Testimony on Advance Directives - Oppose HB 3520

We have a vital interest in advance directives reform given its obvious importance for the lives of countless critically ill and disabled people. We maintain at the outset that all human life, no matter how disabled or critically ill, is of quality and incomparable worth and no less entitled to adequate health care.

Catholic teaching is clear that we have a duty to preserve our life and to use it for the glory of God, but the duty to preserve life is not absolute, for we may reject life-prolonging procedures that are insufficiently beneficial or excessively burdensome.[1] As you may know, the Bishops have worked to address our concerns with the current advance directives law, specifically by supporting efforts to include nutrition and hydration as ordinary care and to extend the number of days for transfer when a hospital ethics committee has determined that it is appropriate to end treatment. Bishop Mark Seitz of Dallas has said, "the patient and his or her family should be the first, but not only concern of legislation impacting end-of-life care. Issues related to the death experience are profoundly important not only to patients, families and communities, but also to the health care professionals who are involved, and who want to provide the most compassionate care possible. Natural death with dignity is the primary goal of every individual and institution engaged in this process."

Unfortunately, the approach taken by this bill is one that we must oppose. The Bishops are respectful of the perspectives and concerns of patients and their families. However, "treatment until transfer" is unacceptable. We strongly believe that such a policy is not in the best interest of patients because it only prolongs patient suffering and artificially delays death with no real benefit to the patients. It also fails to respect the conscience and professional integrity of physicians and other health care providers by requiring them to indefinitely honor requests for treatments that they consider unethical. The first duty of health care providers is to promote the best interest of their patients, not their patients' families or the community at large.[2] We do support extending the period of time of transfer to a minimum of 21 days, but with a firm deadline rather than requiring treatment pending transfer when an ethics committee determines that treatment should be discontinued.


Read full testimony online here: http://www.txcatholic.org/index.php/public-policy/testimony-and-letters/1097-...

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• 04
• 12
• Jennifer
• Allman