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
© 2024 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 AllNJDEP Proposes Changes to Hazardous Substance Discharge Reporting Rules
7 minute readAs Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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