advance directives the irish approach global alternatives n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Advance Directives – the Irish Approach & Global Alternatives PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Advance Directives – the Irish Approach & Global Alternatives

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 31

Advance Directives – the Irish Approach & Global Alternatives - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 146 Views
  • Uploaded on

Advance Directives – the Irish Approach & Global Alternatives. Eilionóir Flynn & Piers Gooding Centre for Disability Law & Policy National University of Ireland Galway. Ireland’s Assisted Decision-Making Bill & Advance Directives. Eilionóir Flynn. Overview.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Advance Directives – the Irish Approach & Global Alternatives


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    advance directives the irish approach global alternatives
    Advance Directives – the Irish Approach & Global Alternatives

    Eilionóir Flynn & Piers Gooding

    Centre for Disability Law & Policy

    National University of Ireland Galway

    overview
    Overview
    • Key elements of Irish legislation
    • Specific provisions on advance directives
    • Civil society submission to Department of Health – key elements for reform
    ireland s capacity bill
    Ireland’s Capacity Bill
    • Guiding principles & definition of capacity
    • Assisted Decision-Making Agreements
    • Co-Decision-Making Agreements
    • Decision-Making Representatives
    • Informal Decision-Makers
    • Powers of Attorney (financial & healthcare)
    • Advance Directives (at Committee Stage)
    implementation structure
    Implementation Structure
    • Office of the Public ‘Guardian’ registering agreement, supervision, complaints, advice
    • Circuit and High Court – granting orders, hearing disputes
    advance directives
    Advance Directives
    • Equally applicable to physical & mental health
    • Based on a mental capacity model but no front-end test of capability
    • Refusal of all medical treatment permitted, including potentially life saving treatment
    • No refusal of ‘basic care’ – includes warmth, shelter, oral hydration, oral nutrition
    • Not legally binding in involuntary detention
    civil society response
    Civil Society Response
    • Move from mental capacity to legal capacity
    • Make binding in involuntary detention
    • Only over-ride where ‘imminent and serious risk to life’ but not in end-of-life decisions
    • Respecting a directive should not lead to more restrictive approaches e.g. more and prolonged involuntary detention, restraint and seclusion, where a person refuses treatment
    • Introduce ‘Ulysses’ clause based on choice
    guiding principles for crpd
    Guiding Principles for CRPD
    • Everyone (regardless of decision-making ability) has the right to make a (written) advance directive and should be given the opprotunity to do so. A choice of instructional, proxy and a combination of both forms of advance directives should be legislated to accommodate various preferences. Support should be provided to complete the advance directive and makers should be encouraged to review advance directives regularly.
    • The point at which an advance directive enters into force (and ceases to have effect) should be decided by the person in the text of the directive and should not be based on a medical assessment that the person lacks mental capacity.
    • Once an advance directive has entered into force, third parties should be under a legal obligation to respect them. Advance directives should continue to have effect in situations of involuntary detention.
    • There may be an exception to the obligation to respect an advance directive where there is an imminent threat to the life of the person. ‘Imminent threat to the life of the person’ should be strictly construed and should apply equally in physical and mental healthcare. The refusal of life-sustaining treatment should also be addressed in the legislation. Authorisation to breach an advance directive must be provided by the court and priority should be given to delivering these decisions as quickly as possible, given the urgent nature of the circumstances.
    • The individual can specify what will constitute revocation of an advance directive in the text of the directive (whether revocation must be oral/ or in writing/other).
    • All advance directives can be revoked at any time by the person to whom it pertains – there will be no distinction between advance directives for mental health treatment and advance directives for physical health treatment in this respect. There should be the possibility for all advance healthcare decisions to be integrated.
    • An individual can choose to insert a ‘Ulysses clause’ into their advance directive, stating that their written will and preference as contained in the directive takes precedence over the individual’s own verbally expressed will and preference once the advance directive has entered into force. The Ulysses clause should only be used by individuals who clearly want their advance directive wishes to stand during specifiied periods and should be subject to independent execution safeguards to ensure it reflects the will and preference of the person.
    crpd compliant advance directives
    CRPD Compliant Advance Directives
    • The same registration criteria would apply to advance directives as to other support agreements (e.g. assistance agreements) under the Bill.
    • Where a person is nominated in the text to ensure that an advance directive is carried out, their duties must be clearly stated in the text of the Bill, and must include a requirement not to exert undue influence on the author of the advance directive. The conflict of interest in relation to healthcare providers acting should be stipulated in the legislation. The legislation should allow one or more nominated persons to be appointed for different decisions.
    • Where a person makes specific positive request(s) in an advance directive (e.g. for a specific type of medication only to be administered or to only be treated in a specific hospital or by a specific doctor) the same standard should be used to decide whether this can be honoured in both physical and mental health care.
    • Clear accountability and monitoring mechanisms should be provided to ensure that advance directives are adhered to. The Mental Health Commission and/or the Office of Public Guardian should have an oversight role in the monitoring of advance directives in the specific context of mental health. There is need for an independant adjudicator, for example an Ombusman, so that people who believe their advance directive was not adhered to, have a point of redress and independent adjudication. This needs to be a body independent of mental health services, or HIQA who do not have a role in considering an individual’s experiences of care.
    • An obligation should be placed on health care providers to find out whether someone has an advance directive before treating them. There should be serious penalties where a health practitioner or any other third party acts against the person’s wishes as stated in an advance directive.
    • There should an online registry of advance directives, accessible to health service providers when needed. However, data protection obligations to respect individuals’ privacy must be met.
    • Court decisions determining whether advance directives are overidden must be published in order to have a body of knowledge, for example to help in defining what constituted a ