Advance medical directives; revises Health Care Decisions Act to clarify process. (HB2396)
Introduced By
Del. Rob Bell (R-Charlottesville) with support from co-patron Del. Phil Hamilton (R-Newport News)
Progress
√ |
Introduced |
√ |
Passed Committee |
√ |
Passed House |
√ |
Passed Senate |
√ |
Signed by Governor |
√ |
Became Law |
Description
Advance medical directives. Revises the Health Care Decisions Act to (i) clarify the process for determining a patient to be incapable of making an informed decision regarding health care; (ii) require that determinations of incapacity be made by two physicians, or one physician and one licensed clinical psychologist, one of whom is not otherwise involved in the care of the patient; (iii) allow any one physician to declare that a patient is again capable of making an informed decision; (iv) clarify the authority of an agent named in an advance directive, or a person otherwise given authority to make medical decisions for an incompetent patient; and (v) determine when a physician may treat a patient over his protests. Amends § 37.2-1009 (“Court order of appointment; limited guardianships and conservatorships.”), § 37.2-801 (“Admission procedures; forms.”), § 37.2-805.1 (“Admission of incapacitated persons pursuant to advance directives or by guardians.”), § 54.1-2982 (“Definitions.”), § 54.1-2983 (“(For contingent expiration date \u2013 see Editor\u2019s note) Procedure for making advance directive; notice to physician.”), § 54.1-2983.1 (“Participation in health care research.”), § 54.1-2983.2 (“Capacity; required determinations.”), § 54.1-2983.3 (“Exclusions and limitations of advance directives.”), § 54.1-2984 (“Suggested form of written advance directives.”), § 54.1-2985 (“(For contingent expiration date \u2013 see Editor\u2019s notes) Revocation of an advance directive.”), § 54.1-2985.1 (“Injunction; court-ordered health care.”), § 54.1-2986 (“Procedure in absence of an advance directive; procedure for advance directive without agent; no presumption; persons who may authorize health care for patients incapable of informed decisions.”), § 54.1-2986.1 (“Duties and authority of agent or person identified in \u00a7 54.1-2986.”), § 54.1-2986.2 (“Health care decisions in the event of patient protest.”), § 54.1-2987 (“Transfer of patient by physician who refuses to comply with advance directive or health care decision.”), § 54.1-2987.1 (“Durable Do Not Resuscitate Orders.”), § 54.1-2988 (“Immunity from liability; burden of proof; presumption.”), § 54.1-2989 (“Willful destruction, concealment, etc., of declaration or revocation; penalties.”), § 54.1-2990 (“Medically unnecessary health care not required; procedure when physician refuses to comply with an advance directive or a designated person\u2019s health care decision; mercy killing or euthanasia prohibited.”), § 54.1-2991 (“Effect of declaration; suicide; insurance; declarations executed prior to effective date.”), § 54.1-2992 (“Preservation of existing rights.”), of the Code of Virginia. View Full Text »
Comments
The advance directive parts are good, but the parts for forcibly treating a protesting patient remind me of something from "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" or "1984." Really, aren't we better than this? Let's not go back to the 1940's
This part: (ii) aims to increase scientific understanding of any condition that the declarant may have or otherwise to promote human well-being, even though it offers no prospect of direct benefit to the patient.
should not even be in an advanced directive, it's a violaton of the Nuremberg code for an incapacitated person to participate in research without informed consent by THEM, not anyone else.
This bill does not protect terminal patients from experimentationsufficently. It allows for verbal consent to experimentation not intended for the benefit of the patient if the patient is terminal. There is no check to see if the person who is dying has truly consented if there is no signature and no witness required.
There also is not sufficient protection from people signing advanced directives full of boilerplate and not realizing this clause is in their advanced directive. If this bad bill passes it should at the very least require an affirmative check off box that the signer agrees to give this power to their medical power of attorney. This is a dangerous bill for all people who will someday be incapacitated. Which is almost all of us unless we die suddenly.
Sunlight really should put the updated version of this bill up. There have been significant changes
I'm awfully glad that you mentioned that, Art. Richmond Sunlight is totally automated—nobody ever "puts up" anything. So when a new version of a bill is filed, it should appear on Richmond Sunlight within the hour. It turns out that there was a bug in my code that prevented the text of some bills from being updated if more than two versions had been filed. I've gotten that fixed now. Thanks for mentioning it!