What principle allows a guardian to make decisions based on how the ward previously handled their affairs?

The principle of substituted judgment is a fundamental aspect of guardianship that enables a guardian to make decisions reflecting the ward's past preferences and practices. This approach is grounded in the idea that a guardian should act in a manner that aligns with the wishes and values of the ward, to the extent they are known. Thus, when a ward is unable to make decisions for themselves, the guardian seeks to step into their shoes and make choices that the ward would likely have made based on their previous behavior and expressed desires.

For example, if a ward consistently chose to pursue certain types of medical treatment or had a specific way of managing their finances before becoming incapacitated, the guardian should strive to honor those choices when making similar decisions on their behalf. This approach not only respects the ward's autonomy to the maximum extent possible but also establishes a clear framework for decision-making that can help ensure the guardian's actions align with the ward's prior intentions.

Other principles like guardianship of necessity or direct representation do not focus specifically on reflecting the ward's past decisions and preferences to the same extent as substituted judgment. Likewise, informed consent pertains to understanding and agreeing to specific actions rather than the broader principle of decision-making based on historical behavior. Thus, substituted judgment stands out as the correct