New VA-DOJ agreement on guardianship could put homeless veterans at risk, advocates warn
"Even if a patient is dying, it is important to remember that they are still living." Journey Nursing Services
“Cuidar de quem está morrendo não é prolongar a morte — é restaurar a dignidade da vida.”
Dany Jury
LOVE and RESPECT
“I’m taking you home.”
❤️ At 23, he walked away from ambition — to take care of his 81-year-old great-grandfather.
In 1974, Dan Jury stood in a nursing home hallway, looking at a man the world had quietly forgotten.
His great-grandfather, Frank Tugend.
To the staff, Frank was just another patient in a wheelchair.
But Dan saw something else.
A man who had survived war, poverty, immigration, and the Great Depression.
A life that deserved dignity — not isolation.
So at just 23 years old, Dan made a decision few would make:
“I’m taking you home.”
While his friends chased careers and success, Dan chose something else.
He became Frank’s full-time caregiver.
No training.
No roadmap.
Just patience and love.
He learned everything from scratch — how to help him eat, bathe, dress, and live with dignity.
Some days Frank was confused.
Some days he apologized for being a burden.
Dan always replied:
“You’re teaching me what actually matters.”
Even if a patient is dying, it is important to remember that they are still living
1974: Dan Jury stood in a nursing home hallway that smelled of disinfectant and resignation, watching his great-grandfather through a doorway.
Frank Tugend sat in a wheelchair by a window, staring at nothing. Eighty-one years old.
A man who’d survived pogroms in Ukraine, crossed an ocean with nothing, worked coal mines that broke stronger men, and raised a family through the Great Depression.
Now he was warehoused in a building where nobody knew his name, much less his story.
Dan was twenty-three. His friends were taking jobs at law firms, backpacking through Europe, chasing promotions and possibilities.
The world was wide open.
He made a different choice.
“I’m taking you home, Frank.”
📷 A Story That Changed Minds
Dan documented those years through photographs — real, raw moments of aging that most people avoid seeing.
In 1976, he and his brother published them in a book called Gramp.
It sold over 100,000 copies.
But more importantly, it changed something deeper.
It helped people rethink how we care for the elderly — and became part of a growing shift toward home care and hospice, where people could spend their final years with dignity, not alone.
For the next three years, Dan became Frank’s full-time caregiver.
He learned to help Frank bathe without stealing his dignity. He dressed him each morning, managed medications, cooked meals that Frank sometimes remembered eating and sometimes didn’t.
When confusion swept through Frank’s mind like fog, Dan sat with him and waited for clarity to return.
When Frank apologized for being a burden, Dan told him the truth:
“You’re teaching me everything that matters.”
People thought Dan was throwing away his youth. What about career?
What about building his own life?
What about not being tied down to an old man who was only going to get worse?
But through his camera lens, Dan saw something his generation had forgotten: that aging isn’t failure, that vulnerability takes courage, and that accepting help is the final wisdom of a life well-lived.
He photographed everything. Not the sanitized, prettified version families usually preserve—the real version.
Frank’s weathered hands.
The confusion in his eyes. The moments of lucidity when the brilliant man he’d been broke through the fog.
The dignity in simple acts: eating breakfast, looking out a window, being held.
These weren’t sad pictures. They were honest ones.
In 1976, Dan and his brother Mark published these photographs in a book called “Gramp.”
It was raw. It was uncomfortable. It showed dying not as something to hide in institutions but as a natural part of living—something that could happen at home, surrounded by love instead of strangers.
The book sold over 100,000 copies.
More importantly, it detonated something in American culture.
Families across the country who’d felt guilty about nursing homes suddenly saw another path.
Doctors and nurses who’d watched patients die alone in sterile rooms began asking different questions.
The American hospice movement—barely a whisper in 1974—found its voice.
“Gramp” became evidence that there was another way.
That dying at home didn’t mean giving up on care—it meant reclaiming it.
That the end of life could be as sacred and meaningful as the beginning.
