”。这一标准引自梁慧星主编．中国民法典草案建议稿附理由（亲属篇）北京：法律出版社，2006：250)
[2]参见李节传．图本加拿大通史[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2011：236．
[3] See Ismael J.The Canadian Welfare State: Evolution and Transition[M].Edmonton:The University of AlbertaPress,1987:30．
[4]参见王立民主编．加拿大法律发达史[M]．北京：法律出版社，2004：279．
[1]参见王立民主编．加拿大法律发达史[M]．北京：法律出版社，2004：279．
[2]参见张秋霞，宋培军，郭平主编．加拿大养老保障制度[M]．北京：中国社会出版社，2010：147．
[1]参见王立民主编．加拿大法律发达史[M]．北京：法律出版社，2004：284．
[2] See Biegel E, Shore B,Gordon E. Building Support Networks for the Elderly: Theory and Applications[M].Beverly Hills:Sage Publications,1984:47．
[3]陈羿谷．论强制社区治疗之法律问题[D]．台北：铭传大学，2008：26．
[1]参见李静．抗精神病药物的合理应用[J]．中国处方药，2007(5)：44．
[2] See Wilber K H.Alternatives to Guardianship Revisited: What's Risk Got to Do with it? [M].// Smyer M,SchaieK W,Kapp M B.Older Adults’Decision-making and the Law.New York:Springer Publishing,1996:219．
[3] See Haber C.Beyond Sixty-Five: The Dilemma of Old Age in America's Past [M]. New York:CambridgeUniversity Press,1983:71．
[1]参见陈羿谷．论强制社区治疗之法律问题[D]．台北：铭传大学，2008：28．
[1] See Kultgen J.Autonomy and Intervention: Parentalism in the Caring [M].Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,1995:32．
[2] See Smyer M, Schaie K W, Kapp M B. Older Adults' Decision-making and the Law [M].New York：SpringerPublishing,1996:88．
[1] See Osinchuk，Re（1983），A.R.132（Surr.Ct.）
[2] See Eve,Re.[1986]2.S.C.R.388,13 C.P.C.(3d)6,8C.H.R.R.D/3773,31D.L.R.(4th)．
[3] See Dependent Adults Act, RSA 2000, c D-11§7．
[1] See Park Re.[1988]N.W.T.R.274,30E.T.R.226(S.C.)
[2] See Mental Incompentency Act .R.S.O.1990,c.M.9§.9．
[3] See S.S.1989-90,c.D25-1,§18-20．
[1] See S.S.1989-90,c.D25-1,§20(1)．
[2] See S.S.1989-90,c.D25-1,§35-37．
[3] See Mental Health Act,§.69.See Craig v. Craig(1986),44 Man.R.(2d)73(C.A.)
[1] See Robertson G. Mental Disability and the Law in Canada[M].2nd ed.Toronto:Carswell Thomson,1994:99．
[2] See Robertson G. Mental Disability and the Law in Canada[M].2nd ed.Toronto:Carswell Thomson,1994:102．
[3] See Robertson G. Mental Disability and the Law in Canada[M].2nd ed.Toronto:Carswell Thomson,1994:67．
[1] Mental Incompentency Act R.S.O.1990,c.M.9§.10．
[1] See Advisory Committee on Substitute Decision-Making for Mentally Incapable Persons.FinalReport[R].Toronto:Ministry of Attorney General,1988:34．
[2] See Hommel P A.The More Things Change: Principles and Practices of Reformed Guardianship[M].// SmyerM,.Schaie K W,Kapp M B .Older adults' decision-making and the law.NewYork:Springer Publishing,1996:227．
[1] See Dependent Adults Act,§2(2)&21(2)(Alta.)
[2] See Kenned I,Grubb A.Medical Texts and Materials [M].London:Butterworths,1989:220．
[3] See Code of Civil Prodedure ,R.S.Q.1977,c.C-25.§877．
[1] Wright V. Wright[1951]S.C.R.741．
[2] See Re D. (1975),57D.L.R.(3d)724(B.C.S.C.)
[1] See McNeal v. Few(1975),63 B.C.L.R.281(C.A.)
[2] See Scow,Re(1985),63B.C.L.R.287,5C.P.C.(2d)28(S.C.)
[3] See Meade,Re(1979),13B.C.L.R.39(S.C.)
[4] See McDonald P L, Hornick J P,Robertson G B,et al.Elder Abuse and Neglect in Canada[M].Toronto:Butterworth,1991:235．
[1] See Dependant Adults Act,R.S.A.1980,c.D-32,§6．
[2] See Dependant Adults Act,R.S.A.1980,c.D-32,§25．
[3] Johannsen,Re(1983),48A.R.15(Surr.Ct.)．
[1] See Gordon R M,Verdun-Jones S N.Adult Guardianship Law in Canada [M].Toronto:CarswellThomson,1992:3-47．
[2] See Gordon R M,Verdun-Jones S N.Adult Guardianship Law in Canada [M].Toronto:CarswellThomson,1992:3-47．
[3] See Gordon R M,Verdun-Jones S N.Adult Guardianship Law in Canada [M].Toronto:CarswellThomson,1992:3-47．
[4] Clark v. Clark(1982),40 O.R.(2d)383(Co.Ct)．
[1] McNeal v. Few(1975),63 B.C.L.R.281(C.A.)．
[1]See Karp N,Wood E. Guardianship Monitoring:Promising State and Local Court Practices to ProtectIncapacitated Older Adults[J].Aging Policy and the States,2008,32(3):25．
[1]See Gordon R M, Verdun-Jones S N.Adult Guardianship Law in Canada [M].Toronto:CarswellThomson,1992:3-43．
[1] See Gordon R M,Verdun-Jones S N.Adult Guardianship Law in Canada [M].Toronto:CarswellThomson,1992:3-44．
[2] Dependent Adults Act, RSA 1980, c. D-32§11．
[1] Demontigny,Re(1982),19 Alta.L.R.(2d)118(Q.B.)．
[1]参见曲相霏．论人的尊严权[G]//徐显明主编，人权研究第三卷[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2003：164．
[2]参见周安平．社会自治与国家公权[J]．法学，2002(10)：16．
[1]武步云．人本法学的哲学探究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2008：105．
[2]参见李节传．图本加拿大通史[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2011：252.
[1]参见刘艺工．试论1982年加拿大宪法[G]//阿兰.S.罗森保姆编．宪政的哲学之维[M]．郑戈，刘茂林译，北京：三联书店，2001：143-144．
[2]参见刘艺工．试论1982年加拿大宪法[G]//阿兰.S.罗森保姆编．宪政的哲学之维[M]．郑戈，刘茂林译，北京：三联书店，2001：146．
[3]潘汉典．1982年宪法文件[J]．环球法律评论，1982（5）：54．
[1] Koch, Re.33O.R.(3rd)485.[1997]O.J.No.1487．
[2] See Malette v. Shulman (1987), 47 D.L.R. (4th) 18 (Ontario High Court of Justice)．
[1] See Fleming v. Reid, [1991] 4 O. R.(3d) 74 (Ontario Court of Appeal)．
[1] SeeHaber C．Beyond Sixty-Five.The Dilemma of Old Age in America's Past [M].New York: CambridgeUniversity Press,1983:79．
[2]参见李霞．成年监护制度研究[D]．济南：山东大学博士，2007：120．
[3]参见李霞．成年监护制度研究[D]．济南：山东大学博士，2007：120．
[1]参见李霞．成年监护制度研究[D]．济南：山东大学博士，2007：121．
[2]参见李霞．成年监护制度研究[D]．济南：山东大学博士，2007：121．
[3]参见李霞．禁治产制度的废止及我国相关制度的检省[J]．法学论坛，2008（3）：127．
[4]参见李霞．论禁治产人与无行为能力人的当代私法命运[J]．法律科学(西北政法大学学报)，2008（5）：82．
[1]参见[日]宇田川幸则．浅论日本关于成年人监护制度的改革[G]//渠涛．中国民商法研究（第一卷）[M]．北京：法律出版社2002：388．
[2]参见[日]更田彦.人权保障としての成年後见制度[M]，东京:一桥出版社, 2002：91，转引自李霞．禁治产制度的废止及我国相关制度的检省[J]．法学论坛，2008（3）：128．
[1]参见刘德宽.成年监护制度之比较研究-以日、台、德为中心[ J]．月旦法学杂志, 2003, ( 5)：55.转引自李霞．禁治产制度的废止及我国相关制度的检省[J]．法学论坛，2008（3）：128．
[2]参见李霞．禁治产制度的废止及我国相关制度的检省[J]．法学论坛，2008（3）：128．
[3] See Gordon R M, Verdun-Jones S N,MacDougall D.Standing in their shoes:Guardianship,Trusteeship and theElder Canadian[R].Burnaby:Simon Fraser University,1986:34．
[1] Novac M.Ageing & Society—A Canadian Perspective [M]. 2nd ed. Scarborough: Nelson, 1993:56．
[2] Harry H.The Limits of Medical Paternalism [M].London:Routledge,1991:220．
[1] Mental Health Act,R.S.M.1987,c.M110.§80(2)．
[1] See Medical Consent Act. R.S.N.S.1989,c.279.§3(1)．
[2]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：266．
[1]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：266．
[2]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：266．
[1] See Glass K C.Refining Definitions and Devising Instruments:Two Decades of Assessing MentalCompetence[J].International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,1997,20:18．
[2] See King N M P.Making Sense of Advance Directives[M].Washington D.C.:Georgetown UniversityPress,1996:189．
[1] See Monk A,Cox C. Home Care for the Elderly:An International Perspective [M].New York:AuburnHouse,1991:167．
[2] See Quinn M J & Tomita S K.Elder Abuse and Neglect [M].New York:Springer,1986:234．
[3] See Advisory Committee on Substitute Decision-Making for Mentally Incapable Persons.Final Report[R].Toronto: Ministry of Attorney General,1988:23．
[4] See MacLean M J.Abuse and Neglect of Older Canadians:Strategies for Change[M].Toronto:ThompsonEducational Publishing,1995:112．
[1] See Israel Doron.Mental Incapacity,Guardianship,and the Elderly:an Exploratory Study of Ontario’s Consentand Capacity Board[J].Canadian Journal of Law and Society,2003,18(1):136．
[2] See Quinn M J,Tomita K S.Elder Abuse and Neglect:Causes,Diagnosis,and Intervention Strategies[M].2nd ed.New York: Springer,1997:146．
[3] See Robertson G.Mental Disability and the Law in Canada[M].2nd ed. Toronto:Carswell Thomson,1994:32．
[4] Robertson G.Mental Disability and the Law in Canada[M].2nd ed. Toronto:Carswell Thomson,1994:33．
[5] Hoffman B.The Law of Consent to Treatment in Ontario[M].2nd ed.Toronto:Butterworths,1997:54．
[1] Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry of theAttorney General,2005:4．
[2] See Zimney G.H,Grossberg G.T. Guardianship of the Elderly[M].New York:Springer Publishing,1998:259．
[3] Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry of theAttorney General,2005:5．
[4] Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry of theAttorney General,2005:5．
[1] See Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry ofthe Attorney General,2005:6．
[2] See Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry ofthe Attorney General,2005:6．
[1] See Gordon, R.M. The Emergence of Assited (supported) Decision-making in the Canadian Law of AdultGuardianship and Substitue Decision-making [J]. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,2003,23(1):64．
[2] See Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry ofthe Attorney General,2005:7．
[3] See Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry ofthe Attorney General,2005:7．
[1] See Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry ofthe Attorney General,2005:7．
[2] See Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry ofthe Attorney General,2005:7．
[3]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：27．
[1]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：33．
[2]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：34．
[1] See Gordon R M,Verdun-Jones S N.Adult Guardianship Law in Canada [M].Toronto:CarswellThomson,1992:5-16．
[2] See Gordon R M,Verdun-Jones S N.Adult Guardianship Law in Canada [M].Toronto:CarswellThomson,1992:5-16．
[1] Public Curator Act.S.Q.1989,c.54．
[2]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：34．
