A
few weeks ago, I wrote
a post about the ongoing
Karen Okada case in Hawaii. This 95-year-old woman expressed in her 1998
written advance directive not to have her dying “artificially prolonged.”
Last month, Mrs. Okada suffered the latest in a series of medical
crises. Her doctors at The Queen’s
Medical Center determined she was beyond recovery and recommended removing
her feeding tube. But at the same time she documented her wishes,
Mrs. Okada also appointed her brother as her health care proxy. He insists the feeding tube stay in
place.
I
argued that the hospital should have just complied with the patient's advance
directive without seeking judicial permission. But now that the case is
pending in court, the court should permit the hospital to comply with the
patient's advance directive contrary to the surrogate's decision. Compassion & Choices has just filed a
motion seeking to submit an amicus curiae brief arguing this position.
0 nhận xét:
Đăng nhận xét