[WSBAPT] HCD Internally Inconsistent??

[Lisa Schuchman]

An HCD is so general and without consideration of the many many factors that might exist.  The only thing the signer can specifically choose is whether to have nutrition and/or hydration.  So I have added to my HCD a provision that allows an AIF to make decisions that are different from the selections made.  My theory is that my client chooses an AIF because of trust in that person's decision-making and understanding.  I also give clients some additional materials that are much more specific and I suggest that they share these with their AIF.

Lisa E. Schuchman
206-325-2801
www.lisaschuchman.com<http://www.lisaschuchman.com>

On Oct 16, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Sharon Rutberg <email at sharonrutberglaw.com<mailto:email at sharonrutberglaw.com>> wrote:

Very interesting discussion. I also like qualifying the hydration language. I would think about adding the following language in the first section of the state health care directive, after “I direct that such treatment be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die naturally, subject to the specific instructions provided in the remainder of this directive.”

Law Office of Sharon C. Rutberg
1734 NW Market St.
Seattle, WA 98107
Website: www.sharonrutberglaw.com<http://www.sharonrutberglaw.com/>
206-409-2604
email at sharonrutberglaw.com<mailto:email at sharonrutberglaw.com>
Washington State Bar #47055
D.C. Bar #420576

NOTICES
The contents of this message and any attachments may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other applicable protections. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify the sender and promptly delete the message. Thank you for your assistance.

IRS Circular 230 Disclaimer: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that to the extent this communication contains advice relating to a Federal tax issue, it is not intended or written to be used, and it may not be used, for (i) the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any other person or entity under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting or marketing to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

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 1:04 PM
To: 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv'
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] HCD Internally Inconsistent??

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> [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<mailto: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
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D013C2.30F35160]
3909 California Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98116-3705
(206)938-5500
heatherd at westseattlelaw.com<mailto:heatherd at westseattlelaw.com>
www.westseattlelaw.com<http://www.westseattlelaw.com/>

Click here to connect with de Vrieze | Carney on Facebook:   <image002.png><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.


<image003.jpg>

_______________________________________________
WSBAPT mailing list
WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20151016/ee007d49/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 10723 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20151016/ee007d49/image001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10522 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20151016/ee007d49/image002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 21825 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20151016/ee007d49/image003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 10723 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20151016/ee007d49/image001-0001.jpg>