To clarify one must first deem if Joe is capable to make his own decisions, secondly one must compare the outcome to the that of Dusky v. United States (University of Virginia) where the supreme court ruled that: a federal court in which criminal proceedings are pending to make a finding regarding the mental competency of the accused to stand trial, may not make a determination that an accused is mentally competent merely because he is oriented to time and place and has some recollection of events; the test must be whether the accused has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him.
The case study clearly states that while Joe is schizophrenic and has prior experiences where he could be deemed mentally unstable, he has shown to be able to communicate intelligently while completely understanding the legal ramifications of his actions. Thus, it would not be legal, moral, or ethical to prevent Joe from making his own