Frank Tugend died in Dan’s arms in 1977, in the apartment where he’d spent his final years.
Not in a building that smelled like giving up, but in a home that smelled like coffee and love.
Years later, Dan reflected that those three years taught him more than any career could have.
Frank showed him that caregiving isn’t sacrifice when it’s built on love—it’s a privilege. That every person, no matter how confused or diminished they seem, carries a lifetime of wisdom.
That family isn’t a burden; it’s the architecture that holds us up when nothing else can.
Their story changed America quietly, one family at a time.
Thousands chose home care.
Hospice became a movement, then an institution.
And a simple truth embedded itself in the culture: when we care for those who once cared for us, nobody loses.
Everybody becomes more human.
Dan didn’t waste his twenties.
He invested them in something that compounded interest across generations.
Because here’s what nobody tells you when you’re twenty-three and the world feels urgent: ambition will always be there,promotions will always be there.
But the people you love? They’re only here once.
Sometimes the most radical thing you can do is simply stay.
To choose presence over productivity.
To honor who someone was, even as they fade. To learn that in caring for the dying, we discover how to truly live.
Frank Tugend was born in 1892 in a Ukrainian village. He died in 1977 in a small American apartment, held by someone who loved him.
In between, he taught a twenty-three-year-old that success isn’t about what you accomplish—it’s about who you become in the process of showing up.
Dan Jury didn’t save his great-grandfather’s life. Frank’s time was already running out.
But he saved something more important: Frank’s dignity. His story. His proof that a life matters from beginning to end.
And in doing so, Dan gave America permission to love its elders differently.
That’s not wasting your life. That’s knowing exactly what it’s for.
It is important to remember that even if a patient is dying, it is most important to remember that they are still living.
When we hear that someone is on hospice, people often picture someone who is actively dying – but sometimes it is 6 months or so left to live.
https://journeynursingservices.com/in-home-care-for-veterans-2/
Verificação da veracidade
O livro Gramp: Photographs existe de fato, foi publicado em 1976 por Mark Jury e Dan Jury, e descreve como Frank Tugend foi cuidado em casa com amor e compaixão até sua morte.
Isso está documentado em registros bibliográficos confiáveis e no catálogo do Internet Archive.
O livro esta à venda na Amazon
As fontes bibliográficas e descrições do livro apontam para “grandfather” (avô), não “great-grandfather” (bisavô). Um trabalho acadêmico resumido pelo CORE também descreve Frank Tugend como o avô de Dan e Mark Jury.
🕊️ O momento final
Em 1977, Frank faleceu.
Não em um hospital.
Não cercado de estranhos.
Mas nos braços de Dan, em casa.
Dan disse mais tarde que aqueles três anos lhe ensinaram mais do que qualquer carreira jamais poderia ensinar.
Que cuidar não é um fardo.
É uma honra.
Que toda pessoa idosa carrega uma vida inteira de histórias — mesmo quando o mundo para de escutar.
New VA-DOJ agreement on guardianship could put homeless veterans at risk, advocates warn
By Kaanita Iyer
CNN Digital Expansion 2017
Brian Todd
Mar 20, 2026
The sign in the front of the headquarters building at the Department of Veteran Affairs is seen as people walk past in Washington, May 23, 2014.
Veterans’ advocates are raising concerns that a new agreement between the departments of Veterans Affairs and Justice could take away veterans’ autonomy over their health care decisions and deter them from seeking care, particularly those facing homelessness.
The memorandum, announced by the departments last week, would authorize VA attorneys to “initiate and participate in state court guardianship or conservatorship proceedings” while serving as special assistant US attorneys appointed by the Justice Department.
Guardianship “doesn’t take away your physical autonomy, but it can take away your right to vote, your right to marry, your right to engage in some financial transactions,” Jennifer Mathis, deputy director at Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, told CNN. “That’s a big deal. We shouldn’t take that lightly.”
