Family Health Care Decisions Act

Last updated • 7 min readFrom Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

The Family Health Care Decisions Act [1] (the FHCDA) is a New York State statute that enables a patient’s family member or close friend to make health care treatment decisions if the patient lacks capacity and did not make the decision in advance or appoint a health care agent.  It also creates a bedside process to determine patient incapacity; a priority list for the selection of the decision-maker; and ethical standards for making decisions, including life-sustaining treatment decisions.  In short, it empowers a surrogate decision-maker for health care decisions for incapable patients in New York. [2]

Contents

Each day thousands of health care decisions for incapable patients are made in New York hospitals, nursing homes and hospice programs in accordance with the standards and requirements of the FHCDA.

Background [3]

The FHCDA is based on recommendations of the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law in a 1992 report, When Others Must Choose: Deciding for Patients Who Lack Capacity. [4] The Task Force is a multidisciplinary body created in 1984 by Governor Mario M. Cuomo to recommend public policies on bioethical issues, including decisions for patients who lack capacity. [5] [6] Previously, the Task Force issued reports on, among other topics, brain death [7] , do not resuscitate orders [8] and health care proxies [9] – all of which led to new laws or regulations. [10]

Until the FHCDA was enacted in 2010, the law in New York on life-sustaining-treatment could be summarized in three principles: [11]

First, an adult patient with capacity had a broad right to choose to forgo life-sustaining treatment.

Second, life-sustaining treatment could be withdrawn or withheld from an adult patient who lacked capacity if the adult, prior to losing capacity, either left “clear and convincing evidence” of a prior decision to forgo such treatment under the circumstances, or appointed a health care agent.

The third principle is the converse of the second principle: Life-sustaining treatment could not be withdrawn or withheld from an adult patient who lacks capacity if the adult did not leave “clear and convincing evidence” of a prior decision to forgo such treatment under the circumstances, or appoint a health care agent. This third principle was broadly criticized as a source of great suffering. [12]   In many cases involving a dying patient, the family believed that the patient would prefer comfort care to invasive treatment; the attending physician and the health care team agreed with that approach; even an ethics committee or judge agreed with that approach.  But New York’s clear and convincing evidence standard mandated the continuation of the unwanted treatment. [13]

The Task Force collected data, reviewed laws in other states, and read and heard a range of medical, ethical and religious view.  In 1992 it issued its report, proposing a surrogate decision-making statute for New York. [14]

Assemblymember Richard N. Gottfried, Chair of the NYS Assembly Health Committee, introduced a bill based on the Task Force’s proposal in 1993 [15] ; he named later versions of his bill the “Family Health Care Decisions Act.” [16]   Gottfried became a tenacious champion for the bill over many years.  Senate Health Chair Kemp Hannon also sponsored versions of the bill for many years. [17]

The FHCDA bill was controversial, with numerous organizations and individuals advocating in support [18] or opposition. [19] Opponents, notably the NYS Catholic Conference of Bishops and Agudath Israel, an orthodox Jewish organization, generally contended that the bill did not adequately respect the sanctity of life or protect vulnerable patients from decisions that were against the patient's wishes. One of the Task Force members, Rabbi David Bleich, wrote a dissenting statement emphasizing that surrogate decision-making, unlike the patient's advance directive or appointment of a health care agent, was not an extension of autonomy, and was "stark abnegation of preservation of life as a value in and of itself." [20] The Catholic Conference expressed particular concern about the absence of language to protect a fetus when the patient is a pregnant woman. [21] However, surprisingly, NYS Right to Life ultimately supported the bill. [22]

Over time, and particularly in light of the Terri Schiavo case [23] and recognition that New York was one of only a few states that did not allow surrogate decision-making, [24] a general consensus emerged in the public and the Legislature on the need to authorize surrogate decision-making in New York.  Even so, the bill was gridlocked for many years by two issues: whether the surrogate priority list should include the category “domestic partner” in order to empower a patient’s same-sex partner, and whether the law should specify, in cases where the patient is a pregnant woman, that the surrogate must consider the impact of the decision on the fetus.  In large part because of these two irreconcilable issues, the bill languished for seventeen years, with separate versions in the Republican-controlled Senate and Democratic-controlled Assembly.  Finally in 2010, Democrats gained control of both houses of the New York State Legislature and Democratic Senator Thomas Duane became Senate Health Chair. The two issues in dispute were resolved in favor of the Assembly bill approach, language was finalized and the bill passed.  Governor Paterson signed the bill into law at a ceremony at Albany Memorial Hospital and it became effective in 2011. [25] [26]