[3]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：34．
[4]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：267．
[1] [日]山本敬三．民法讲义I总则[M]．解亘译，北京：北京大学出版社，2004：75．
[2] See Israel Doron.Mental Incapacity,Guardianship,and the Elderly: an Exploratory Study of Ontario’s Consentand Capacity Board[J].Canadian Journal of Law and Society.2003,18(1):139．
[3]黄伟合．英国近代自由主义研究-从洛克、边沁到密尔[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2005：99-100．
[1]参见郑秉文．国际居家养老社会化[N]．人民日报，2010-01-26(021)．
[2] See British Columbia Law Institute.Report on the Recognition of Adult Guardianship Orders from Outside theProvince[R].Vancouver:British Columbia Law Institute,2005:7．
[1] See British Columbia Law Institute.Report on the Recognition of Adult Guardianship Orders from Outside theProvince[R].Vancouver:British Columbia Law Institute,2005:7．
[1] See Canadian Centre for Elder Law Studies.A Comparative Analysis of Adult Guardianship Laws in BC, NewZealand and Ontario[R].Vancouver :British Columbia Law Institute ,2006:11．
[2] See British Columbia Law Institute.Report on the Recognition of Adult Guardianship Orders from Outside theProvince[R].Vancouver:British Columbia Law Institute,2005:7．
[1] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed., Montreal :Dawson Brothers ,1870:52．
[2] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed., Montreal :Dawson Brothers ,1870:50．
[1]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：37．
[2]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：34．
[3]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：38．
[4] See Israel Doron.Mental Incapacity, Guardianship, and the Elderly:an Exploratory Study of Ontario’s Consentand Capacity Board[J].Canadian Journal of Law and Society,2003,18(1):136．
[1] See Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Act.S.M.1993,c.29．§6(2)．
[2] See Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Act.S.M.1993,c.29．
[1] The Guardianship and Trusteeship Act(N.W.T.).§12(1).
[2] [日]宇田川幸则．浅论日本关于成年人监护制度的改革[G]//渠涛．中国民商法研究（第一卷）[M]．北京：法律出版社2002：387．
[3] See Wolfensberger W. The Principle of Normalization in Human Services.[R]. Downsview: NationalAssociation for Mental Retardation, 1972:10．
[1]参见孙海涛．人权视角下的成年监护制度改革[J]．内蒙古社会科学(汉文版)，2011(3)：44．
[2]联合国．世界人权宣言[EB/OL]．(2003-01-20)[2012-03-13]http：//news．xinhuanet．com/ziliao/2003-01/20/content_698168．htm 2012
[3]联合国．残疾人权利国际公约[EB/OL]．[2012-03-13]http：//www．un．org/chinese/disabilities/convention/convention．htm
[1]徐显明、齐延平．论中国人权制度建设的五大主题[G]//徐显明主编．人权研究（第二卷）[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2002：166．
[2]参见李霞．成年监护制度研究[D]．济南：山东大学博士，2007：84．
[3] See Wolf Wolfensberger and Stephen Tullman．A Brief Outline of the Pinciple of Normalization[J].1982,27(3):135．
[1]尹田．民事主体理论与立法研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2003：34．
[2]参见Tom L.Beauchamp,James F.Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th ed, Oxford : Oxford UniversityPress, 2001,P.181 ,转引自朱涛．自然人行为能力制度研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2011：54．
[1] Alberta Guardianship and Trusteeship Regulation, Alta Reg 219/2009,§1(d)．
[2] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§2(1)．
[3] Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§4(1)．
[4] Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§13(1)．
[5] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§2(2)．
[1] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§2(3)．
[2] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§2(4)．
[1] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§9(3)．
[2] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§17(1)&17(2)．
[1] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§22(3)．
[2] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§22(1)．
[3] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§4(3)．
[4] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§13(2)．
[5] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§13(3)．
[6] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§13(4a)．
[1] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§13(4a)&(4b)．
[2] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§13(5)．
[3] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§14(1)．
[4] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§17(5)．
[1] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§17(10)．
[2] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§21(1)．
[3] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§21(2)．
[4] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§21(3)．
[5] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§21(4)．
[1] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§21(5)．
[2]曲相霏．论人的尊严权[G]//徐显明主编，人权研究第三卷，济南：山东人民出版社，2003：170．
[1] [法]狄骥：《宪法论》（第1卷），钱克新译，商务印书馆，1959：49，转引自韩德强．论人的尊严—法学视角下人的尊严理论的诠释[M]．北京：法律出版社，2009：152．
[1] See Barbara Carter.Supported Decision-making: Background and Discussion Paper[J].Melbourne :The Office ofthe Public Advocate,2009:9．
[1]张文显．法哲学范畴研究[M]．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2001：213．
[2] See Barbara Carter. Supported decision-making: Background and discussion paper[J]. Melbourne :The office ofthe Public Advocate,2009:6．（加拿大计划（Plan Canada）为加拿大全国性民间组织，总部设在不列颠哥伦比亚省，在艾伯塔省、萨斯喀彻温和安大略省有分支机构。最初是由一些残疾人的家属设立的，目标是帮助残疾人能过的好，帮他们计划未来。）
[3] See Barbara Carter.Supported Decision-making: Background and Discussion Paper[J]. Melbourne :The Officeof the Public Advocate,2009:6．
[4] Adult guardianship and trusteeship act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§14(1)．
[1] [美]马斯洛．动机与人格[M]．许金声等译，北京：华夏出版社，1987：52．
[2]武步云．人本法学的哲学探究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2008：206．
[3] Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§9(3)．
[1] [美]德沃金．认真对待权利[M]．信春鹰，吴玉章译，北京：中国大百科全书出版社，2002：357．
[2] [美]杰克．唐纳利．普遍人权的理论与实践[M]．王浦劬等译，北京：中国社会出版社，2001：75．
[1]参见中华人民共和国国家统计局．2010年第六次全国人口普查主要数据公报(第2号)[EB/OL]．(2011-04-29)[2012-3-19].http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20110428_402722232.htm．
[2]参见国务院办公厅．社会养老服务体系建设规划(2011-2015) [EB/OL]．(2011-12-16)[2012-3-19]http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-12/27/content_2030503.htm．
[3]参见国务院办公厅．社会养老服务体系建设规划(2011-2015) [EB/OL]．(2011-12-16)[2012-3-19]http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-12/27/content_2030503.htm．
[4]参见王君平．精神病人有这么多吗[N]．人民日报，2011－07-11(08)．
[1]参见陈友华，徐愫．中国老年人口的健康状况、福利需求与前景[J]．人口学刊，2011（2）：35．
[2]参见仇雨临，梁金刚．我国老年残疾人口生活护理及康复体系构建研究[J]．西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2011(6)：21．
[3]参见仇雨临，梁金刚．我国老年残疾人口生活护理及康复体系构建研究[J]．西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2011(6)：22．
[4]参见丁志宏．我国老年残疾人口：现状与特征[J]．人口研究，2008 (4)：69．
[5]马克思恩格斯全集（第十二卷），北京：人民出版社，1998：568．
[6]参见魏树发．论我国成年监护制度改革[D]．福州：福建师范大学，2010：30．
[1]参见卫敏丽．截至2011年底我国60岁以上老年人口达到1.85亿[J/OL]．(2012-03-02)[2012-3-19]http://www.cpdrc.org.cn/news/rkxw_gn_detail.asp?id=15547
[2]参见杜萌．破解精神卫生管理难题需完善社区服务体系[N]．法制日报，2011-10-11（004）
[1]参见赵涵漠．老年痴呆病患者：沉默的600万[J/OL]．（2010-05-05）[2012-3-13]http//zqb.cyol.com/content/2010-05/05/content_3214801.htm
[1]参见魏树发．论我国成年监护制度改革[D]．福州：福建师范大学，2010：31．
[2]联合国．残疾人权利国际公约[EB/OL]．[2012-03-13]http：//www.un.org/chinese/disabilities/convention/convention.htm
[1]联合国．残疾人权利国际公约[EB/OL]．[2012-03-13]http：//www．un．org/chinese/disabilities/convention/convention．htm．
[2]联合国．残疾人权利国际公约[EB/OL]．[2012-03-13]http：//www．un．org/chinese/disabilities/convention/convention．htm．
[3]参见朱涛．自然人行为能力制度研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2011：216．
[1] See Canadian Centre for Elder Law Studies.A comparative Analysis of Adult Guardianship Laws in BC, NewZealand and Ontario[R].Vancouver:British Columbia Law Institute,2006:17．
[1]肖厚国．民法法典化的价值、模式与学理[J]．现代法学，2001(4)：10．
[1] See Index mundi.Canada Demographics Profile ,2012[EB/OL]．（2011-7-12）[2012-3-19]http://www.indexmundi.com/canada/demographics_profile.html．
[2]参见国务院办公厅．社会养老服务体系建设规划(2011-2015) [EB/OL]．(2011-12-16)[2012-3-19]http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-12/27/content_2030503.htm．
[1]张秋霞，宋培军，郭平主编．加拿大养老保障制度[M]．北京：中国社会出版社，2010：6．
[2]国务院办公厅．社会养老服务体系建设规划(2011-2015) [EB/OL]．(2011-12-16)[2012-3-19]http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-12/27/content_2030503.htm．
[1]约翰.密尔．论自由[M]．商务印书馆，1982：104-105．转引自黄伟合．英国近代自由主义研究-从洛克、边沁到密尔[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2005：101．
[1]伯林．两种自由概念．公共论丛．No.1．北京：三联书店，1995：203．转引自张栋．论人权的相对性与绝对性—以不利选择权为例[G]//徐显明主编．人权研究（第二卷）[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2002：95．
[1]朱涛．自然人行为能力制度研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2011：50．
[1]徐国栋．从身份到理性—现代民法中的行为能力制度沿革考[J]．法律科学(西北政法学院学报)，2006(4)：71．
[1]马克思恩格斯全集(第六卷)，北京：人民出版社，1961：291．
[1]杨立新．人身权法论[M]．北京：人民法院出版社，2002．
[2]易继明．私法精神与制度选择—大陆法私法古典模式的历史含义[M]．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2003．
[3]王立民主编．加拿大法律发达史[M]．北京：法律出版社，2004．
[4]武步云．人本法学的哲学探究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2008．
[5]李节传．图本加拿大通史[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2011．
[6]徐显明主编．人权研究（第二卷）[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2002．
[7]徐显明主编．人权研究（第三卷）[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2003．
[8]尹田．民事主体理论与立法研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2003．
[9]韩德强．论人的尊严—法学视角下人的尊严理论的诠释[M]．北京：法律出版社，2009．
[10]龙卫球．民法总论[M]．北京：中国法制出版社，2002．
[11]李霞.民法典成年保护制度[M]．济南：山东大学出版社，2007.
