Karen Eltis1 

"No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from the restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law."2
"It sometimes seemed that the minute my back was turned something else would be done without any consultation and always with the comment that it was for her own good and she had been told what was going on"3 .

I. Introduction
The twentieth century was marked by an explosion of human rights, what Irwin Cotler eloquently deems the "secular religion of our times"4. Endeavouring to protect society's most vulnerable – children, religious and ethnic minorities- modern democracies have raised their collective voice, protesting the indignities wrecked upon the oppressed. But one group, not any less exposed than their above-mentioned counterparts, is curiously conspicuous by reason of its systematic exclusion from the concerted effort to safeguard civil liberties5.
Far more disturbing than the mistreatment of the aged, particularly those suffering from dementia - most typically Alzheimer's patients - is the insouciance that typically envelops the issue6. And yet, as Michelle Stowell, one of the lone jurists to address the issue, observes: "[a]mongst the vulnerable, arguably the most at risk are Alzheimer patients"7. To make matters worse, this vulnerability is exacerbated by the gender implications of aging, intersectionalities deriving from the fact that women form a more significant portion of the elderly population8.
With this in mind, the paucity of scholarly inquiry into ethics and dementia in the elderly, from a juridical perspective (although this is true for most disciplines) is lamenatable9. While elder abuse has increasingly been the object of greater scrutiny, the focus has heretofore nevertheless been rather narrow, addressing only the most obvious forms of domestic or institutional maltreatment10. A far more subtle - and therefore insidious - form of potential disregard for basic rights, begging further inquiry, relates to new technologies, and their remarkably nonchalant application to the aged.
Too often, it appears, we take the limitations imposed on the civil liberties of the elderly for granted, as a presumed natural consequence of their degenerating health and of our well-intentioned, at times paternalistic, desire to ensure their medical well-being. Not surprisingly, perhaps, this is all the more true respecting assistive new technologies, which, as their name suggests, tend to be judged innocuous by reason of their professed supportive finality11 . However, as medical ethicist Susan Ashcroft-Simpson cautions: "some patient populations including the elderly or those with cognitive impairment may be at higher risk of having their rights denied in the name of safety"12.
In fact, one ethicist has all but likened people with severe dementia to animals , since they supposedly lack capacities for hopes and future aspirations13. He therefore implied that their needs are purely physical, thus rendering any in-depth discussion of their civil liberties superfluous. A fortiori when the limitations on liberties at issue derive from purportedly helpful high-tech health care devices, whose novelty and sophistication tend to obscure the thorny human rights issues they raise. In such cases, commercial success appears to preempt any rights discussions, as privacy and other basic liberties may be traded in for often desperately needed carer respite and convenience14. #p#分页标题#e#
A rather vivid illustration of this phenomenon- one which the following hopes to address– is the growing practice of fitting Alzheimer's patients (and others) with dementia – be they cared for in an institution or the home- with electronic wristbands, capable of tracking their every move via GPS technology15 .
The nascent practice of families and caregivers tagging such individuals with personal locators, equipped with GPS technology, capable of tracking their every of move16, may have been inspired by the established routine of fitting Alzheimer's patients (and others) with dementia registered with the Alzheimer's society with conventional (non-GPS) bracelets connected to a nation-wide police data base containing sensitive personal information.
This first well-meaning attempt, known as "Safe Return", was quietly initiated over a decade ago by the U.S. Department of Justice, in partnership with the National Alzheimer's Association, in an effort to respond to the threat of wandering due to dementia17. Canada's programme, in collaboration with their American counterparts, similarly baptized "Safely Home", which marries the Alzheimer society with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, would soon follow18.