New York State Task Force on Life and the Law

Last updated

The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law is a multidisciplinary advisory body formed to study and recommend public policies for New York State on bioethical issues.

Contents

From 1985 through 2016, the task force issued reports with policy recommendations on a broad range of bioethical topics, including brain death, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, health care proxies, surrogate decision-making, the allocation of organs for transplantation, surrogacy, medical aid-in-dying, genetic testing and screening, the allocation of ventilators in a pandemic, and research involving human subjects who lack capacity.

Many of the task force's recommendations were enacted into New York State laws, promulgated as regulations, or cited in judicial decisions.  Task force reports have also influenced the practice of health care professionals and institutions in New York and beyond, and are widely referenced in books and journals on medicine, law and ethics.

Formation

The task force was formed in 1984 by executive order of Governor Mario M. Cuomo. [1]   Governor Cuomo noted several bioethical policy issues that were of great public concern in New York, including brain death, end-of-life decisions for severely disabled newborns, and do-not-resuscitate orders.  He recognized the multidisciplinary nature of these issues, and concluded that an advisory body, composed of members with diverse disciplines, backgrounds and viewpoints, might help reach a consensus on policy recommendations. A prominent and then-recent precedent for this approach was the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research.

The executive order called for a body of 23 members appointed by the Governor and chaired by NYS Health Commissioner.  The commissioner at the time was David Axelrod, M.D., a highly regarded public health official.  The initial task force members were persons prominent in medicine, nursing, law, philosophy and ethics, civil rights and religion.  The task force first met in December 1984 to begin to craft a public policy on do-not-resuscitate orders.

Task force reports

Between 1986 and 2016, the task force studied and issued reports and recommendations on a broad range of bioethical issues.  Its key reports, organized by category, were as follows:

Allocation of ventilators in a pandemic

Dietary supplements

End-of-life decisionmaking / decisions for incapable patients

Genetic testing and genomic medicine

Human subjects research

Organ and tissue procurement, allocation and transplantation

Reproductive and beginning-of-life Issues

Various task force reports are available, in booklet and or electronic format, in public libraries (including the New York State Library and the New York City Public Library), as well as in the libraries of law schools, medical and nursing schools, bioethics programs and universities.

The Empire State Bioethics Consortium now provides access on its website to electronic versions of nearly all of the task force's work. [2]

Impact on laws, regulations and court decisions

Task force reports and recommendations have been highly influential.  A notable number of the task force's recommendations were adopted in whole or part as New York statutes or regulations.  For example, task force proposals resulted in New York's Do Not Resuscitate Law; [3] Health Care Proxy Law, [4] Family Health Care Decisions Act, [5] a law on the allocation of organs and the formation of a Transplant Council [6] and a NYS Department of Health regulation recognizing brain death. [7]   A 1988 task force report led to a law restricting commercial surrogate parenting arrangements; [8] however, a 2016 task force report called for legalizing and regulating gestational surrogacy, and a law reflecting that proposal was enacted in 2020. [9] The task force report on the allocation of ventilators in a pandemic did not call for any changes in law, but influenced the policies of hospitals during the covid pandemic.

Proposals by the task force have also been adopted in states other than New York.  Massachusetts [10] and Vermont [11] enacted laws based on the task force's health care proxy proposal; Georgia adopted a do-not-resuscitate order law based on the task force's do-not-resuscitate order proposal. [12]

Task force reports have been cited and relied upon as an authority in many court decisions, including opinions of the United States Supreme Court [13] and the New York State Court of Appeals. [14]   They also are referenced in numerous legal, medical and bioethical books and articles.   

Many newspaper editorials address task force proposals, including over a dozen supportive New York Times editorials. [15]

The impact of task force reports has been especially pronounced in New York policies regarding end-of-life decisions. Prior to the task force's work, brain death was not legally recognized, DNR orders were of doubtful legality, patients had no ability to appoint a health care agent, and there were no clear rules about who could make decisions for a patient who lacked capacity, or on what basis. Those issues are now largely resolved along the lines proposed by the task force, with policies that are generally accepted and regarded as successful.