[12]朱涛．自然人行为能力制度研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2011．
[13]魏振瀛主编．民法[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2000．
[14]李桂山．加拿大社会与文化散论[M]．北京：北京航空航天大学出版社，2008．
[15]李贵连．沈家本年谱长编[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2010．
[16]黄伟合．英国近代自由主义研究-从洛克、边沁到密尔[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2005．
[17]张秋霞，宋培军，郭平主编．加拿大养老保障制度[M]．北京：中国社会出版社，2010．
[18]张彩凤．英国法治研究[M]．北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，2001．
[19]张文显．法哲学范畴研究[M]．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2001．
[20]梁慧星主编．中国民法典草案建议稿附理由（亲属篇）[M]．北京：法律出版社，2006．
[1] [古希腊]亚里士多德．政治学[M]．吴寿彭译，北京：商务印书馆，1965．
[2] [美]阿兰．S．罗森保姆主编．宪政的哲学之维[M]．郑戈，刘茂林译，北京：三联书店，2001．
[3] [美]马斯洛．动机与人格[M]．许金声等译，北京：华夏出版社，1987．
[4] [美]德沃金．认真对待权利[M]．信春鹰，吴玉章译，北京：中国大百科全书出版社，2002．
[5] [美]杰克．唐纳利．普遍人权的理论与实践[M]．王浦劬等译，北京：中国社会出版社，2001．
[6]拿破仑民法典[M]．李浩培译，北京：商务印书馆，1981．
[7]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005．
[8] [德]黑格尔．法哲学原理[M]．范扬，张企泰译，北京：商务印书馆，1982．
[9]马克思恩格斯全集（第6卷），北京：人民出版社，1961．
[10]马克思恩格斯全集（第12卷），北京：人民出版社，1998．
[1]徐显明、齐延平．论中国人权制度建设的五大主题[G]//徐显明主编．人权研究（第二卷）[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2002，161—176．
[2]曲相霏．论人的尊严权，[G]//徐显明主编，人权研究第三卷，济南：山东人民出版社，2003，163—173．
[3]盖伊．拉弗朗斯．孟德斯鸠和卢梭的宪政理论[G]// [美]阿兰．S．罗森保姆编．宪政的哲学之维[M]．郑戈，刘茂林译，北京：三联书店，2001，75—92．
[4]刘艺工．试论1982年加拿大宪法[G]//阿兰．S．罗森保姆编．宪政的哲学之维[M]．郑戈，刘茂林译，北京：三联书店，2001：139—149．
[5] [日]宇田川幸则．浅论日本关于成年人监护制度的改革[G]//渠涛．中国民商法研究（第一卷）[M]．北京：法律出版社2002：382—396．
[6]张栋．论人权的相对性与绝对性—以不利选择权为例[G]//徐显明主编．人权研究（第二卷）[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2002：49—95．
[1]汪习根、李蕾．别具一格的加拿大宪法[J]．当代法学，2004（7）：131—135．
[2]肖厚国．民法法典化的价值、模式与学理[J]．现代法学，2001(4)：7—16．
[3]徐国栋．《魁北克民法典》的世界[J]．中外法学，2005(3)：257-283．
[4]李霞．禁治产制度的废止及我国相关制度的检省[J]．法学论坛，2008(5)：126—132．
[5]孙海涛．人权视角下的成年监护制度改革[J]．内蒙古社会科学(汉文版)，2011(3)：42—47．
[6]高圆圆．对精神残疾群体回归社会的思考[J]．黑龙江社会科学，2009(5)：168—171．
[7]李霞．意定监护制度论纲[J]．法学，2011(4)：118—128．
[8]李霞．论禁治产人与无行为能力人的当代私法命运[J]．法律科学(西北政法大学学报)，2008（5）：81—86．
[9]张霄．法律文化特征考察—兼论法国民法典的价值取向[J]．福建省社会主义学院学报，2004（3）：44—48．
[10]王云霞．《法国民法典》的时代精神探析[J]．法学家，2004（2）：55—63．
[11]李静．抗精神病药物的合理应用[J]．中国处方药，2007(5)：45—48．
[12]向荣．16、17世纪英国政治文化中的父权主义[J]．史学月刊，2001（1）：93—99．
[13]马忆南．婚姻家庭法领域的个人自由与国家干预[J]．文化纵横，2011（1）：45—50．
[14]周安平．社会自治与国家公权[J]．法学，2002（10）：15—22．
[15]陈友华，徐愫．中国老年人口的健康状况、福利需求与前景[J]．人口学刊，2011（2）：34—39．
[16]仇雨临，梁金刚．我国老年残疾人口生活护理及康复体系构建研究[J]．西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2011（6）：21—26．
[17]丁志宏．我国老年残疾人口：现状与特征［J］．人口研究，2008 (4)：66—72．
[18]徐国栋．从身份到理性—现代民法中的行为能力制度沿革考[J]．法律科学(西北政法学院学报)，2006(4)：64—73．
[19]郑秉文．国际居家养老社会化[N]．人民日报，2010-01-26(021)．
[20]王君平．精神病人有这么多吗[N]．人民日报，2011－07-11(08)．
[21]杜萌．破解精神卫生管理难题需完善社区服务体系[N]．法制日报，2011-10-11（004）．
[1]李霞．成年监护制度研究[D]．济南：山东大学博士，2007．
[2]魏树发．论我国成年监护制度改革[D]．福州：福建师范大学，2010．
[3]陈羿谷．论强制社区治疗之法律问题[D]．台北：铭传大学，2008．
[1] Biegel E., B. K. Shore, E. Gordon.Building Support Networks for the Elderly:Theory and Applications[M]. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1984.
[2] Blokland H., Freedom and Culture in Western Society[M]. London: Routledge,1997.
[3] Butler R.N., M.I. Lewis, Ageing and Mental Health[M]. St. Louis: Mosby, 1973.
[4] Thomas McCord. The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed．Montreal: DawsonBrothers,1870．
[5] Craig Y.J., Elder Abuse and Mediation [M]. London: Avebury, 1997.
[6] Gordon R.M, S.M. Verdun-Jones, Adult Guardianship in Canada [M]. Toronto:Carswell, 1992.
[7] Haber C.Beyond Sixty-Five: The Dilemma of Old Age in America's Past [M]. NewYork: Cambridge U. Press,1983.
[8] Harry H. The Limits of Medical Paternalism [M]. London: Routledge, 1991.
[9] Hoffman B.The Law of Consent to Treatment in Ontario[M].2nded. Toronto:Butterworths, 1997.
[10]Kane R. A.&R. L. Kane. Assessing the Elderly--A Practical Guide to Measurement[M].New York: Lexington, 1981.
[11]Kenned I.&A. Grubb, Medical Texts and Materials [M]. London: Butterworths,1989.
[12]Kidder R. L. Connecting Law and Society [M]. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1983.
[13]King N. M. P. Making Sense of Advance Directives [M]. Washington D.C.:Georgetown University Press, 1996.
[14]Kleinig, J., Paternalism [M]. U.S.A.: Rowman &Allanheld, 1984.
[15]Kultgen J.Autonomy and Intervention: Parentalism in the Caring [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1995.
[16] McDonald. P.,Robertson. G. B,Wallace, J. E. Elder Abuse and Neglect in Canada[M]. Toronto: Butterworth, 1991.
[17]Means R. and Smith R.,From Poor Law to Community Care [M]. Bristol: ThePolicy Press, 1998.
[18]Mitchinson W.,J. D. McGinnins, eds., Essays in the History of CanadianMedicine[M]. Toronto: McClelland&Stewart, 1988.
[19]Monk A.&C. Cox, Home Care for the Elderly: An International Perspective [M].New York: Auburn House, 1991.
[20]Morris R., F. Caro,J. Hansan, Personal Assistance—The Future of Home Care[M].Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 1998.
[21]Novac M.Ageing ,Society—A Canadian Perspective [M]. 2nd ed. Scarborough:Nelson, 1993.
[22]Quinn M.J.,S.K. Tomita.ElderAbuse and Neglect [M].New York: Springer, 1986.
[23]Galaway, B.,Hudson J. Storative Justice: International Perspectives[M]. New York:Criminal Justice Press,1996.
[24]Gordon,R.M.The British Columbia Representation Agreement Act, AdultGuardianship Act, and Related Statutes[M]. Toronto: Carswell Thomson, 2000
[25]Zimney, G. H., & Grossberg, G. T. Guardianship of the Elderly[M]. New York:Springer Publishing,1998.
[26]Kittrie, N. The Right to be Different: Deviance and Enforced Therapy[M].Baltimore: Penguin Books,1971
[27]MacLean, M. J. Abuse and Neglect of Older Canadians: Strategies forChange[M].Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing,1995.
