What I see is that you assume something, that is his doctors where his guardians. Then you draw a conclusion from that very assumed thing. That's intellectually dishonest. I don't know if there was a conflict of interest, or there wasn't. I would like to know, but can't find anything with a few minutes of googling.

I agree with your conclusion, that if there were a conflict of interest, then it's an outrage. But please don't assume something then draw conclusions from it.

It seems that you have strong emotions about the issue. I guess you would not have consented to this treatment. That's okay. But strong emotions doesn't make circular reasoning right.

Please let me know if you find, or have found already, anything more about the court-appointed guardian.