Beyond impacting public policy, task force reports influenced professional practices and institutional policies. Moreover, they both reflected and contributed to changes in culture from an era when, for instance, an advance directive was considered eccentric or avant-garde, to the present day when it is considered a document responsible adults should have in their personal papers.

Opposition

The task force was formed to propose policies on controversial issues, so nearly every one of its recommendations encountered some opposition, and/or criticism post-adoption. For example:

In several instances, some task force members themselves voiced their opposition to task force recommendations. Several of the reports include a minority statement by one or more members. [19]

In many instances, legislators or regulators modified task force proposals to take into account some of the opposition arguments. For example, New York's brain death regulation includes a provision, not in the task force's proposal, to require the reasonable accommodation of patients known to have a religious or conscience based objection to the brain death standard. [20] New York's Family Health Care Decisions Act omits a task force's proposal to allow a physician and ethics review committee to make end-of-life decisions for a patient who lacks capacity and has no surrogate decisionmaker or health care agent, in circumstances where a surrogate could make such decision. [21]

Task force members

During its 35 active years, over 50 people were appointed as members of the task force.  Task force members with Wikipedia entries are as follows, along with their affiliation as described in a task force report (when available):

Chairs and executive directors

Under the initial executive order, the New York State Commissioner of Health is the chair of the task force.  Most health commissioners performed this task personally either all of much of the time. The commissioner/task force chairs through 2019 were David Axelrod, M.D. (1979–91), Mark Chassin, M.D. (1992–94); Barbara Ann DeBuono, M.D., (1995–98); Antonia C. Novello (1999–2006); Richard F. Daines (2007–2010);  Nirav Shah, M.D. (2011–2015) and Howard Zucker, M.D. (2015–21).

Tracy E. Miller, J.D., was the initial executive director of the task force and served from 1985 to 1992. Successive executive directors were Tia Powell, M.D.; Carl Coleman, J.D.; Beth Roxland, J.D.; and Stuart C. Sherman. J.D.

The task force since 2019

The task force has not met since 2019.  However, in 2022, Governor Kathy Hochul continued the executive order that created the task force. [22]   Accordingly, it exists, but is inactive.

Related Research Articles

<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.

Bioethics is both a field of study and professional practice, interested in ethical issues related to health, including those emerging from advances in biology, medicine, and technologies. It proposes the discussion about moral discernment in society and it is often related to medical policy and practice, but also to broader questions as environment, well-being and public health. Bioethics is concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, theology and philosophy. It includes the study of values relating to primary care, other branches of medicine, ethical education in science, animal, and environmental ethics, and public health.

Medical ethics is an applied branch of ethics which analyzes the practice of clinical medicine and related scientific research. Medical ethics is based on a set of values that professionals can refer to in the case of any confusion or conflict. These values include the respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Such tenets may allow doctors, care providers, and families to create a treatment plan and work towards the same common goal. These four values are not ranked in order of importance or relevance and they all encompass values pertaining to medical ethics. However, a conflict may arise leading to the need for hierarchy in an ethical system, such that some moral elements overrule others with the purpose of applying the best moral judgement to a difficult medical situation. Medical ethics is particularly relevant in decisions regarding involuntary treatment and involuntary commitment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Life support</span> In medicine

Life support comprises the treatments and techniques performed in an emergency in order to support life after the failure of one or more vital organs. Healthcare providers and emergency medical technicians are generally certified to perform basic and advanced life support procedures; however, basic life support is sometimes provided at the scene of an emergency by family members or bystanders before emergency services arrive. In the case of cardiac injuries, cardiopulmonary resuscitation is initiated by bystanders or family members 25% of the time. Basic life support techniques, such as performing CPR on a victim of cardiac arrest, can double or even triple that patient's chance of survival. Other types of basic life support include relief from choking, staunching of bleeding by direct compression and elevation above the heart, first aid, and the use of an automated external defibrillator.