[28]Schneider, R. D. Ontario Mental Health Statutes[M]. Toronto: Carswell,1996.
[29]Quinn, M. J., Tomita, K. S. Elder Abuse and Neglect: Causes, Diagnosis, andIntervention Strategies [M]. 2nd ed. New York: Springer,1997.
[30]Rathbone-McCuan, E., Fabian D. R. Self-neglecting Elders: a Clinical Dilemma.
[M]. Westport:Greenwood Publishing,1992.
[31] Robertson, G..Mental Disability and the Law in Canada[M].2nd ed. Toronto:Carswell Thomson,1994.
[32]Buchanan. A. E.,Brock, D. W. Deciding for Others: The Ethics of SurrogateDecision-making[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,1989.
[33]Silberfeld, M., Fish, A.. When the Mind Fails[M].Toronto: University of TorontoPress,1994.
[34]Smyer, M., Schaie, K. W.&Kapp, M. B. Older Adults’Decision-making and thelaw[M]. New York: Springer Publishing,1996.
[1] Coughlan, S. G., Downe-Warmboldt, et al.Mandatory Reporting of Suspected ElderAbuse and Neglect: a Practical and Ethical Evaluation. [J].Dalhousie Law Journal,1996,19 (1):45—70．
[2] Duke, J. A National Study of Involuntary Protective Services to Adult ProtectiveServices Clients[J]. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 1997;9 (1):51—68．
[3] Goodrich, C. S.Results of a National Survey of State Protective Services Programs:Assessing Risk and Defining Victim Outcomes[J].Journal of Elder Abuse andNeglect, 1997,9 (1): 69—86．
[4] Gordon, R. M.. Adult Guardianship and Adult Protection Legislation in Canada:Recent Reforms and Future Problems[J].Canadian Journal of Aging, 1995,14 (2):89—102．
[5] Gordon, R. M. The Emergence of Assisted (supported) Decision-making in theCanadian Law of Adult Guardianship and Substitute Decision-making[J].International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 2000,23 (1): 61—77．
[6] Kurrle, S., Sadler, P. Lockwood, K&Cameron. Elder Abuse: Prevalence,Intervention and Outcomes in Patients Referred to Four Aged Care AssessmentTeams[J]. Medical Journal of Australia, 1997,23(3):166—187．
[7] Perlin, M. What is Therapeutic Jurisprudence? [J].New York Law School Journal ofHuman Rights. 1993:10 (3):623—636．
[8] Pillemer, K., Finkelhor, D. The Prevalence of Elder Abuse: a Random SampleSurvey[J]. Gerontologist, 1988,28 (1):51—57．
[9] Poirier, D. The Power of Social Workers in the Creation and Application of ElderProtection Statutory Norms in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia[J].Journal ofElder Abuse and Neglect, 1992,4 (1):113—134．
[10]Schmidt, W. C. Adult Protective Services and the Therapeutic State[J]. Law andPsychology Review, 1986,10(1):101—146．
[11]Glass, K. C. Refining Definitions and Devising Instruments: Two Decades ofAssessing Mental Competence[J].International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,1997 ,20(5) 5—33．
[12]Hale, B. Mentally Incapacitated Adults and Decision Making: The EnglishPerspective[J]. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 1997,20(1):59—75．
[13]Poirier, D. The Power of Social Workers in the Creation and Application of ElderProtection Statutory Norms in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia[J]. Journal ofElder Abuse and Neglect, 1992,14(1):113—133．
[14]Israel Doron.Mental Incapacity,Guardianship,and the Elderly：an ExploratoryStudy of Ontario’s Consent and Capacity Board[J]．Canadian Journal of Law andSociety,2003,18(1):131—145．
[15]Renton W A．Comparative Lunacy Law[J]．Journal of the Society of ComparativeLegislation,1899,1(2)：253—275．
[16]Frankenburg F.The1978 Ontario Mental Health Act in HistoricalContext[J].Journal of the History of Canadian Science, Technology andMedecine,1982,6(3):172—177．
[17] T W S.Creditors' Rights in the Administration of Insane Persons’Estates[J].Virginia Law Review,1938,24(6):643—653．
[18]Gray K G.The Mental Hospitals Act,1935[J].The University of Toronto LawJournal,1937,2 (1):103—113．
[19]Dana H,Porter G F, Curtis, et al.Survey of Canadian Legislation[J].The Universityof Toronto Law Journal,1938,2 ( 2 ):374—385．
[20]Johns A.F.，Bowers V.J.Guardianship Folly: The Misgovernment of Parens Patriaeand the Forecast of its Crumbling Linkage to Unprotected Older Americans in theTwenty-First Century—A March of Folly? Or Just A Mask of Virtual Reality?[J].Stetson Law Review,1997,27(1):1—87.
[21]Feinberg J.Legal Paternalism[J].Canadian Journal of Philosophy,1971,1(1):105—124．
[22]Wofensberger W. ,Tullman S. A Brief Outline of the Principle of Normalization[J].Rehabilitation Psychology,1982,27(3):131—145．
[1] Advisory Committee on Substitute Decision-Making for Mentally IncapablePersons . Final Report[R].Toronto: Ministry of Attorney General, 1988．
[2] Chalke, J., Hayes, L., Howitt, K. Substitute Decision Making for Incapable People:Trends in Law and Policy[R]. Toronto:Law Society of Upper Canada,1996．
[3] Gordon, R. M., Verdun-Jones, S. N., MacDougall, D. Standing in Their shoes:Guardianship, Trusteeship and the Elder Canadian[R]. Burnaby: Simon FraserUniversity, 1986．
[4] Harbison, J., Coughlan, S. G., Downe-Wamboldt, B.,et al. Mistreating ElderlyPeople: Questioning the Legal Response to Elder Abuse and Neglect[R].Halifax:Dalhousie University Health Law Institute. 1995．
[5] Joint Working Committee on Adult Guardianship. How Can We Help? [R].Vancouver: Ministry of Attorney General,1992．
[6] Manitoba Law Reform Commission. Elder Abuse and Adult Protection: aDiscussion Paper[R]. Winnipeg: Manitoba Law Reform Commission,1998．
[7] Podnieks, E., Pillemer, K., Nicholson, P., Shillington, et al. A National Survey onAbuse of the Elderly in Canada[R]. Toronto: Ryerson PolytechnicalInstitute,1990．
[8] Senior Citizens Secretariat.Elder Abuse: Everyone's Concern[R]. Halifax: SeniorCitizens Secretariat,1984．
[9] Canadian Association for Community Living. Report of the Task Force onAlternatives to Guardianship[R]. Ottawa: Canadian Association for CommunityLiving,1992．
[10]Wolfensberger, W. The Principle of Normalization in Human Services. [R].Downsview: National Association for Mental Retardation,1972．
[11]British Columbia Law Institute.Report on the Recognition of Adult GuardianshipOrders from Outside the Province[R].Vancouver :British Columbia LawInstitute ,2005．
[12]Barbara Carter. Supported Decision-making: Background and Discussion paper[R].Melbourne: The office of the Public Advocate,2009．
[13]BC Adult Abuse/Neglect Prevention Collaborative.Vulnerable Adults andCapability Issues in BC[R] .Vancouver:British Columbia Law Institute,2009．
[14]Canadian Centre for Elder Law Studies.A Comparative Analysis of AdultGuardianship Laws in BC, New Zealand and Ontario[R].Vancouver:BritishColumbia Law Institute,2006．
[15]Capacity Assessment Office.Guidelines for Conducting Assessments ofCapacity[R].Toronto:Ministry of the Attorney General,2005．
[2]参见徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：1．
[3]参见向荣．16、17世纪英国政治文化中的父权主义[J]．史学月刊，2001(1)：95-96．
[1] See Kleinig J.Paternalism [M].Totowa,N.J:Rowman &Allanheld, 1984:8．
[2] See Johns A.F.，Bowers V.J.Guardianship Folly.The Misgovernment of Parens Patriae and the Forecast of itsCrumbling Linkage to Unprotected Older Americans in the Twenty-First Century—A March of Folly? Or Just AMask of Virtual Reality? [J].Stetson Law Review,1997,27(1):16．
[3] See Johns A.F.,Bowers V.J.Guardianship Folly.The Misgovernment of Parens Patriae and the Forecast of itsCrumbling Linkage to Unprotected Older Americans in the Twenty-First Century—A March of Folly? Or Just AMask of Virtual Reality? [J].Stetson Law Review,1997,27(1):16．
[1] See T W S. Creditors' Rights in the Administration of Insane Persons' Estates[J].Virginia Law Review,1938,24
(6):646．
[1] See Renton W A. Comparative Lunacy Law [J]. Journal of the Society of ComparativeLegislation, 1899,1(2):253．
[2] See Means R,Smith R. From Poor Law to Community Care[M].Bristol: The Policy Press,1998:89．
[1] See Means R, Smith R. From Poor Law to Community Care[M].Bristol: The Policy Press,1998:78．
[2]参见魏树发．论我国成年监护制度改革[D]．福州：福建师范大学，2010：16．
[3] See Butler R N, Lewis M I.Ageing and Mental Health [M]. St.Louis:Mosby,1973:67．
[1] Gray K G.The Mental Hospitals Act,1935[J].The University of Toronto Law Journal,1937,2 (1):106．
[2] See Renton W A.Comparative Lunacy Law [J]. Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation,1899,1(2):258．
[3] Dana H,Porter G F,Curtis, et al.Survey of Canadian Legislation[J].The University of Toronto Law Journal,1938,2 ( 2 ):379．
[1]参见王立民主编．加拿大法律发达史[M]．北京：法律出版社，2004：4．
[2]参见李桂山．加拿大社会与文化散论[M]．北京：北京航空航天大学出版社，2008：10-13．
[3]参见肖厚国．民法法典化的价值、模式与学理[J]．现代法学，2001(4)：8．
[1]参见张霄．法律文化特征考察—兼论法国民法典的价值取向[J]．福建省社会主义学院学报，2004（3）：46．
[2]参见拿破仑民法典[M]．李浩培译，北京：商务印书馆，1981：65．
[3]拿破仑民法典[M]．李浩培译，北京：商务印书馆，1981：65．
[1] See Frankenburg F. The 1978 Ontario Mental Health Act in Historical Context [J]. Journal of the History ofCanadian Science, Technology and Medecine, 1982,6(3):172．
[2] See Dana H,Porter G F,Curtis,et al. Survey of Canadian Legislation[J].The University of Toronto Law Journal,1938, 2 ( 2 ): 376．
[3] Gray K G.The Mental Hospitals Act,1935[J].The University of Toronto Law Journal,1937,2 (1):105．
[1] See Frankenburg F.The 1978 Ontario Mental Health Act in Historical Context[J].Journal of the History ofCanadian Science, Technology and Medecine,1982,6(3):174．
[2] Hale, B. Mentally Incapacitated Adults and Decision Making: The English Perspective [J]. International Journalof Law and Psychiatry, 1997,20:70.