Key Provisions [27]

The FHCDA’s key provisions are found in NYS Public Health Law Article 29-cc.  Those provisions, in summary, are:  

Proposals to Extend the FHCDA

Proposals have been made by the Task Force on Life and the Law and others to extend the scope of the FHCDA in four respects:

There are also various other proposals to amend the FHCDA, as well as guidance to professionals on how to interpret and follow it. [46]   Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) forms track the requirements of the FHCDA. [47]  

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Assisted suicide</span> Suicide undertaken with aid from another person

Assisted suicide – sometimes referred to as medical aid in dying – means a procedure in which people take medications to end their own lives with the help of others, usually medical professionals. The term usually refers to physician-assisted suicide (PAS), which is an end of life measure for a person suffering a painful, terminal illness. Once it is determined that the person's situation qualifies under the physician-assisted suicide laws for that location, the physician's assistance is usually limited to writing a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Advance healthcare directive</span> Legal document

An advance healthcare directive, also known as living will, personal directive, advance directive, medical directive or advance decision, is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make decisions for themselves because of illness or incapacity. In the U.S. it has a legal status in itself, whereas in some countries it is legally persuasive without being a legal document.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Do not resuscitate</span> Legal order saying not to perform CPR if heart stops

A do-not-resuscitate order (DNR), also known as Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR), Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR), no code or allow natural death, is a medical order, written or oral depending on the jurisdiction, indicating that a person should not receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if that person's heart stops beating. Sometimes these decisions and the relevant documents also encompass decisions around other critical or life-prolonging medical interventions. The legal status and processes surrounding DNR orders vary in different polities. Most commonly, the order is placed by a physician based on a combination of medical judgement and patient involvement.

Terminal illness or end-stage disease is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and is expected to result in the death of the patient. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such as cancer, dementia or advanced heart disease than for injury. In popular use, it indicates a disease that will progress until death with near absolute certainty, regardless of treatment. A patient who has such an illness may be referred to as a terminal patient, terminally ill or simply as being terminal. There is no standardized life expectancy for a patient to be considered terminal, although it is generally months or less. Life expectancy for terminal patients is a rough estimate given by the physician based on previous data and does not always reflect true longevity. An illness which is lifelong but not fatal is a chronic condition.

The Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) was passed by the United States Congress in 1990 as an amendment to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Effective on December 1, 1991, this legislation required many hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, hospice providers, health maintenance organizations (HMOs), and other health care institutions to provide information about advance health care directives to adult patients upon their admission to the healthcare facility. This law does not apply to individual physicians.

In tort law, the standard of care is the only degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Hastings Center</span> Non-profit organization in the USA

The Hastings Center is an independent, nonpartisan bioethics research institute and think tank based in Garrison, New York. It was instrumental in establishing the field of bioethics and is among the most prestigious bioethics and health policy institutes in the world.

Kendra's Law, effective since November 1999, is a New York State law concerning involuntary outpatient commitment also known as assisted outpatient treatment. It grants judges the authority to issue orders that require people who meet certain criteria to regularly undergo psychiatric treatment. Failure to comply could result in commitment for up to 72 hours. Kendra's Law does not mandate that patients be forced to take medication.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard N. Gottfried</span> American attorney and politician

Richard N. Gottfried is an American attorney and politician who served as a member of the New York State Assembly representing portions of Manhattan. Gottfried had been a member of the Assembly for more than 50 years, making him the longest-serving member of the body and one of the longest-serving state legislators in the United States.

In the field of medicine, a healthcare proxy is a document with which a patient appoints an agent to legally make healthcare decisions on behalf of the patient, when the patient is incapable of making and executing the healthcare decisions stipulated in the proxy. Once the healthcare proxy is effective, the agent continues making healthcare decisions as long as the primary individual is legally competent to decide. Moreover, in legal-administrative functions, the healthcare proxy is a legal instrument akin to a "springing" healthcare power of attorney. The proxy must declare the healthcare agent who will gain durable power attorney. This document also notifies of the authority given from the principal to the agent and states the limitations of this authority.