The right to die is a concept based on the opinion that human beings are entitled to end their lives or undergo voluntary euthanasia. Possession of this right is often bestowed with the understanding that a person with a terminal illness, incurable pain, or without the will to continue living should be allowed to end their own life, use assisted suicide, or decline life-prolonging treatment. The question of who, if anyone, may be empowered to make this decision is often the subject of debate.

Prior to the introduction of brain death into law in the mid to late 1970s, all organ transplants from cadaveric donors came from non-heart-beating donors (NHBDs).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Baby K</span> American medical controversy

Stephanie Keene, better known by the pseudonym Baby K, was an anencephalic baby who became the center of a major American court case and a debate among bioethicists.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Surrogacy</span> Arrangement in which a woman carries and delivers a child for designated parent(s)

Surrogacy is an arrangement, often supported by a legal agreement, whereby a woman agrees to childbirth on behalf of another person(s) who will become the child's parent(s) after birth. People pursue surrogacy for a variety of reasons such as infertility, dangers or undesirable factors of pregnancy, or when pregnancy is a medical impossibility.

Joseph J. Fins, M.D., D. Hum. Litt., M.A.C.P., F.R.C.P. is an American physician and medical ethicist. He is chief of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical College, where he serves as The E. William Davis Jr., M.D. Professor of Medical Ethics, and Professor of Medicine, Professor of Public Health, and Professor of Medicine in Psychiatry. Fins is also Director of Medical Ethics and an attending physician at New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center. Fins is also a member of the adjunct faculty of Rockefeller University and has served as Associate for Medicine at The Hastings Center. He is the Solomon Center Distinguished Scholar in Medicine, Bioethics and the Law and a Visiting Professor of Law at Yale Law School. He was appointed by President Bill Clinton to The White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy and currently serves on The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law by gubernatorial appointment.

<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.

Involuntary euthanasia is 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."

Tia Powell is an American psychiatrist and bioethicist. She is Director of the Montefiore-Einstein Center for Bioethics and of the Einstein Cardozo Master of Science in Bioethics Program, as well as a Professor of Clinical Epidemiology and Clinical Psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in The Bronx, New York. She holds the Trachtenberg Chair in Bioethics and is Professor of Epidemiology, Division of Bioethics, and Psychiatry. She was director of Clinical Ethics at Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital in New York City from 1992-1998, and executive director of the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law from 2004-2008.

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.

The Family Health Care Decisions Act 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.

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">I. Glenn Cohen</span>

I. Glenn Cohen is a Canadian legal scholar and professor at Harvard Law School. He is also the director of Harvard Law School's Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics.

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.

Slow code refers to the practice in a hospital or other medical centre to purposely respond slowly or incompletely to a patient in cardiac arrest, particularly in situations for which cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is thought to be of no medical benefit by the medical staff. The related term show code refers to the practice of a medical response that is medically futile, but is attempted for the benefit of the patient's family and loved ones. However, the terms are often used interchangeably.

Nancy Neveloff Dubler was an American bioethicist and attorney, and a pioneer in the field of clinical bioethics mediation. She worked at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx from 1975 to 2008, where she founded and served as Director of the Bioethics Consultation Service, among the first of its kind in the country. Dubler is widely known in the field of bioethics for her clinical bioethics consultation and mediation work, her teaching and mentoring, her participation on public policy bodies, her numerous scholarly articles, and her two influential books, Bioethics Mediation: A Guide to Shaping Shared Solutions, co-authored with Carol Liebman; and Ethics on Call: Taking Charge of Life-and-Death Choices in Today's Health Care System, co-authored with David Nimmons.