[3] Frankenburg F.The 1978 Ontario Mental Health Act in Historical Context[J].Journal of the History of CanadianScience, Technology and Medecine,1982,6(3):174．
[1]参见徐国栋主编．《魁北克民法典》的世界[J]．中外法学，2005(3)：260-261．
[2]参见徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：7-8．
[3] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:48-49．
[4] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed. Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:49．
[1] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:49．
[2] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:49．
[3] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:49．
[4] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:49．
[5] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:50．
[6] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:50．
[1]See Kultgen J.Autonomy and Intervention:Parentalism in the Caring [M].Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,1995:45．
[2]陈聪富．契约自由与定型化契约的管制[J]．月旦法律杂志，1991：76．转引自李霞．成年监护制度研究[D]．济南：山东大学博士，2007：101．
[1] McLaughlin,Re[1905]A.C.343(P.C.)
[2] See Ridler.Re.65 O.L.R.539[1930]4D.L.R.597(H.C.)
[3] See Young Re,[1942]O.R.301.[1942]3D.L.R.185(C.A.)
[1] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed.Montreal:Dawson Brothers,1870:50．
[2][日]大木雅夫．比较法[M]．范愉译，朱景文较，北京：法律出版社，1999：74．转引自易继明．私法精神与制度选择—大陆法私法古典模式的历史含义[M]．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2003：248．
[3] See Feinberg J.Legal Paternalism[J].Canadian Journal of Philosophy,1971,1(1):105．
[1] Thomas McCord. The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed. Montreal: Dawson Brothers ,1870: 51．
[2] Thomas McCord. The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed. Montreal: Dawson Brothers ,1870: 52．
[3] [德]黑格尔．法哲学原理[M]．范扬，张企泰译，北京：商务印书馆1982：54．
[1]参见李节传．图本加拿大通史[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2011：236．
[1]参见张秋霞，宋培军，郭平主编．加拿大养老保障制度[M]．北京：中国社会出版社，2010：10．(按照世界卫生组织的标准，一个国家以65以上为老人，80岁以上为高龄人，65岁以上人口占社会总人口的7%即属于老龄化社会；占14%，属于高龄社会；占24%，属于“超高龄社会”。这一标准引自梁慧星主编．中国民法典草案建议稿附理由（亲属篇）北京：法律出版社，2006：250)
[2]参见李节传．图本加拿大通史[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2011：236．
[3] See Ismael J.The Canadian Welfare State: Evolution and Transition[M].Edmonton:The University of AlbertaPress,1987:30．
[4]参见王立民主编．加拿大法律发达史[M]．北京：法律出版社，2004：279．
[1]参见王立民主编．加拿大法律发达史[M]．北京：法律出版社，2004：279．
[2]参见张秋霞，宋培军，郭平主编．加拿大养老保障制度[M]．北京：中国社会出版社，2010：147．
[1]参见王立民主编．加拿大法律发达史[M]．北京：法律出版社，2004：284．
[2] See Biegel E, Shore B,Gordon E. Building Support Networks for the Elderly: Theory and Applications[M].Beverly Hills:Sage Publications,1984:47．
[3]陈羿谷．论强制社区治疗之法律问题[D]．台北：铭传大学，2008：26．
[1]参见李静．抗精神病药物的合理应用[J]．中国处方药，2007(5)：44．
[2] See Wilber K H.Alternatives to Guardianship Revisited: What's Risk Got to Do with it? [M].// Smyer M,SchaieK W,Kapp M B.Older Adults’Decision-making and the Law.New York:Springer Publishing,1996:219．
[3] See Haber C.Beyond Sixty-Five: The Dilemma of Old Age in America's Past [M]. New York:CambridgeUniversity Press,1983:71．
[1]参见陈羿谷．论强制社区治疗之法律问题[D]．台北：铭传大学，2008：28．
[1] See Kultgen J.Autonomy and Intervention: Parentalism in the Caring [M].Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,1995:32．
[2] See Smyer M, Schaie K W, Kapp M B. Older Adults' Decision-making and the Law [M].New York：SpringerPublishing,1996:88．
[1] See Osinchuk，Re（1983），A.R.132（Surr.Ct.）
[2] See Eve,Re.[1986]2.S.C.R.388,13 C.P.C.(3d)6,8C.H.R.R.D/3773,31D.L.R.(4th)．
[3] See Dependent Adults Act, RSA 2000, c D-11§7．
[1] See Park Re.[1988]N.W.T.R.274,30E.T.R.226(S.C.)
[2] See Mental Incompentency Act .R.S.O.1990,c.M.9§.9．
[3] See S.S.1989-90,c.D25-1,§18-20．
[1] See S.S.1989-90,c.D25-1,§20(1)．
[2] See S.S.1989-90,c.D25-1,§35-37．
[3] See Mental Health Act,§.69.See Craig v. Craig(1986),44 Man.R.(2d)73(C.A.)
[1] See Robertson G. Mental Disability and the Law in Canada[M].2nd ed.Toronto:Carswell Thomson,1994:99．
[2] See Robertson G. Mental Disability and the Law in Canada[M].2nd ed.Toronto:Carswell Thomson,1994:102．
[3] See Robertson G. Mental Disability and the Law in Canada[M].2nd ed.Toronto:Carswell Thomson,1994:67．
[1] Mental Incompentency Act R.S.O.1990,c.M.9§.10．
[1] See Advisory Committee on Substitute Decision-Making for Mentally Incapable Persons.FinalReport[R].Toronto:Ministry of Attorney General,1988:34．
[2] See Hommel P A.The More Things Change: Principles and Practices of Reformed Guardianship[M].// SmyerM,.Schaie K W,Kapp M B .Older adults' decision-making and the law.NewYork:Springer Publishing,1996:227．
[1] See Dependent Adults Act,§2(2)&21(2)(Alta.)
[2] See Kenned I,Grubb A.Medical Texts and Materials [M].London:Butterworths,1989:220．
[3] See Code of Civil Prodedure ,R.S.Q.1977,c.C-25.§877．
[1] Wright V. Wright[1951]S.C.R.741．
[2] See Re D. (1975),57D.L.R.(3d)724(B.C.S.C.)
[1] See McNeal v. Few(1975),63 B.C.L.R.281(C.A.)
[2] See Scow,Re(1985),63B.C.L.R.287,5C.P.C.(2d)28(S.C.)
[3] See Meade,Re(1979),13B.C.L.R.39(S.C.)
[4] See McDonald P L, Hornick J P,Robertson G B,et al.Elder Abuse and Neglect in Canada[M].Toronto:Butterworth,1991:235．
[1] See Dependant Adults Act,R.S.A.1980,c.D-32,§6．
[2] See Dependant Adults Act,R.S.A.1980,c.D-32,§25．
[3] Johannsen,Re(1983),48A.R.15(Surr.Ct.)．
[1] See Gordon R M,Verdun-Jones S N.Adult Guardianship Law in Canada [M].Toronto:CarswellThomson,1992:3-47．
[2] See Gordon R M,Verdun-Jones S N.Adult Guardianship Law in Canada [M].Toronto:CarswellThomson,1992:3-47．
[3] See Gordon R M,Verdun-Jones S N.Adult Guardianship Law in Canada [M].Toronto:CarswellThomson,1992:3-47．
[4] Clark v. Clark(1982),40 O.R.(2d)383(Co.Ct)．
[1] McNeal v. Few(1975),63 B.C.L.R.281(C.A.)．
[1]See Karp N,Wood E. Guardianship Monitoring:Promising State and Local Court Practices to ProtectIncapacitated Older Adults[J].Aging Policy and the States,2008,32(3):25．
[1]See Gordon R M, Verdun-Jones S N.Adult Guardianship Law in Canada [M].Toronto:CarswellThomson,1992:3-43．
[1] See Gordon R M,Verdun-Jones S N.Adult Guardianship Law in Canada [M].Toronto:CarswellThomson,1992:3-44．
[2] Dependent Adults Act, RSA 1980, c. D-32§11．
[1] Demontigny,Re(1982),19 Alta.L.R.(2d)118(Q.B.)．
[1]参见曲相霏．论人的尊严权[G]//徐显明主编，人权研究第三卷[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2003：164．
[2]参见周安平．社会自治与国家公权[J]．法学，2002(10)：16．
[1]武步云．人本法学的哲学探究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2008：105．
[2]参见李节传．图本加拿大通史[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2011：252.