Involuntary Euthanasia is currently illegal in all 50 states of the United States. Assisted suicide is legal in 10 jurisdictions in the US: Washington, D.C. and the states of California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Washington. The status of assisted suicide is disputed in Montana, though currently authorized per the Montana Supreme Court's ruling in Baxter v. Montana that "nothing in Montana Supreme Court precedent or Montana statutes [indicates] that physician aid in dying is against public policy."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Philosophy of healthcare</span>

The philosophy of healthcare is the study of the ethics, processes, and people which constitute the maintenance of health for human beings. For the most part, however, the philosophy of healthcare is best approached as an indelible component of human social structures. That is, the societal institution of healthcare can be seen as a necessary phenomenon of human civilization whereby an individual continually seeks to improve, mend, and alter the overall nature and quality of their life. This perennial concern is especially prominent in modern political liberalism, wherein health has been understood as the foundational good necessary for public life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hospice care in the United States</span>

In the United States, hospice care is a type and philosophy of end-of-life care which focuses on the palliation of a terminally ill patient's symptoms. These symptoms can be physical, emotional, spiritual or social in nature. The concept of hospice as a place to treat the incurably ill has been evolving since the 11th century. Hospice care was introduced to the United States in the 1970s in response to the work of Cicely Saunders in the United Kingdom. This part of health care has expanded as people face a variety of issues with terminal illness. In the United States, it is distinguished by extensive use of volunteers and a greater emphasis on the patient's psychological needs in coming to terms with dying.

MOLST is an acronym for Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment. The MOLST Program is an initiative to facilitate end-of-life medical decision-making in New York State, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Ohio and Maryland, that involves use of the MOLST form. Most other U.S. states have similar initiatives, such as Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment. In New York state, the MOLST form is a New York State Department of Health form. MOLST is for patients such as a terminally ill patient, whether or not treatment is provided. For this example, assume the patient retains medical decision-making capacity and wants to die naturally in a residential setting, not in the intensive-care unit of a hospital on a ventilator with a feeding tube. Using MOLST, with the informed consent of the patient, the patient's doctor could issue medical orders for life-sustaining treatment, including any or all of the following medical orders: provide comfort measures only; do not attempt resuscitation ; do not intubate; do not hospitalize; no feeding tube; no IV fluids; do not use antibiotics; no dialysis; no transfusions. The orders should be honored by all health care providers in any setting, including emergency responders who are summoned by a 9-1-1 telephone call after the patient loses medical decision-making capacity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Assisted suicide in the United States</span> Medically-induced suicide with help from another person

Assisted suicide is suicide with the aid of another person. In the United States, the term "assisted suicide" is typically used to describe what proponents refer to as medical aid in dying, in which terminally ill adults are prescribed and self-administer barbiturates if they feel that they are suffering significantly. The term is often used interchangeably with physician-assisted suicide (PAS), "physician-assisted dying", "physician-assisted death", "assisted death" and "medical aid in dying" (MAiD).

A surrogate decision maker, also known as a health care proxy or as agents, is an advocate for incompetent patients. If a patient is unable to make decisions for themselves about personal care, a surrogate agent must make decisions for them. If there is a durable power of attorney for health care, the agent appointed by that document is authorized to make health care decisions within the scope of authority granted by the document. If people have court-appointed guardians with authority to make health care decisions, the guardian is the authorized surrogate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York State Department of Mental Hygiene</span> Department of the New York state government

The Department of Mental Hygiene (DMH) is an agency of the New York state government composed of three autonomous offices:

POLST is an approach to improving end-of-life care in the United States, encouraging providers to speak with the severely ill and create specific medical orders to be honored by health care workers during a medical crisis. POLST began in Oregon in 1991 and currently exists in 46 states, British Columbia, and South Korea. The POLST document is a standardized, portable, brightly colored single page medical order that documents a conversation between a provider and an individual with a serious illness or frailty towards the end of life. A POLST form allows emergency medical services to provide treatment that the individual prefers before possibly transporting to an emergency facility.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental health tribunal</span> Tribunal hearing for mental health treatment disputes

A mental health tribunal is a specialist tribunal (hearing) empowered by law to adjudicate disputes about mental health treatment and detention, primarily by conducting independent reviews of patients diagnosed with mental disorders who are detained in psychiatric hospitals, or under outpatient commitment, and who may be subject to involuntary treatment.