References

  1. ↑ Executive Order No. 56: Establishing the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law. 9 NY Code of Rules and Regulations § 4.56. (1984). See also, "Cuomo Plans Unit on Right to Die," NY Times October 4, 1984 A-1.
  2. ↑ "Empire State Bioethics Consortium". Empire State Bioethics Consortium. 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2024-08-10.
  3. ↑ Former NY Public Health Law (PHL) Article 29-B Orders Not to Resuscitate.
  4. ↑ NY PHL Article 29-C Health Care Agents and Proxies.
  5. ↑ PHL Article 29-CC; Family Health Care Decisions Act.
  6. ↑ NY PHL Article 43-B.
  7. ↑ 10 NYCRR § 400.16 Determination of Death.
  8. ↑ NY Domestic Relations Law Article 8 (repealed in 2020).
  9. ↑ NY PHL Article 15-B Child-Parent Security Act of 2020.
  10. ↑ Mass. Gen. Law Chapter 201D.
  11. ↑ Former 14 V.S.A. Chapter 121.
  12. ↑ O.C.G.A. §31-39-1 et. seq.
  13. ↑ Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997); Vacco  v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997).
  14. ↑ Myers v. Schneiderman, 30 NY.3d 1 (2017); Kass v. Kass, 91 N.Y. 2d 554 (1998); Matter of Westchester County Medical Center on Behalf of O’Connor, 72 N.Y. 2d 517 (1988).
  15. ↑ "Death, Out of the Closet," NY Times, May 25, 1985, A-22; "Give the Dying Their Voice," NY Times, Aug. 31, 1985, A-22; "Help the Living Help the Dying," NY Times, June 6, 1994 A-14; “'If Hope Is Gone'”, NY Times, Aug. 8, 1987, A-26; "It's Baby-Selling, and It's Wrong," NY Times, June 4, 1988; A-26; “Mercy for the Dying, NY Times, May 28, 1994, A-18; "Needless Agony, for $100,000, NY Times, Oct. 2, 1992, A-30; “Sensible Answers to Death and Deceit, NY Times, June 12, 1987, A-30; "Silence and the Sick in Albany," NY Times, April 3, 1990, A-22; "So the Sick Can Speak," NY Times, June 12, 1989, A-18; "Taking Charge of Life, and Death", NY Times Oct. 12, 1987, A-18; "Waiting in Line for Life," NY Times, April 7, 1988, A-26; "WHOSE LIFE IS IT, ANYWAY?; 'When Is It Time to Let the Dying Go?'," June 30, 1987, A-30. .
  16. ↑ Ellison, Brooke M; Ballan, Michelle (2023-04). "Not my ventilator: How conceptual frameworks of disability and the absence of the disabled voice have shaped healthcare policies in the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond". Global Social Policy. 23 (1): 171–175; Neal P. Christiansen, “Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score Grouping Should Not Be the Primary Determinant of Allocation of Ventilators During a Pandemic,” The Journal of Clinical Ethics 32, no. 3 (Fall 2021): 233-40.
  17. ↑ Joseph J. Fins, Disabusing the Disability Critique of the New York State Task Force Report on Ventilator Allocation, Hastings Center Forum, April 1, 2020; Benjamin Tolchin, Sarah C. Hull, Katherine Kraschel, Triage and justice in an unjust pandemic: ethical allocation of scarce medical resources in the setting of racial and socioeconomic disparities, Med Ethics 2020;0:1–3.
  18. ↑ Not Dead Yet v. Cuomo, 554 F. Supp. 3d 445 (E.D.N.Y. 2021)
  19. ↑ E.g., Do Not Resuscitate Orders (1986); The Determination of Death (1986); Revisiting Surrogate Parenting: Analysis and Recommendations for Public Policy on Gestational Surrogacy (2016).
  20. ↑ 10 NYCRR § 400.16.
  21. ↑ See When Others Must Choose: Deciding for Patients Without Capacity (1992) pp258-59.
  22. ↑ 9 NYCRR §9.6. Executive Order No. 6: Continuation and Expiration of Prior Executive Orders.
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.