[1]参见刘艺工．试论1982年加拿大宪法[G]//阿兰.S.罗森保姆编．宪政的哲学之维[M]．郑戈，刘茂林译，北京：三联书店，2001：143-144．
[2]参见刘艺工．试论1982年加拿大宪法[G]//阿兰.S.罗森保姆编．宪政的哲学之维[M]．郑戈，刘茂林译，北京：三联书店，2001：146．
[3]潘汉典．1982年宪法文件[J]．环球法律评论，1982（5）：54．
[1] Koch, Re.33O.R.(3rd)485.[1997]O.J.No.1487．
[2] See Malette v. Shulman (1987), 47 D.L.R. (4th) 18 (Ontario High Court of Justice)．
[1] See Fleming v. Reid, [1991] 4 O. R.(3d) 74 (Ontario Court of Appeal)．
[1] SeeHaber C．Beyond Sixty-Five.The Dilemma of Old Age in America's Past [M].New York: CambridgeUniversity Press,1983:79．
[2]参见李霞．成年监护制度研究[D]．济南：山东大学博士，2007：120．
[3]参见李霞．成年监护制度研究[D]．济南：山东大学博士，2007：120．
[1]参见李霞．成年监护制度研究[D]．济南：山东大学博士，2007：121．
[2]参见李霞．成年监护制度研究[D]．济南：山东大学博士，2007：121．
[3]参见李霞．禁治产制度的废止及我国相关制度的检省[J]．法学论坛，2008（3）：127．
[4]参见李霞．论禁治产人与无行为能力人的当代私法命运[J]．法律科学(西北政法大学学报)，2008（5）：82．
[1]参见[日]宇田川幸则．浅论日本关于成年人监护制度的改革[G]//渠涛．中国民商法研究（第一卷）[M]．北京：法律出版社2002：388．
[2]参见[日]更田彦.人权保障としての成年後见制度[M]，东京:一桥出版社, 2002：91，转引自李霞．禁治产制度的废止及我国相关制度的检省[J]．法学论坛，2008（3）：128．
[1]参见刘德宽.成年监护制度之比较研究-以日、台、德为中心[ J]．月旦法学杂志, 2003, ( 5)：55.转引自李霞．禁治产制度的废止及我国相关制度的检省[J]．法学论坛，2008（3）：128．
[2]参见李霞．禁治产制度的废止及我国相关制度的检省[J]．法学论坛，2008（3）：128．
[3] See Gordon R M, Verdun-Jones S N,MacDougall D.Standing in their shoes:Guardianship,Trusteeship and theElder Canadian[R].Burnaby:Simon Fraser University,1986:34．
[1] Novac M.Ageing & Society—A Canadian Perspective [M]. 2nd ed. Scarborough: Nelson, 1993:56．
[2] Harry H.The Limits of Medical Paternalism [M].London:Routledge,1991:220．
[1] Mental Health Act,R.S.M.1987,c.M110.§80(2)．
[1] See Medical Consent Act. R.S.N.S.1989,c.279.§3(1)．
[2]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：266．
[1]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：266．
[2]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：266．
[1] See Glass K C.Refining Definitions and Devising Instruments:Two Decades of Assessing MentalCompetence[J].International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,1997,20:18．
[2] See King N M P.Making Sense of Advance Directives[M].Washington D.C.:Georgetown UniversityPress,1996:189．
[1] See Monk A,Cox C. Home Care for the Elderly:An International Perspective [M].New York:AuburnHouse,1991:167．
[2] See Quinn M J & Tomita S K.Elder Abuse and Neglect [M].New York:Springer,1986:234．
[3] See Advisory Committee on Substitute Decision-Making for Mentally Incapable Persons.Final Report[R].Toronto: Ministry of Attorney General,1988:23．
[4] See MacLean M J.Abuse and Neglect of Older Canadians:Strategies for Change[M].Toronto:ThompsonEducational Publishing,1995:112．
[1] See Israel Doron.Mental Incapacity,Guardianship,and the Elderly:an Exploratory Study of Ontario’s Consentand Capacity Board[J].Canadian Journal of Law and Society,2003,18(1):136．
[2] See Quinn M J,Tomita K S.Elder Abuse and Neglect:Causes,Diagnosis,and Intervention Strategies[M].2nd ed.New York: Springer,1997:146．
[3] See Robertson G.Mental Disability and the Law in Canada[M].2nd ed. Toronto:Carswell Thomson,1994:32．
[4] Robertson G.Mental Disability and the Law in Canada[M].2nd ed. Toronto:Carswell Thomson,1994:33．
[5] Hoffman B.The Law of Consent to Treatment in Ontario[M].2nd ed.Toronto:Butterworths,1997:54．
[1] Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry of theAttorney General,2005:4．
[2] See Zimney G.H,Grossberg G.T. Guardianship of the Elderly[M].New York:Springer Publishing,1998:259．
[3] Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry of theAttorney General,2005:5．
[4] Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry of theAttorney General,2005:5．
[1] See Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry ofthe Attorney General,2005:6．
[2] See Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry ofthe Attorney General,2005:6．
[1] See Gordon, R.M. The Emergence of Assited (supported) Decision-making in the Canadian Law of AdultGuardianship and Substitue Decision-making [J]. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,2003,23(1):64．
[2] See Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry ofthe Attorney General,2005:7．
[3] See Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry ofthe Attorney General,2005:7．
[1] See Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry ofthe Attorney General,2005:7．
[2] See Capacity Assessment Office. Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity[R]. Toronto: Ministry ofthe Attorney General,2005:7．
[3]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：27．
[1]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：33．
[2]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：34．
[1] See Gordon R M,Verdun-Jones S N.Adult Guardianship Law in Canada [M].Toronto:CarswellThomson,1992:5-16．
[2] See Gordon R M,Verdun-Jones S N.Adult Guardianship Law in Canada [M].Toronto:CarswellThomson,1992:5-16．
[1] Public Curator Act.S.Q.1989,c.54．
[2]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：34．
[3]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：34．
[4]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：267．
[1] [日]山本敬三．民法讲义I总则[M]．解亘译，北京：北京大学出版社，2004：75．
[2] See Israel Doron.Mental Incapacity,Guardianship,and the Elderly: an Exploratory Study of Ontario’s Consentand Capacity Board[J].Canadian Journal of Law and Society.2003,18(1):139．
[3]黄伟合．英国近代自由主义研究-从洛克、边沁到密尔[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2005：99-100．
[1]参见郑秉文．国际居家养老社会化[N]．人民日报，2010-01-26(021)．
[2] See British Columbia Law Institute.Report on the Recognition of Adult Guardianship Orders from Outside theProvince[R].Vancouver:British Columbia Law Institute,2005:7．
[1] See British Columbia Law Institute.Report on the Recognition of Adult Guardianship Orders from Outside theProvince[R].Vancouver:British Columbia Law Institute,2005:7．
[1] See Canadian Centre for Elder Law Studies.A Comparative Analysis of Adult Guardianship Laws in BC, NewZealand and Ontario[R].Vancouver :British Columbia Law Institute ,2006:11．
[2] See British Columbia Law Institute.Report on the Recognition of Adult Guardianship Orders from Outside theProvince[R].Vancouver:British Columbia Law Institute,2005:7．
[1] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed., Montreal :Dawson Brothers ,1870:52．
[2] Thomas McCord.The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed., Montreal :Dawson Brothers ,1870:50．
[1]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：37．
[2]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：34．
[3]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005：38．
[4] See Israel Doron.Mental Incapacity, Guardianship, and the Elderly:an Exploratory Study of Ontario’s Consentand Capacity Board[J].Canadian Journal of Law and Society,2003,18(1):136．
[1] See Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Act.S.M.1993,c.29．§6(2)．
[2] See Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Act.S.M.1993,c.29．
[1] The Guardianship and Trusteeship Act(N.W.T.).§12(1).
[2] [日]宇田川幸则．浅论日本关于成年人监护制度的改革[G]//渠涛．中国民商法研究（第一卷）[M]．北京：法律出版社2002：387．
[3] See Wolfensberger W. The Principle of Normalization in Human Services.[R]. Downsview: NationalAssociation for Mental Retardation, 1972:10．
[1]参见孙海涛．人权视角下的成年监护制度改革[J]．内蒙古社会科学(汉文版)，2011(3)：44．
[2]联合国．世界人权宣言[EB/OL]．(2003-01-20)[2012-03-13]http：//news．xinhuanet．com/ziliao/2003-01/20/content_698168．htm 2012
[3]联合国．残疾人权利国际公约[EB/OL]．[2012-03-13]http：//www．un．org/chinese/disabilities/convention/convention．htm
[1]徐显明、齐延平．论中国人权制度建设的五大主题[G]//徐显明主编．人权研究（第二卷）[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2002：166．
[2]参见李霞．成年监护制度研究[D]．济南：山东大学博士，2007：84．
[3] See Wolf Wolfensberger and Stephen Tullman．A Brief Outline of the Pinciple of Normalization[J].1982,27(3):135．
[1]尹田．民事主体理论与立法研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2003：34．
[2]参见Tom L.Beauchamp,James F.Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th ed, Oxford : Oxford UniversityPress, 2001,P.181 ,转引自朱涛．自然人行为能力制度研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2011：54．
[1] Alberta Guardianship and Trusteeship Regulation, Alta Reg 219/2009,§1(d)．
[2] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§2(1)．
[3] Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§4(1)．
[4] Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§13(1)．
[5] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§2(2)．
[1] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§2(3)．
[2] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§2(4)．
[1] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§9(3)．
[2] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§17(1)&17(2)．
[1] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§22(3)．
[2] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§22(1)．