In the law of England and Wales, best interest decisions are decisions made on behalf of people who do not have mental capacity to make them for themselves at the time the decision needs to be taken. Someone who has the capacity to make a decision is said to be "capacitous". Since 2007, there has been a dedicated court with jurisdiction over mental capacity: the Court of Protection, although it mostly deals with adults. Most applications to make decisions on behalf of a child are still dealt with by the Family Court.

References

  1. ↑ NY Laws of 2010, Chapter 8, creating N.Y. Public Health Law (PHL) Article 29-cc “Family Health Care Decisions Act.”
  2. ↑ See Alan Meisel, Kathy L. Cerminara and Thaddeus M. Pope, The Right to Die, The Law of End of Life Decisionmaking ,  Chapter 8, Surrogate (Family) Decisionmaking Statutes. Wolters Kluwer, internet only.
  3. ↑ See generally, Robert N. Swidler, New York’s Family Health Care Decisions Act: The Legal and Political Background, Key Provisions and Emerging Issues, NYS Bar Journal, Vol. 82, No. 5, June 2010.
  4. ↑ NYS Task Force on Life and the Law, When Others Must Choose: Deciding for Patient Who Lack Capacity (1992). Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.
  5. ↑ Executive Order No. 56: Establishing the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law. 9 NY Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) § 4.56. (1984).
  6. ↑ "Cuomo Plans Unit on 'Right to Die'". NY Times. October 4, 1984. pp. A-1.
  7. ↑ NYS Task Force on Life and the Law, The Determination of Death (1986).
  8. ↑ NYS Task Force on Life and the Law, Do Not Resuscitate Orders (1986).
  9. ↑ NYS Task Force on Life and the Law, Life-Sustaining Treatment: Making Decisions and Appointing a Health Care Agent (1987).
  10. ↑ E.g., Former PHL Article 29-B Orders Not to Resuscitate; PHL Article 29-C Health Care Agents and Proxies; 10 NYCRR § 400.16 Determination of Death.
  11. ↑ See Matter of O'Connor, 72 N.Y.2d 517 (NY Court of Appeals 1988); Matter of Storar; Eichner v. Dillon, 52. N.Y.2d 363 (NY Court of Appeals 1980).
  12. ↑ E.g., New York Rule Compounds Dilemma Over Life Support, NY Times editorial, May 12, 1992, , p. A1; .Robert N. Swidler, Harsh Rule on End of Life Care Remains in Need of Reform, N.Y. Law J. Jan. 26, 2000, p. S4; End-of-Life Lawmaking, NY Times (Online), April 23, 2006; Vincent Buzard, New Yorkers in Need of Health Care Decision Act, Albany Times Union, June 4, 2006, at C6; State Needs Family Health Care Decisions Act, Albany Times-Union, June 19, 2007, A14; Long-Ignored Legislation Would Ease Suffering, The Buffalo News, Sept. 17, 2008; Living and Dying in Albany, NY Times, Feb. 4, 2010 (Online); Bernadette Tuthill, Want to Terminate Life Support? Not in New York: Time to Give New Yorkers a Choice, Touro Law Review, Vol. 26 (2012), p. 675.
  13. ↑ There were two limited exceptions to this principle. First, as a result of a 1987 law, surrogate decision-making was permitted for DNR decisions. NY PHL Article 29-B. Second, as a result of a 2002 law, surrogate decisions was permitted for end of life decisions for personal with development disabilities. NY Surrogate's Court Procedure Act §1750-b.
  14. ↑ NYS Task Force on Life and the Law, When Others Must Choose: Deciding for Patients Without Capacity (1993).  See note 3 above.
  15. ↑ NYS Assembly Bill 7166 (1993)(Gottfried).
  16. ↑ NY Assembly Bill 7026 (1997).
  17. ↑ E.g., NY Senate Bill 4951 (1997).