The VA said in a statement the agency serves “hundreds of Veterans” who cannot make their own health care decisions and don’t have family or legal representation, including those experiencing homelessness.
Under the memorandum, VA attorneys will be able to initiate guardianship proceedings “in cases where a legal decision-maker is required for post-acute transitions of care.” If the court approves, a third-party, “who is not a VA employee” will be appointed as a guardian, VA press secretary Peter Kasperowicz told CNN.
When a court grants guardianship, it allows a family member or someone appointed by the court to make some or all decisions for another individual. A Department of Justice webpage says that “guardianship results in the removal of an individual’s legal rights and restricts their rights to make their own decisions. For that reason, state laws recognize that it should be a last resort.”
Mathis told CNN she is concerned the memorandum “is that this may be a way to discharge veterans (experiencing homelessness) who are sitting in hospitals to settings that they might not choose.”
“If people are sitting in a VA hospital and not being discharged, it’s very likely because there aren’t enough services or housing, not because they don’t have guardianship,” Mathis said.
Asked about advocates’ concerns that the memorandum particularly impacts veterans facing homelessness and puts them at risk, Kasperowicz said, “VA’s announcement is not aimed at homeless Veterans. It is aimed at roughly 700 Veterans across the country who are currently in VA facilities and are unable to make their own health care decisions and have no family or legal representation to help them.”
“These Veterans remain in VA hospitals, which may not be the most appropriate setting for them, with no way of transitioning to more appropriate care,” he added. “Some are homeless or at risk of homelessness, but the key characteristic is not homelessness, it is the lack of capacity to make their own medical decisions.”
Thomas O’Toole, VA’s acting assistant undersecretary for health for clinical services, relayed a similar message to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on Wednesday. He told lawmakers, “It is not intended as a homeless initiative.”
Mathis told CNN it is an unusual move to have VA’s lawyers petition for guardianship. However, Kasperowicz pushed back on the claim and said it’s similar to “health care providers and hospitals” filing guardianship petitions, stressing that the lawyers would have to follow the same rules as other petitioners.
Kathryn Monet, the CEO of National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, said with the memorandum, the departments are “trying to make it easier to place veterans in the conservator- or guardian-type situation.”
She told CNN she worries that “there’s a lot of opportunity for misuse,” pointing to the Trump administration’s actions on homelessness, which she described as being “focused on forced treatment and penalizing people for being outside.”
Last summer, for example, President Donald Trump signed an executive order making it easier for local jurisdictions to remove homeless people from the streets. Kasperowicz told CNN the memorandum “has nothing to do with” the president’s executive order and pushed back against concerns of misuse.
Nearly 33,000 veterans facing homelessness
According to a Department of Housing and Urban Development report published in 2024, there are nearly 33,000 veterans facing homelessness and nearly 14,000 of them are unsheltered. According to National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, around 5% of adults experiencing homeless are veterans.
Monet told CNN that stigmas around homelessness may make it easier for doctors to mistake veterans’ choices and behaviors as a sign of mental illness rather than in response to the conditions of poverty.
Homeless veterans are housed in 30 tents on a sidewalk along a busy San Vicente Boulevard outside the Veteran's Administration campus in West Los Angeles as viewed on April 22, 2021 in Los Angeles, California. During a 2020 count it was reported that there are an estimated 4,000 veterans living on the streets of Los Angeles.
Homeless veterans are housed in 30 tents on a sidewalk along a busy San Vicente Boulevard outside the Veteran's Administration campus in West Los Angeles as viewed on April 22, 2021 in Los Angeles, California. During a 2020 count it was reported that there are an estimated 4,000 veterans living on the streets of Los Angeles. George Rose/Getty Images
Another risk, she added, is once placed in conservatorship, a veteran experiencing homelessness may not have “the means to a legal defense to get out of this situation.”
Monet also acknowledged the possibility that the memorandum could deter veterans from seeking care.