[3] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§4(3)．
[4] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§13(2)．
[5] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§13(3)．
[6] SeeAdult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§13(4a)．
[1] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§13(4a)&(4b)．
[2] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§13(5)．
[3] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§14(1)．
[4] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§17(5)．
[1] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§17(10)．
[2] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§21(1)．
[3] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§21(2)．
[4] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§21(3)．
[5] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§21(4)．
[1] See Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§21(5)．
[2]曲相霏．论人的尊严权[G]//徐显明主编，人权研究第三卷，济南：山东人民出版社，2003：170．
[1] [法]狄骥：《宪法论》（第1卷），钱克新译，商务印书馆，1959：49，转引自韩德强．论人的尊严—法学视角下人的尊严理论的诠释[M]．北京：法律出版社，2009：152．
[1] See Barbara Carter.Supported Decision-making: Background and Discussion Paper[J].Melbourne :The Office ofthe Public Advocate,2009:9．
[1]张文显．法哲学范畴研究[M]．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2001：213．
[2] See Barbara Carter. Supported decision-making: Background and discussion paper[J]. Melbourne :The office ofthe Public Advocate,2009:6．（加拿大计划（Plan Canada）为加拿大全国性民间组织，总部设在不列颠哥伦比亚省，在艾伯塔省、萨斯喀彻温和安大略省有分支机构。最初是由一些残疾人的家属设立的，目标是帮助残疾人能过的好，帮他们计划未来。）
[3] See Barbara Carter.Supported Decision-making: Background and Discussion Paper[J]. Melbourne :The Officeof the Public Advocate,2009:6．
[4] Adult guardianship and trusteeship act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§14(1)．
[1] [美]马斯洛．动机与人格[M]．许金声等译，北京：华夏出版社，1987：52．
[2]武步云．人本法学的哲学探究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2008：206．
[3] Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act,SA2008,cA-4.2,§9(3)．
[1] [美]德沃金．认真对待权利[M]．信春鹰，吴玉章译，北京：中国大百科全书出版社，2002：357．
[2] [美]杰克．唐纳利．普遍人权的理论与实践[M]．王浦劬等译，北京：中国社会出版社，2001：75．
[1]参见中华人民共和国国家统计局．2010年第六次全国人口普查主要数据公报(第2号)[EB/OL]．(2011-04-29)[2012-3-19].http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20110428_402722232.htm．
[2]参见国务院办公厅．社会养老服务体系建设规划(2011-2015) [EB/OL]．(2011-12-16)[2012-3-19]http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-12/27/content_2030503.htm．
[3]参见国务院办公厅．社会养老服务体系建设规划(2011-2015) [EB/OL]．(2011-12-16)[2012-3-19]http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-12/27/content_2030503.htm．
[4]参见王君平．精神病人有这么多吗[N]．人民日报，2011－07-11(08)．
[1]参见陈友华，徐愫．中国老年人口的健康状况、福利需求与前景[J]．人口学刊，2011（2）：35．
[2]参见仇雨临，梁金刚．我国老年残疾人口生活护理及康复体系构建研究[J]．西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2011(6)：21．
[3]参见仇雨临，梁金刚．我国老年残疾人口生活护理及康复体系构建研究[J]．西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2011(6)：22．
[4]参见丁志宏．我国老年残疾人口：现状与特征[J]．人口研究，2008 (4)：69．
[5]马克思恩格斯全集（第十二卷），北京：人民出版社，1998：568．
[6]参见魏树发．论我国成年监护制度改革[D]．福州：福建师范大学，2010：30．
[1]参见卫敏丽．截至2011年底我国60岁以上老年人口达到1.85亿[J/OL]．(2012-03-02)[2012-3-19]http://www.cpdrc.org.cn/news/rkxw_gn_detail.asp?id=15547
[2]参见杜萌．破解精神卫生管理难题需完善社区服务体系[N]．法制日报，2011-10-11（004）
[1]参见赵涵漠．老年痴呆病患者：沉默的600万[J/OL]．（2010-05-05）[2012-3-13]http//zqb.cyol.com/content/2010-05/05/content_3214801.htm
[1]参见魏树发．论我国成年监护制度改革[D]．福州：福建师范大学，2010：31．
[2]联合国．残疾人权利国际公约[EB/OL]．[2012-03-13]http：//www.un.org/chinese/disabilities/convention/convention.htm
[1]联合国．残疾人权利国际公约[EB/OL]．[2012-03-13]http：//www．un．org/chinese/disabilities/convention/convention．htm．
[2]联合国．残疾人权利国际公约[EB/OL]．[2012-03-13]http：//www．un．org/chinese/disabilities/convention/convention．htm．
[3]参见朱涛．自然人行为能力制度研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2011：216．
[1] See Canadian Centre for Elder Law Studies.A comparative Analysis of Adult Guardianship Laws in BC, NewZealand and Ontario[R].Vancouver:British Columbia Law Institute,2006:17．
[1]肖厚国．民法法典化的价值、模式与学理[J]．现代法学，2001(4)：10．
[1] See Index mundi.Canada Demographics Profile ,2012[EB/OL]．（2011-7-12）[2012-3-19]http://www.indexmundi.com/canada/demographics_profile.html．
[2]参见国务院办公厅．社会养老服务体系建设规划(2011-2015) [EB/OL]．(2011-12-16)[2012-3-19]http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-12/27/content_2030503.htm．
[1]张秋霞，宋培军，郭平主编．加拿大养老保障制度[M]．北京：中国社会出版社，2010：6．
[2]国务院办公厅．社会养老服务体系建设规划(2011-2015) [EB/OL]．(2011-12-16)[2012-3-19]http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-12/27/content_2030503.htm．
[1]约翰.密尔．论自由[M]．商务印书馆，1982：104-105．转引自黄伟合．英国近代自由主义研究-从洛克、边沁到密尔[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2005：101．
[1]伯林．两种自由概念．公共论丛．No.1．北京：三联书店，1995：203．转引自张栋．论人权的相对性与绝对性—以不利选择权为例[G]//徐显明主编．人权研究（第二卷）[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2002：95．
[1]朱涛．自然人行为能力制度研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2011：50．
[1]徐国栋．从身份到理性—现代民法中的行为能力制度沿革考[J]．法律科学(西北政法学院学报)，2006(4)：71．
[1]马克思恩格斯全集(第六卷)，北京：人民出版社，1961：291．
[1]杨立新．人身权法论[M]．北京：人民法院出版社，2002．
[2]易继明．私法精神与制度选择—大陆法私法古典模式的历史含义[M]．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2003．
[3]王立民主编．加拿大法律发达史[M]．北京：法律出版社，2004．
[4]武步云．人本法学的哲学探究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2008．
[5]李节传．图本加拿大通史[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2011．
[6]徐显明主编．人权研究（第二卷）[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2002．
[7]徐显明主编．人权研究（第三卷）[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2003．
[8]尹田．民事主体理论与立法研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2003．
[9]韩德强．论人的尊严—法学视角下人的尊严理论的诠释[M]．北京：法律出版社，2009．
[10]龙卫球．民法总论[M]．北京：中国法制出版社，2002．
[11]李霞.民法典成年保护制度[M]．济南：山东大学出版社，2007.
[12]朱涛．自然人行为能力制度研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2011．
[13]魏振瀛主编．民法[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2000．
[14]李桂山．加拿大社会与文化散论[M]．北京：北京航空航天大学出版社，2008．
[15]李贵连．沈家本年谱长编[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2010．
[16]黄伟合．英国近代自由主义研究-从洛克、边沁到密尔[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2005．
[17]张秋霞，宋培军，郭平主编．加拿大养老保障制度[M]．北京：中国社会出版社，2010．
[18]张彩凤．英国法治研究[M]．北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，2001．
[19]张文显．法哲学范畴研究[M]．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2001．
[20]梁慧星主编．中国民法典草案建议稿附理由（亲属篇）[M]．北京：法律出版社，2006．
[1] [古希腊]亚里士多德．政治学[M]．吴寿彭译，北京：商务印书馆，1965．
[2] [美]阿兰．S．罗森保姆主编．宪政的哲学之维[M]．郑戈，刘茂林译，北京：三联书店，2001．
[3] [美]马斯洛．动机与人格[M]．许金声等译，北京：华夏出版社，1987．
[4] [美]德沃金．认真对待权利[M]．信春鹰，吴玉章译，北京：中国大百科全书出版社，2002．
[5] [美]杰克．唐纳利．普遍人权的理论与实践[M]．王浦劬等译，北京：中国社会出版社，2001．
[6]拿破仑民法典[M]．李浩培译，北京：商务印书馆，1981．
[7]徐国栋主编．魁北克民法典[M]．孙建江，郭站红，朱亚芬译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005．
[8] [德]黑格尔．法哲学原理[M]．范扬，张企泰译，北京：商务印书馆，1982．
[9]马克思恩格斯全集（第6卷），北京：人民出版社，1961．
[10]马克思恩格斯全集（第12卷），北京：人民出版社，1998．
[1]徐显明、齐延平．论中国人权制度建设的五大主题[G]//徐显明主编．人权研究（第二卷）[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2002，161—176．
[2]曲相霏．论人的尊严权，[G]//徐显明主编，人权研究第三卷，济南：山东人民出版社，2003，163—173．
[3]盖伊．拉弗朗斯．孟德斯鸠和卢梭的宪政理论[G]// [美]阿兰．S．罗森保姆编．宪政的哲学之维[M]．郑戈，刘茂林译，北京：三联书店，2001，75—92．
[4]刘艺工．试论1982年加拿大宪法[G]//阿兰．S．罗森保姆编．宪政的哲学之维[M]．郑戈，刘茂林译，北京：三联书店，2001：139—149．
[5] [日]宇田川幸则．浅论日本关于成年人监护制度的改革[G]//渠涛．中国民商法研究（第一卷）[M]．北京：法律出版社2002：382—396．
[6]张栋．论人权的相对性与绝对性—以不利选择权为例[G]//徐显明主编．人权研究（第二卷）[M]．济南：山东人民出版社，2002：49—95．
[1]汪习根、李蕾．别具一格的加拿大宪法[J]．当代法学，2004（7）：131—135．
[2]肖厚国．民法法典化的价值、模式与学理[J]．现代法学，2001(4)：7—16．
[3]徐国栋．《魁北克民法典》的世界[J]．中外法学，2005(3)：257-283．
[4]李霞．禁治产制度的废止及我国相关制度的检省[J]．法学论坛，2008(5)：126—132．
[5]孙海涛．人权视角下的成年监护制度改革[J]．内蒙古社会科学(汉文版)，2011(3)：42—47．
[6]高圆圆．对精神残疾群体回归社会的思考[J]．黑龙江社会科学，2009(5)：168—171．
[7]李霞．意定监护制度论纲[J]．法学，2011(4)：118—128．
[8]李霞．论禁治产人与无行为能力人的当代私法命运[J]．法律科学(西北政法大学学报)，2008（5）：81—86．
[9]张霄．法律文化特征考察—兼论法国民法典的价值取向[J]．福建省社会主义学院学报，2004（3）：44—48．
[10]王云霞．《法国民法典》的时代精神探析[J]．法学家，2004（2）：55—63．
[11]李静．抗精神病药物的合理应用[J]．中国处方药，2007(5)：45—48．
[12]向荣．16、17世纪英国政治文化中的父权主义[J]．史学月刊，2001（1）：93—99．
[13]马忆南．婚姻家庭法领域的个人自由与国家干预[J]．文化纵横，2011（1）：45—50．
[14]周安平．社会自治与国家公权[J]．法学，2002（10）：15—22．
[15]陈友华，徐愫．中国老年人口的健康状况、福利需求与前景[J]．人口学刊，2011（2）：34—39．
[16]仇雨临，梁金刚．我国老年残疾人口生活护理及康复体系构建研究[J]．西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2011（6）：21—26．
[17]丁志宏．我国老年残疾人口：现状与特征［J］．人口研究，2008 (4)：66—72．
[18]徐国栋．从身份到理性—现代民法中的行为能力制度沿革考[J]．法律科学(西北政法学院学报)，2006(4)：64—73．
[19]郑秉文．国际居家养老社会化[N]．人民日报，2010-01-26(021)．
[20]王君平．精神病人有这么多吗[N]．人民日报，2011－07-11(08)．
[21]杜萌．破解精神卫生管理难题需完善社区服务体系[N]．法制日报，2011-10-11（004）．
[1]李霞．成年监护制度研究[D]．济南：山东大学博士，2007．
[2]魏树发．论我国成年监护制度改革[D]．福州：福建师范大学，2010．
[3]陈羿谷．论强制社区治疗之法律问题[D]．台北：铭传大学，2008．
[1] Biegel E., B. K. Shore, E. Gordon.Building Support Networks for the Elderly:Theory and Applications[M]. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1984.
[2] Blokland H., Freedom and Culture in Western Society[M]. London: Routledge,1997.
[3] Butler R.N., M.I. Lewis, Ageing and Mental Health[M]. St. Louis: Mosby, 1973.
