Legislature Must Amend Advance Directive Statute
The cost of assisted living and long-term care is so great in this day and age that it can in some cases wipe out the inheritance of the decision-maker, which could affect his or her decision-making.
November 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM
3 minute read
A “living will” is one form of “advance directive” which may include a “proxy directive” (designating a person to make decisions about treatment when the “declarant” lacks the capacity to do so) or “instructive directive” (which provides specific instructions regarding health care when the declarant lacks decision-making capacity). (NJSA 26: 2H-55). The New Jersey Advance Directives in Heath Care Act in NJSA 26:2H-60 contains details regarding how determinations concerning incapacity to make health care decisions are to be made. The trigger for delegated decision-making authority must be documented and confirmed by physicians, but a treating physician must transfer care of a patient who is unwilling to follow the directions of the decision-maker regarding treatment once the patient's capacity or condition warrants it.
Patients should have freedom of choice concerning life-sustaining treatment or the types of treatment desired or not wanted by the patient. And, of course, the patient usually delegates the decision-making to a close family member he or she loves and trusts—frequently the beneficiary or a beneficiary of his or her estate. Accordingly, although perhaps not consciously or purposely, there may develop a conflict between the financial interests of the designated “health care representative” under a proxy directive, and the best medical interests of the patient.
We recognize that the statute details the obligations of the attending physician before certification of incapacity for purposes of implementing an “advance directive.” But, particularly in a proxy situation, the ultimate decision of life or death comes from the proxy, and where the patient may not have enough resources (and inadequate insurance coverage or long-term care protection), a conflict may arise.
We call upon the Legislature to amend the statute to require that a person executing an advanced directive with a proxy designation separately certify that it is his intent to allow the proxy to act, including with regard to life and death decisions, notwithstanding that the proxy may have a conflict of interests as a beneficiary. This might protect against decision-making where the delegated decision-maker benefits, or may benefit, economically by the death of the person who executes the directive. In most cases, compassion and true love and concern for the patient's wishes shall be respected, and physicians do have to certify the condition warrants delegation independent of the role of a hospital review board if the patient is hospitalized. But the cost of assisted living and long-term care is so great in this day and age that it can in some cases wipe out the inheritance of the decision-maker, which could affect his or her decision-making.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllABC's $16M Settlement With Trump Sets Bad Precedent in Uncertain Times
8 minute readNeighboring States Have Either Passed or Proposed Climate Superfund Laws—Is Pennsylvania Next?
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250