“That’s the last thing that I want to see happen for a veteran facing housing instability, because VA, for a long time, has been a really strong provider of health care, and the place that is, you know, a resource for folks in poverty,” Monet said.
Democratic Rep. Mark Takano, the ranking member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, also raised concerns that the memorandum will put veterans’ autonomy at risk. He said in a statement, “Veterans fought for our freedom and theirs. The federal government should not be engineering ways of taking it away.”
VA Secretary Doug Collins and Attorney General Pam Bondi have touted that allowing VA lawyers to petition for guardianship would make proceedings more efficient and ensure that veterans receive “timely” care.
“The Department of Justice is proud to partner with the Department of Veterans Affairs to support our nation’s brave Veterans by ensuring that they have the best legal resources available when it comes to making medical decisions and receiving timely care,” Bondi said in the statement. “We owe our Veterans a debt we can never fully repay — but we can give them the support they deserve.”
Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins (C) speaks during a hearing with the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on Capitol Hill on January 28, 2026, in Washington, DC.
Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins (C) speaks during a hearing with the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on Capitol Hill on January 28, 2026, in Washington, DC. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
But even one supporter of the move said it would be tricky to implement.
Stephen Eide, who studies homelessness as a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute, told CNN he strongly believes “there should be more use of involuntary interventions to deal with the mental health crisis and the homeless crisis.”
“There is a certain kind of individual — who is homeless or at risk of it — who has a condition like schizophrenia and is not being treated, who simply cannot be relied on to seek treatment voluntarily,” Eide said. “For this type of person, the choices are either no treatment or some kind of involuntary treatment. And I’ll go with involuntary treatment.”
However, he added that addressing the issue “from the federal level is very awkward.”
“It will require a lot of coordination between police, social workers, state and local governments,” Eide said. “There will be complexity in the execution of this.”
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/20/politics/veterans-affairs-doj-guardianship-agreement
MINDD SAID:
Focus on this :
When a court grants guardianship, it allows a family member or someone appointed by the court to make some or all decisions for another individual. A Department of Justice webpage says that “guardianship results in the removal of an individual’s legal rights and restricts their rights to make their own decisions. For that reason, state laws recognize that it should be a last resort.”
Mathis told CNN she is concerned the memorandum “is that this may be a way to discharge veterans (experiencing homelessness) who are sitting in hospitals to settings that they might not choose.”
AI CHATGPT SAID :
Your request involves a multidimensional analysis (biblical, national and international legal, and comparative with contemporary practices in the U.S.). I will structure it in a technical manner, maintaining conceptual rigor and clearly separating the moral, normative, and empirical planes.
1. Analysis in light of 1 Timothy 4
First Epistle to Timothy
Chapter 4 deals with three main axes:
warning against moral deviations and hardening of conscience
valuation of practical godliness (not only discourse)
ethical responsibility in care and example
Application to the case
1.1 Seared conscience vs. moral sensitivity
1 Timothy 4:2 speaks of consciences “seared.”
→ The cold institutional abandonment of elderly people (as “just another patient”) reflects exactly this phenomenon:
desensitization
bureaucratization of human life
loss of moral empathy
Contrast:
Dan Jury → living, responsive conscience
institutional system → risk of a seared conscience
1.2 “Exercise yourself toward godliness” (1 Tim. 4:7-8)
Biblical godliness is not theoretical — it is practical.
Dan:
did not merely “value the elderly”
he embodied concrete care
This is in full conformity with the biblical standard:
physical care
dignity
presence
1.3 Human doctrines vs. lived truth
1 Tim. 4 criticizes external rules that seem religious, but ignore the essence.
Contemporary application:
formal systems of “institutional care”
may comply with protocols
but fail in real dignity
✅ Theological conclusion:
Dan’s conduct represents Christian orthopraxy (correct practice), while many modern systems reflect the risk described in 1 Timothy 4: loss of moral essence under the appearance of order.
