CHAPTER 1ORIGINS OF ADVANCE CARE DIRECTIVES,SCOPE OF REPORT AND GENERAL PRINCIPLESAIntroducti<strong>on</strong>1.02 In this chapter the Commissi<strong>on</strong> describes the origins of advance caredirectives, the wider setting of the law <strong>on</strong> mental capacity within which theyarise and the general principles that have informed the Commissi<strong>on</strong>‘s approachto this area. In Part B, the Commissi<strong>on</strong> discusses the emergence of advancecare directives in the c<strong>on</strong>text of advances in health care and the move towardsinformed decisi<strong>on</strong> making. The Commissi<strong>on</strong> places this in the wider setting ofreform of the law <strong>on</strong> mental capacity envisaged in the Government‘s Scheme ofa Mental Capacity Bill 2008. The Commissi<strong>on</strong> also provides some examples ofadvance care directives to emphasise that they are not c<strong>on</strong>fined to the end-oflifesetting. In Part C, the Commissi<strong>on</strong> discusses the emergence of advancecare directives in the United States and the United Kingdom, largely associatedwith a number of high-profile court cases involving end-of-life treatment. Thegrowing emergence of relevant internati<strong>on</strong>al instruments, in particular from theCouncil of Europe, is also discussed.1.03 The Commissi<strong>on</strong> then discusses the emergence of the debate <strong>on</strong>advance care directives in Ireland, including relevant case law and theimportant work of bodies such as the Irish Council for <strong>Bioethics</strong> and the IrishHospice Foundati<strong>on</strong>. The Commissi<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cludes by recommending theintroducti<strong>on</strong> of a legislative framework for advance care directives. Part Ddiscusses the scope of this <str<strong>on</strong>g>Report</str<strong>on</strong>g>, in particular that its focus is <strong>on</strong> refusals ofmedical treatment. This Part also points out that the Commissi<strong>on</strong>‘s proposals d<strong>on</strong>ot affect any acti<strong>on</strong> that is currently prohibited by the criminal law. Part E setsout the general rights and principles that form the basis for the Commissi<strong>on</strong>‘sdetailed proposals, derived from the discussi<strong>on</strong> in Part C.BEmergence of advance care directives1.04 In this Part, the Commissi<strong>on</strong> discusses the emergence of advancecare directives. This begins with a discussi<strong>on</strong> of advances in health care andmedical treatment and the movement from paternalism in medicine towards a7
social model involving informed decisi<strong>on</strong> making. The Commissi<strong>on</strong> alsodiscusses the c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> between advance care directives and the widersetting of reform of the law <strong>on</strong> mental capacity, notably through theGovernment‘s Scheme of a Mental Capacity Bill 2008, which derives from theCommissi<strong>on</strong>‘s 2006 <str<strong>on</strong>g>Report</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Vulnerable Adults and the <strong>Law</strong>. The Commissi<strong>on</strong>c<strong>on</strong>cludes this Part with some examples of advance care directives.(1) <strong>Advance</strong>s in health care, informed decisi<strong>on</strong> making and reformof the law <strong>on</strong> mental capacity1.05 The extensive discussi<strong>on</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>ally and internati<strong>on</strong>ally aboutadvance care directives has arisen against the background of two majordevelopments in health care and treatment, namely, advances in technologyand a movement towards the view that patients have the right to make informeddecisi<strong>on</strong>s about their treatment.1.06 Regarding the first development, the great advances in medicaltreatment and technology from the sec<strong>on</strong>d half of the 20 th Century to thepresent have meant that, in developed countries, people live l<strong>on</strong>ger, includingthose with a serious illness or disease. These advances have also meant thatlife can be sustained in situati<strong>on</strong>s where, previously, nature would have ―takenits course‖ and a pers<strong>on</strong> would have died. There is no questi<strong>on</strong>ing the positivebenefits that these developments have brought, and that future developmentsmay bring cures for illnesses and diseases that are currently terminal. At thesame time, developments has made death and dying more complicated. Insome instances these developments have led some to fear that they may not begiven relevant treatment or, c<strong>on</strong>versely, may be kept alive indefinitely by lifeprol<strong>on</strong>gingtreatment after they have lost their ability (their mental capacity) todecide <strong>on</strong> their treatment opti<strong>on</strong>s and to make their own views known. 