  18. ↑ NYS Assembly Standing Committee on Health, Family Health Care Decisions Act Signed into Law Victory for Patients and Families After 17-Year Fight. (listing 35 organizations that issued statements in support of the FHCDA).
  19. ↑ Jack Freer and Stephen Wear, Culture Wars in New York State: Ongoing Political Resistance by Religious Groups to the Family Health Care Decisions Act, Christian Bioethics, Vol. 8, No.2, p. 9 (2002); Bernadette Tuthill, note 12 above.
  20. ↑ David Bleich, When Others Must Choose, note 4 above, Minority Report, p.241.
  21. ↑ Tuthill, See note 12 above, p.702.
  22. ↑ See note 18 above.
  23. ↑ Dignity for the Dying, NY Times, May 29, 2005 (Online).
  24. ↑ Thaddeus Mason Pope, Comparing the FHCDA to Surrogate Decision Making Laws in Other States, NYSBA Health Law J., Vol. 16, No. 1, Spring 2011, p.109.
  25. ↑ "Law Dictates Who Decides on Care for the Incapable". NY Times. March 17, 2010. pp. A-1.
  26. ↑ Crowley, Cathleen (March 17, 2010). "17-Year Quest foe End of Life Law Yields Reform". pp. B.1.
  27. ↑ Robert N. Swidler, The Family Health Care Decisions Act, A Summary of Key Provisions, NYSBA Health Law J., Vol 15, No.1 Spring 2010, P. 32; Robert N. Swidler, Robert A. Wild, Eve Green Koopersmith, Barbara Knothe, Chapter 22, Life Sustaining Treatment Decisions, Legal Manual for New York Physicians, Sixth Edition Vol.1 (NYS Bar Assn / Medical Society of the State of NY).
  28. ↑ PHL §2994-b.
  29. ↑ PHL § 2994-b.
  30. ↑ NY Laws of 2011, Chapter 167.
  31. ↑ NY Surrogate's Court Procedure Act § 1750-b.
  32. ↑ PHL § 2805-d.5
  33. ↑ PHL § 2805-b.
  34. ↑ PHL §2994-c.
  35. ↑ PHL §2994-d.
  36. ↑ PHL §2994-d.5
  37. ↑ PHL §2994-g.
  38. ↑ PHL §2994-m.
  39. ↑ NYS Task Force on Life and the Law, Recommendations Regarding the Extension of the Family Health Care Decisions Act to Include Hospice, Dec. 22, 2010.   
  40. ↑ NY Laws of 2011, Chapter 167.
  41. ↑ NYS Task Force on Life and the Law, Recommendations for Amending the Family Health Care Decisions Act to Include Health Care Decisions for Persons with Developmental Disabilities and Patients in or Transferred from Mental Health Facilities (2016) (Special Advisory Committee Report approved by the Task Force).
  42. ↑ NY Laws of 2023, Chapter 742.
  43. ↑ NY Laws of 2024, Chapter 40.  
  44. ↑ NYS Task Force on Life and the Law, Recommendations for Extending the Family Health Care Decisions Act to Medicare and/or Medicaid-Certified and State-Licensed Agencies, Programs, and Settings (2013).
  45. ↑ See note 26.
  46. ↑ See E.g., NYS Bar Assn Health Law Journal, Special Edition – Implementing the Family Health Care Decisions Act (Spring 2011)(With 15 articles on the FHCDA); NYS Bar Association; NYS Bar Assn, Family Health Care Decisions Act Resource Center; Howard J. Finger, Cheryl A. Dury, Giorgio Sansone, Sherry Humphrey, Nancy Neveloff Dubler, Life -Sustaining Treatment Decisions for Unbefriended Nursing Home Residents: Application of a Clinical Ethics Algorithm in Conjunction With the MOLST Form , NYS Bar Assn Health Law J. Vol. 25, No.1 Winter 2020 p. 95.
  47. ↑ Patricia Bomba, M.D., Katie Orem, Lessons Learned from New York’s Community Approach to Advance Care Planning and MOLST, Annals of Palliative Medicine, 2015;4(1):10-21; Karen Lipson, Jonathan Karmel, Honoring Patient Preference at the End of Life: The MOLST Process and the Family Health Care Decisions Act, NYS Bar Assn. Health Law J. Spring 2011 Vol. 16, No. 1, p.35.

See also

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.