[4] Thomas McCord. The Civil Code of Lower Canada [M].2nd ed．Montreal: DawsonBrothers,1870．
[5] Craig Y.J., Elder Abuse and Mediation [M]. London: Avebury, 1997.
[6] Gordon R.M, S.M. Verdun-Jones, Adult Guardianship in Canada [M]. Toronto:Carswell, 1992.
[7] Haber C.Beyond Sixty-Five: The Dilemma of Old Age in America's Past [M]. NewYork: Cambridge U. Press,1983.
[8] Harry H. The Limits of Medical Paternalism [M]. London: Routledge, 1991.
[9] Hoffman B.The Law of Consent to Treatment in Ontario[M].2nded. Toronto:Butterworths, 1997.
[10]Kane R. A.&R. L. Kane. Assessing the Elderly--A Practical Guide to Measurement[M].New York: Lexington, 1981.
[11]Kenned I.&A. Grubb, Medical Texts and Materials [M]. London: Butterworths,1989.
[12]Kidder R. L. Connecting Law and Society [M]. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1983.
[13]King N. M. P. Making Sense of Advance Directives [M]. Washington D.C.:Georgetown University Press, 1996.
[14]Kleinig, J., Paternalism [M]. U.S.A.: Rowman &Allanheld, 1984.
[15]Kultgen J.Autonomy and Intervention: Parentalism in the Caring [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1995.
[16] McDonald. P.,Robertson. G. B,Wallace, J. E. Elder Abuse and Neglect in Canada[M]. Toronto: Butterworth, 1991.
[17]Means R. and Smith R.,From Poor Law to Community Care [M]. Bristol: ThePolicy Press, 1998.
[18]Mitchinson W.,J. D. McGinnins, eds., Essays in the History of CanadianMedicine[M]. Toronto: McClelland&Stewart, 1988.
[19]Monk A.&C. Cox, Home Care for the Elderly: An International Perspective [M].New York: Auburn House, 1991.
[20]Morris R., F. Caro,J. Hansan, Personal Assistance—The Future of Home Care[M].Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 1998.
[21]Novac M.Ageing ,Society—A Canadian Perspective [M]. 2nd ed. Scarborough:Nelson, 1993.
[22]Quinn M.J.,S.K. Tomita.ElderAbuse and Neglect [M].New York: Springer, 1986.
[23]Galaway, B.,Hudson J. Storative Justice: International Perspectives[M]. New York:Criminal Justice Press,1996.
[24]Gordon,R.M.The British Columbia Representation Agreement Act, AdultGuardianship Act, and Related Statutes[M]. Toronto: Carswell Thomson, 2000
[25]Zimney, G. H., & Grossberg, G. T. Guardianship of the Elderly[M]. New York:Springer Publishing,1998.
[26]Kittrie, N. The Right to be Different: Deviance and Enforced Therapy[M].Baltimore: Penguin Books,1971
[27]MacLean, M. J. Abuse and Neglect of Older Canadians: Strategies forChange[M].Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing,1995.
[28]Schneider, R. D. Ontario Mental Health Statutes[M]. Toronto: Carswell,1996.
[29]Quinn, M. J., Tomita, K. S. Elder Abuse and Neglect: Causes, Diagnosis, andIntervention Strategies [M]. 2nd ed. New York: Springer,1997.
[30]Rathbone-McCuan, E., Fabian D. R. Self-neglecting Elders: a Clinical Dilemma.
[M]. Westport:Greenwood Publishing,1992.
[31] Robertson, G..Mental Disability and the Law in Canada[M].2nd ed. Toronto:Carswell Thomson,1994.
[32]Buchanan. A. E.,Brock, D. W. Deciding for Others: The Ethics of SurrogateDecision-making[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,1989.
[33]Silberfeld, M., Fish, A.. When the Mind Fails[M].Toronto: University of TorontoPress,1994.
[34]Smyer, M., Schaie, K. W.&Kapp, M. B. Older Adults’Decision-making and thelaw[M]. New York: Springer Publishing,1996.
[1] Coughlan, S. G., Downe-Warmboldt, et al.Mandatory Reporting of Suspected ElderAbuse and Neglect: a Practical and Ethical Evaluation. [J].Dalhousie Law Journal,1996,19 (1):45—70．
[2] Duke, J. A National Study of Involuntary Protective Services to Adult ProtectiveServices Clients[J]. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 1997;9 (1):51—68．
[3] Goodrich, C. S.Results of a National Survey of State Protective Services Programs:Assessing Risk and Defining Victim Outcomes[J].Journal of Elder Abuse andNeglect, 1997,9 (1): 69—86．
[4] Gordon, R. M.. Adult Guardianship and Adult Protection Legislation in Canada:Recent Reforms and Future Problems[J].Canadian Journal of Aging, 1995,14 (2):89—102．
[5] Gordon, R. M. The Emergence of Assisted (supported) Decision-making in theCanadian Law of Adult Guardianship and Substitute Decision-making[J].International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 2000,23 (1): 61—77．
[6] Kurrle, S., Sadler, P. Lockwood, K&Cameron. Elder Abuse: Prevalence,Intervention and Outcomes in Patients Referred to Four Aged Care AssessmentTeams[J]. Medical Journal of Australia, 1997,23(3):166—187．
[7] Perlin, M. What is Therapeutic Jurisprudence? [J].New York Law School Journal ofHuman Rights. 1993:10 (3):623—636．
[8] Pillemer, K., Finkelhor, D. The Prevalence of Elder Abuse: a Random SampleSurvey[J]. Gerontologist, 1988,28 (1):51—57．
[9] Poirier, D. The Power of Social Workers in the Creation and Application of ElderProtection Statutory Norms in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia[J].Journal ofElder Abuse and Neglect, 1992,4 (1):113—134．
[10]Schmidt, W. C. Adult Protective Services and the Therapeutic State[J]. Law andPsychology Review, 1986,10(1):101—146．
[11]Glass, K. C. Refining Definitions and Devising Instruments: Two Decades ofAssessing Mental Competence[J].International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,1997 ,20(5) 5—33．
[12]Hale, B. Mentally Incapacitated Adults and Decision Making: The EnglishPerspective[J]. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 1997,20(1):59—75．
[13]Poirier, D. The Power of Social Workers in the Creation and Application of ElderProtection Statutory Norms in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia[J]. Journal ofElder Abuse and Neglect, 1992,14(1):113—133．
[14]Israel Doron.Mental Incapacity,Guardianship,and the Elderly：an ExploratoryStudy of Ontario’s Consent and Capacity Board[J]．Canadian Journal of Law andSociety,2003,18(1):131—145．
[15]Renton W A．Comparative Lunacy Law[J]．Journal of the Society of ComparativeLegislation,1899,1(2)：253—275．
[16]Frankenburg F.The1978 Ontario Mental Health Act in HistoricalContext[J].Journal of the History of Canadian Science, Technology andMedecine,1982,6(3):172—177．
[17] T W S.Creditors' Rights in the Administration of Insane Persons’Estates[J].Virginia Law Review,1938,24(6):643—653．
[18]Gray K G.The Mental Hospitals Act,1935[J].The University of Toronto LawJournal,1937,2 (1):103—113．
[19]Dana H,Porter G F, Curtis, et al.Survey of Canadian Legislation[J].The Universityof Toronto Law Journal,1938,2 ( 2 ):374—385．
[20]Johns A.F.，Bowers V.J.Guardianship Folly: The Misgovernment of Parens Patriaeand the Forecast of its Crumbling Linkage to Unprotected Older Americans in theTwenty-First Century—A March of Folly? Or Just A Mask of Virtual Reality?[J].Stetson Law Review,1997,27(1):1—87.
[21]Feinberg J.Legal Paternalism[J].Canadian Journal of Philosophy,1971,1(1):105—124．
[22]Wofensberger W. ,Tullman S. A Brief Outline of the Principle of Normalization[J].Rehabilitation Psychology,1982,27(3):131—145．
[1] Advisory Committee on Substitute Decision-Making for Mentally IncapablePersons . Final Report[R].Toronto: Ministry of Attorney General, 1988．
[2] Chalke, J., Hayes, L., Howitt, K. Substitute Decision Making for Incapable People:Trends in Law and Policy[R]. Toronto:Law Society of Upper Canada,1996．
[3] Gordon, R. M., Verdun-Jones, S. N., MacDougall, D. Standing in Their shoes:Guardianship, Trusteeship and the Elder Canadian[R]. Burnaby: Simon FraserUniversity, 1986．
[4] Harbison, J., Coughlan, S. G., Downe-Wamboldt, B.,et al. Mistreating ElderlyPeople: Questioning the Legal Response to Elder Abuse and Neglect[R].Halifax:Dalhousie University Health Law Institute. 1995．
[5] Joint Working Committee on Adult Guardianship. How Can We Help? [R].Vancouver: Ministry of Attorney General,1992．
[6] Manitoba Law Reform Commission. Elder Abuse and Adult Protection: aDiscussion Paper[R]. Winnipeg: Manitoba Law Reform Commission,1998．
[7] Podnieks, E., Pillemer, K., Nicholson, P., Shillington, et al. A National Survey onAbuse of the Elderly in Canada[R]. Toronto: Ryerson PolytechnicalInstitute,1990．
[8] Senior Citizens Secretariat.Elder Abuse: Everyone's Concern[R]. Halifax: SeniorCitizens Secretariat,1984．
[9] Canadian Association for Community Living. Report of the Task Force onAlternatives to Guardianship[R]. Ottawa: Canadian Association for CommunityLiving,1992．
[10]Wolfensberger, W. The Principle of Normalization in Human Services. [R].Downsview: National Association for Mental Retardation,1972．
[11]British Columbia Law Institute.Report on the Recognition of Adult GuardianshipOrders from Outside the Province[R].Vancouver :British Columbia LawInstitute ,2005．
[12]Barbara Carter. Supported Decision-making: Background and Discussion paper[R].Melbourne: The office of the Public Advocate,2009．
[13]BC Adult Abuse/Neglect Prevention Collaborative.Vulnerable Adults andCapability Issues in BC[R] .Vancouver:British Columbia Law Institute,2009．
[14]Canadian Centre for Elder Law Studies.A Comparative Analysis of AdultGuardianship Laws in BC, New Zealand and Ontario[R].Vancouver:BritishColumbia Law Institute,2006．
[15]Capacity Assessment Office.Guidelines for Conducting Assessments ofCapacity[R].Toronto:Ministry of the Attorney General,2005．