11.07 The need for advance decisi<strong>on</strong>-making initially arose, therefore,because of the complex legal and ethical difficulties that arise where, forexample, it is being decided whether to withhold or withdraw artificial nutriti<strong>on</strong>and hydrati<strong>on</strong> (ANH) from a particular pers<strong>on</strong> who is unc<strong>on</strong>scious or in a coma,in the absence of a clear advance indicati<strong>on</strong> about his or her wishes <strong>on</strong> thematter. In the case of withholding ANH, health care professi<strong>on</strong>als and others -often family members - have to act as substitute decisi<strong>on</strong> makers about whetherthe individual would have wished to have their life sustained, and if so for howl<strong>on</strong>g, or would have wished not to be resuscitated. Equally, in the case ofwithdrawal of ANH, the health care professi<strong>on</strong>als and family members who actas substitute decisi<strong>on</strong> makers are faced with deciding whether c<strong>on</strong>tinuing withartificial interventi<strong>on</strong> is appropriate.1Morgan Capr<strong>on</strong> ―<strong>Advance</strong> <strong>Directives</strong>‖ in Kulise and Sige (eds) A Compani<strong>on</strong> to<strong>Bioethics</strong> (1998) at 262.8
- Page 1: ReportBIOETHICS:AD
- Page 4 and 5: LAW REFORM COMMISSION‘S ROLEThe L
- Page 6 and 7: LAW REFORM RESEARCH STAFFDirector o
- Page 8 and 9: CONTACT DETAILSFurther information
- Page 10 and 11: TABLE OF CONTENTSTable of Legislati
- Page 12 and 13: CHAPTER 4CONSEQUENCES OF ESTABLISHI
- Page 15: TABLE OF CASESAiredale NHS Trust v
- Page 19 and 20: advance care directives in the Unit
- Page 24 and 25: 1.08 The second major development i
- Page 26 and 27: Refusal of treatments by pregnant w
- Page 28 and 29: we believe Karen‘s choice, if she
- Page 30 and 31: 1995 English Law Commission <strong
- Page 32 and 33: a declaration that it would be lawf
- Page 34 and 35: Disabilities. 42 The draft Recommen
- Page 36 and 37: (5) The development of advance care
- Page 38 and 39: 1.45 In the Supreme Court, Hamilton
- Page 40 and 41: when determining the capacity quest
- Page 42 and 43: (d)Current use of advance care dire
- Page 44 and 45: e upheld. Indeed, this conclusion f
- Page 46 and 47: services, the need for palliative c
- Page 48 and 49: ecommendations in this Repo
- Page 50 and 51: efusal of medical treatment, subjec
- Page 52 and 53: consents to or refuses medical trea
- Page 54 and 55: (2) Autonomy, dignity and privacy(a
- Page 56 and 57: (3) Presumption in favour of preser
- Page 58 and 59: 2CHAPTER 2ADVANCE CARE DIRECTIVES,
- Page 60 and 61: 2.07 The Commission recommends that
- Page 62 and 63: 2.12 The Council of Europe‘s 2009
- Page 64 and 65: donor understands the effect of mak
- Page 66 and 67: should be referred to the High Cour
- Page 68: 2.30 Another protection of importan
- Page 71 and 72:
dentist 3psychologist 4social care
- Page 73 and 74:
should be defined to include, but i
- Page 75 and 76:
chemotherapy or dialysis, antibioti
- Page 77 and 78:
Similarly, Power argues that there
- Page 79 and 80:
assist either health care professio
- Page 81 and 82:
approach met with broad approval an
- Page 83 and 84:
Practice on Advance Care Directives
- Page 85 and 86:
3.48 The Commission recommends that
- Page 87 and 88:
(other than charges and directions
- Page 89 and 90:
3.64 The Commission concurs with th
- Page 91 and 92:
advance care directive involves a r
- Page 93 and 94:
eyond question that a court or a do
- Page 95 and 96:
close relationship that can exist b
- Page 97 and 98:
3.86 The Commission recommends that
- Page 99 and 100:
care directive. 105 The Commission
- Page 101 and 102:
the wishes or making their own deci
- Page 103 and 104:
sustaining treatment or whether the
- Page 105 and 106:
(b) for the guidance of persons, in
- Page 107 and 108:
omission.‖ 5 The Supreme Court in
- Page 109 and 110:
who acted in good faith could be pr
- Page 111 and 112:
or health professional cannot, for
- Page 113 and 114:
follow an advance care directive is
- Page 115 and 116:
the Board can erase the name of a n
- Page 117 and 118:
5.07 The Commission recommends that
- Page 119 and 120:
directive would be likely to be enf
- Page 121 and 122:
Ensuring that the wishes of the mak
- Page 124 and 125:
APPENDIX DRAFT MENTAL CAPACITY (ADV
- Page 126 and 127:
Mental Health Act 2001Powers of Att
- Page 128 and 129:
―basic care‖ includes, but is n
- Page 130 and 131:
(3) The scope of an advance care di
- Page 132 and 133:
(ii) the name and address of that p
- Page 134 and 135:
(b) Without prejudice to section 5(
- Page 136 and 137:
paragraph 3.13 (palliative care), p
- Page 138 and 139:
Subsection (2) implements the recom
- Page 140 and 141:
www.lawreform.ie