[WSBAPT] HCD Internally Inconsistent??

[John Creahan]

Paul,
That's an interesting issue. I always assumed that the specific direction regarding artificial hydration and nutrition would take precedence over the more general request to withdraw support. The Washington State Medical Assoc.'s form spells this out more clearly (see below).
Hope this helps,
John

If I am diagnosed to be in a terminal or permanent unconscious condition, [Choose one]
I want ___________ do not want __________
artificially administered nutrition and hydration to be withdrawn or withheld the same as other forms of life-sustaining treatment. I understand artificially administered nutrition and hydration is a form of life-sustaining treatment in certain circumstances. I request all health care providers who care for me to honor this directive.


John Creahan
206-621-5848
www.cairn-law.com<http://www.cairn-law.com/>


From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 11:51 AM
To: wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBAPT] HCD Internally Inconsistent??

Listmates:  Happy Friday.  The Health Care Directive statute (RCW 70.122) statutory form says, clearly, that if the signor is diagnosed to be in a terminal condition or a permanent unconscious condition, then "life-sustaining treatment" shall be withheld or withdrawn.  But, later the form gives the signor the right to choose between having "artificially provided" food and water or not having artificially provided food and water.  WHAT?!?!?  If a person signs the form but checks the box that says the signor wants the food and water tubes, then what?  Aren't these inherently inconsistent provisions.  Aren't the food and water tubes "life-sustaining treatment?"  It now seems to me the HCD shouldn't even be used if the person wants to be left hooked up "because they are finding new cures all the time" or for whatever reason.  I always thought that the HCD was used to express the signor's desires WHETHER to have the doctors pull the plug and the signor could elect to be left hooked up by checking the box saying the signor wants the artificially provided food and water.   Now, I question this assumption.  Remember, in the Terri Schiavo case in Florida the "life-sustaining treatment" was the food and water tubes.    Am I missing something? Anyone willing to talk me back from the ledge??  None of my secondary sources discuss the issue and I am re-working my forms.


[cid:image001.jpg at 01D1080D.B3FFAE10]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20151016/28654eaf/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16924 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20151016/28654eaf/image001.jpg>