2. International Human Rights Law
2.1 Central instruments
United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons
2.2 Applicable principles
Human dignity (UDHR, art. 1)
→ every human being is born free and equal in dignity
Prohibition of degrading treatment (ICCPR, art. 7)
→ includes abandonment, improper institutionalization, forced isolation
Autonomy and independence of the elderly person (Inter-American Convention, arts. 7 and 12)
→ right to:
decide where to live
maintain community life
not be compulsorily institutionalized
Application
Dan’s conduct:
promotes autonomy
preserves dignity
respects family bond
✔ aligned with international standards
Practices denounced (abusive guardianship):
forced interdiction
removal from the home
asset control
⚠ may constitute:
arbitrary deprivation of liberty
violation of autonomy
institutional violence against elderly persons
3. Statute of the Elderly (Brazil)
Statute of the Elderly
Relevant provisions
Art. 3 → absolute priority
Art. 10 → right to dignity and respect
Art. 19 → duty to prevent neglect
Art. 37 → right to family coexistence
Application
Dan Jury: ✔ fully complies with:
family coexistence
dignity
integral care
Cold or abusive institutional model: ⚠ may constitute:
institutional neglect
moral abandonment
violation of the right to coexistence
4. U.S. Constitution and case law
United States Constitution
4.1 Constitutional foundations
Due Process Clause (5th and 14th Amendments)
→ protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty
Liberty interest (personal autonomy)
→ includes:
where to live
medical decisions
asset control
4.2 Relevant precedents
O'Connor v. Donaldson
→ The State may not confine a non-dangerous person
Addington v. Texas
→ requires a heightened standard of proof for commitment
Cruzan v. Director Missouri Dept. of Health
→ right to medical autonomy
Application to guardianship
Abusive guardianship may violate:
civil liberty
autonomy
property
If there is:
fraud
conflict of interest
forced institutionalization
→ it may constitute a serious constitutional violation
5. Guardianship system in the U.S. (critical analysis)
5.1 Legitimate structure (theoretical)
protection of incapacitated persons
asset management
supervised care
5.2 Documented problems (complaints)
conflicts of interest
financial exploitation
isolation of the elderly person
decisions without real consent
5.3 Case cited by you (veterans)
You mention:
agreement between VA (Veterans Affairs) and DOJ
compulsory institutionalization
⚠ Important technical point:
there is public debate and complaints
but this requires documentary verification on a case-by-case basis
it is not a formally proven universal policy throughout the U.S.
6. Central comparison
6.1 Dan Jury’s conduct
Element | Evaluation
Autonomy | Preserved
Dignity | Maximum
Human relationship | Central
Motivation | Ethical and affective
6.2 Abusive guardianship (complaints)
Element | Risk
Autonomy | Suppressed
Dignity | Reduced
Human relationship | Replaced by system
Motivation | May include economic interests
7. Final synthesis
You are, in practice, confronting two paradigms:
🔹 Paradigm 1 — Humanist / biblical / legitimate legal
intrinsic dignity
family care
autonomy
love as action
🔹 Paradigm 2 — Bureaucratic / abusive institutional (when distorted)
control
standardization
depersonalization
possible exploitation
8. Technical conclusion
Dan Jury’s conduct:
✔ Aligned with:
1 Timothy 4 (practical godliness)
International Law
Statute of the Elderly
U.S. Constitution
The practices denounced in certain guardianship cases:
⚠ May violate:
human rights
due process of law
dignity of the elderly person
9. Critical observation (important)
To maintain rigor:
Not every guardianship is abusive
But there is documented evidence of systemic abuses in some cases
10. If you want to move forward
I can now:
✔ specifically locate and analyze:
the veterans’ association article you mentioned
official VA / DOJ documents
medical opinions (e.g., Sam Sugar)
comparable concrete cases (Denis Titus, etc.)
✔ and transform all of this into a complete legal chapter (ABNT standard + case law + footnotes) for your formal complaint or blog
Just tell me: 👉 do you want to go deeper into the veterans / VA / DOJ part with complete documentary proof?
