should be referred to the High Court (the Court of <strong>Care</strong> and Protecti<strong>on</strong>envisaged in the Government‘s Scheme of a Mental Capacity Bill 2008).2.24 The Commissi<strong>on</strong> recommends that, in general, in the event of ac<strong>on</strong>flict between the terms of an enduring power of attorney (EPA) executedunder the Powers of Attorney Act 1996 and an advance care directive, the EPAshould take priority over an advance care directive. The Commissi<strong>on</strong> alsorecommends that, where it appears that a c<strong>on</strong>flict arises between the terms ofan EPA and an advance care directive, there should initially be an attempt toresolve any apparent c<strong>on</strong>flict informally, involving the d<strong>on</strong>ee of the enduringpower of attorney and the relevant health care professi<strong>on</strong>al, and, whereapplicable, the health care proxy. The Commissi<strong>on</strong> also recommends that, inthe absence of agreement between the parties, the matter should be referred tothe High Court for resoluti<strong>on</strong>.D<strong>Advance</strong> care directives and a health care proxy2.25 As the Commissi<strong>on</strong> has noted, an advance care directive is astatement or expressi<strong>on</strong> of wishes by a pers<strong>on</strong> with capacity setting out his orher wishes regarding refusal of treatment. 18 This can c<strong>on</strong>stitute a fullycompleted advance care directive (―I do not wish to have CPR c<strong>on</strong>tinued afteranother stroke‖) and, as already menti<strong>on</strong>ed, it marks an important differencebetween an advance care directive and an EPA; with an EPA, a third party isalways nominated by the d<strong>on</strong>or to take future decisi<strong>on</strong>s. In some instances, ofcourse, the maker of the advance care directive may choose to appoint a thirdparty, often known as a health care proxy, who can make the relevant healthcare decisi<strong>on</strong>s when they actually arise2.26 The Commissi<strong>on</strong> has already noted that the Government‘s Schemeof a Mental Capacity Bill 2008 proposes to introduce the c<strong>on</strong>cept of a generalauthority for third parties to engage in informal decisi<strong>on</strong>-making in respect ofpers<strong>on</strong>al care, health care or treatment of a pers<strong>on</strong> whose decisi<strong>on</strong>-makingcapacity is in doubt. 19 This would be a welcome development but would belimited, in effect, to day-to-day health care matters and would not extend to therange of treatment decisi<strong>on</strong>s envisaged by advance care directives.2.27 Thus, at the day-to-day end of the health care decisi<strong>on</strong>-makingspectrum, the provisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> ―general authority to act‖ in the Scheme of the 2008Bill would provide third parties with an important level of authority to actlegitimately within the law. At the other end of the spectrum, the proposals foran EPA would allow a pers<strong>on</strong> with capacity to appoint a third party with1819See paragraph 1.82.Head 16(1) of Scheme of Mental Capacity Bill 2008, discussed above in Part C.51
extensive powers to act. The Commissi<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>siders that an advance caredirective comes in between these two ends of the spectrum and is thus of theview that provisi<strong>on</strong> for the appointment of a health care proxy under an advancecare directive remains, as indicated by the Council of Europe‘s draftRecommendati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Principles C<strong>on</strong>cerning C<strong>on</strong>tinuing Powers of Attorney and<strong>Advance</strong> <strong>Directives</strong> for Incapacity, 20 an important aspect of general reform ofthe law <strong>on</strong> mental capacity. In Chapter 3, the Commissi<strong>on</strong> discusses in detailthe arrangements for the appointment of a health care proxy in the proposedlegislative framework, including how these may affect the scope of the proxy‘spowers. The Commissi<strong>on</strong> completes this Chapter by outlining in general thedifferent settings in which an advance care directive may arise and how thisaffects the extent of the proxy‘s proposed role.2.28 An advance care directive may be created far in advance of thetreatment matters it deals with, or it may be created in acute circumstances,such as in an accident and emergency unit of a general hospital. Due to thesevery different circumstances an advance care directive may sometimes noteven be in writing. The Commissi<strong>on</strong> recognises, however, the implicati<strong>on</strong>s forthe maker of a later refusal of medical treatment. Thus, where a health careproxy is nominated in an advance care directive a number of safeguards shouldbe in place to ensure that the wishes of the maker are followed and thatappropriate precauti<strong>on</strong>s are in place, especially where life-sustaining treatmentis involved.2.29 The health care proxy will, of course, be appointed by the maker ofthe advance care directive prior to him or her losing capacity, and <strong>on</strong>eprecauti<strong>on</strong> that arises in this respect (and reflects the principle of individualaut<strong>on</strong>omy) is that it is likely the proxy will be a close friend or relative of themaker. Due to this close relati<strong>on</strong>ship, the proxy can ―provide invaluableinformati<strong>on</strong> about the patient‘s wishes in the event of incapacity and sosupplement the provisi<strong>on</strong>s of the living will.‖ 21 The use of a proxy will also be ofparticular importance in the case of unforeseen circumstances. As the maker ofan advance care directive cannot predict all possible scenarios, it has beensuggested that ―patients should focus <strong>on</strong> appointing as a proxy some<strong>on</strong>e theytrust to interpret their stated preferences or extrapolate their statements ifneeded.‖ 22202122Available at www.coe.int. See paragraphs 1.35-1.38, above.Docker “Living Wills” Tolley‟s Finance and <strong>Law</strong> for the Older Client STEP ATG1.21.Lo and Steinbrrok ―Resuscitating <strong>Advance</strong> <strong>Directives</strong>‖ (2004) 164 Arch Intern Med1501 at 1504.52
- 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 22 and 23: CHAPTER 1ORIGINS OF ADVANCE CARE DI
- 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 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