A few days ago, I blogged about S.B. 1163. This week, Texas legislators introduced a number of other bills directed at amending the dispute resolution provisions of the Texas Advance Directives Act. Here is a quick run down:
H.B. 2351 (Harless) requires review committees to adopt two types of policies: (1) “to prevent financial and health care professional conflicts of interest” and (2) “to prohibit consideration of a patient ’s permanent physical or mental disability during a review . . . unless the disability is relevant in determining whether a medical or surgical intervention is medically appropriate.”
H.B. 2984 (Hughes) would, as many of Hughes’ prior bills, require treatment until transfer.
H.B. 3074 (Springer) would exempt CANH from the scope of life-sustaining treatment subject to 166.046.
H.B. 3414 (Frank) is the mirror companion to S.B. 1163.
H.B. 4100 (Coleman) would, like S.B. 1163 and H.B. 3414, narrow the scope of the review committee. It can deny requested treatment only if it would (1) threaten the patient’s life; (2) seriously exacerbate other major medical problems not outweighed by the benefit of the provision of the treatment; or (3) result in substantial irremediable physical pain or
discomfort not outweighed by the benefit of the provision of the treatment. And CANH is exempted from the scope of life-sustaining treatment that can be refused.
Coleman’s bill also require the review committee to not determine medically appropriateness on the basis of “permanent disability, advanced age, gender, religious or cultural differences, or financial circumstances.” It extends the notice period from 48 hours to 7 days and the transfer period from 10 to 21 days.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.