[WSBAPT] HCD Internally Inconsistent??

[Paul Neumiller]

Terri Schiavo lasted over 15 years on just tubes.  I thought we (as in those
people who sign the HCD) were all trying to avoid that very situation.  So
these "smart people" think it's ok to be in a persistent vegetative state
("PVS") for, say 20 years, BUT not ok to be in a PVS hooked up to an iron
lung? Incredible.  (BTW, Heather, I have made the same modification to my
HCD.  I find that most people like that option.)

 

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Heather deVrieze
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 12:30 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] HCD Internally Inconsistent??

 

I agree with you that from a certain point of view (mine) these are
inconsistent provisions, however, I have debated this at length with other
smart people who find that food and water are inherently different than
other life sustaining measures. Maybe someone doesn't want CPR, or breathing
apparatus, but if "all" it takes to keep them alive is a feeding tube, they
are OK with that.

 

This is a philosophical distinction that seems to matter to courts and
certain religious folks, so I don't think it hurts to include it, as the
"form" in the statute does.

 

Personally I have modified my own health care directive to provide "I do not
want artificially provided nutrition and hydration, except hydration as may
facilitate the provision of pain-relieving medications or serve to make me
more comfortable, without unduly prolonging the process of my dying."

 

Heather

 

 

Heather S. de Vrieze
Attorney-at-Law



3909 California Avenue SW

Seattle, WA 98116-3705                          

(206)938-5500 

 <mailto:heatherd at westseattlelaw.com> heatherd at westseattlelaw.com 

 <http://www.westseattlelaw.com/> www.westseattlelaw.com 

 

Click here to connect with de Vrieze | Carney on Facebook:
<https://www.facebook.com/DeVriezeCarney> 

 

CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED. This e-mail message may contain legally
privileged and/or confidential information.  If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies
of this e-mail message and any attachment.

 

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
<mailto: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 <mailto: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.

 

 



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20151016/cb607aa0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 10723 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20151016/cb607aa0/image001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10522 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20151016/cb607aa0/image002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 21825 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20151016/cb607aa0/image003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Paul Neumiller2.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 1612 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20151016/cb607aa0/PaulNeumiller2.vcf>