[WSBAPT] HCD Internally Inconsistent??

[Eric Nelsen]

Years ago when I was a paralegal, it was explained to me by the attorneys that for some people, removing "life support"--artificial means of keeping the heart pumping, lungs working, etc.--is okay because they're "unnatural" means of prolonging life, but voluntarily withholding food and water is not okay because it is seen essentially as committing suicide by starvation/dehydration. So some clients want to make a split decision, recognizing that they can end up in the Terry Schiavo-like state in some circumstances.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1320 University St
Seattle WA  98101-2837
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040



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be in a terminal condition or a permanent unconscious condition, then "life-sustaining treatment" shall be withheld or withdrawn.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 01D10821.CD57A070]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20151016/e72dfa89/attachment-0001.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/e72dfa89/image001-0001.jpg>