Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T01:41:04.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Any Answer Is a Good Answer: A Mandated-Choice Model for Advance Directives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2010

JACOB APPEL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Approximately one in three American adults has executed a living will or healthcare declaration stating personal preferences regarding medical treatment in the event that he or she becomes terminally ill and unable to communicate. This figure stands in striking contrast to the 90% of Americans who, when asked, express specific wishes regarding their choice of care under such circumstances. Congress attempted to increase the number of Americans with advance directives when it passed the Patient Self Determination Act in 1990, billed at the time as the “Miranda Warning” of medicine, which requires hospitals and nursing homes receiving federal funds both to inform patients of their right to refuse life-sustaining care and to record all written directive in patients’ charts.

Type
Perspectives
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 417 - 421
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Time Magazine/SRBI Survey, March 22–24, 2005, Question 13, available at: http://www.srbi.com/TimePoll-Final_Report-2005-03-25.pdf (last accessed 5 Jan 2009).

2. See note 1, Time Magazine 2005, Question 15.

3. Sloane, L. ’91 law says failing patients must be told their options. New York Times 1990 Dec 8Google Scholar.

4. English, DM. The Uniform Health Care Decisions Act and its progress in the states. Probate & Property, May/June 2001Google Scholar. The states are California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, and New Mexico.

5. See note 1, Time Magazine 2005, Question 12.

6. Sabatino, C. The New Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act: Paving a health care decisions superhighway? Maryland Law Review 1994;53:1344–70Google ScholarPubMed.

7. Ezell, H. Having the last word; Put it into writing: Living will, health power of attorney can make a patient’s wishes known. Atlanta Journal-Constitution 2003 Nov 9Google Scholar.

8. Braze D. Why you need a living will. Motley Fool 2000 Apr 24, available at http://www.fool.com/retirement/retireeport/2000/retireeport000424.htm (last accessed 5 Jan 2009).

9. See, e.g., Annas, G. The health care proxy and the living will. New England Journal of Medicine 1991;324:1210–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

10. Assembly defeats ‘living will’ bill; Lobbying criticized. New York Times 1977 May 5Google Scholar.

11. Nakashima, D. Your body, your choice: How mandatory advance health-care directives are necessary to protect your fundamental right to accept or refuse medical treatment. Hawaii Law Review 2004;27:216–20Google Scholar; Abbo, E, Volandes, A. A forced choice: The value of requiring advance directives. Journal of Clinical Ethics 2008;19(2):128–9Google ScholarPubMed.

12. See note 11, Nakashima 2004.

13. See note 11, Abbo, Volandes 2008.

14. Callahan, D. Sounding board: Controlling the costs of health care for the elderly—Fair means and foul. New England Journal of Medicine 1996;335:743–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Appel, JM. Why shared medical database is wrong prescription. Orlando Sentinel 2008 Dec 30Google Scholar.

16. Klassen, AC, Klassen, D. Who are the donors in organ donation? The family’s perspective in mandate choice. Annals of Internal Medicine 1996;125(1):70–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. Ritter, J. Don’t want to give organs? You might have to say so. Chicago Sun-Times 2005 Jul 21:5Google Scholar.

18. Council for Public Health and Healthcare. Farewell to non-commitment. Decision systems for organ donation from an ethical perspective. Monitoring Report: Ethics and Health 2008 The Hague, Center for Ethics and Health, available at http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:CgXG7bvlUJQJ:www.ceg.nl/data/file/Engelse%2520versie%2520Afscheid%2520van%2520de%2520vrijblijvendheid.pdf+organs+virginia+%22Mandated+choice+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25&gl=us&lr=lang_en (last accessed 5 Jan 2009).

19. CEJA Report 2–I-93, Strategies for Cadaveric Organ Procurement: Mandated Choice and Presumed Consent, available at http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:ej5yKpzkquMJ:www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/369/ceja_2i93.pdf+%22MAndated+choice%22+ama&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&lr=lang_en (last accessed 5 Jan 2009).

20. See note 11, Nakashima 2004:226.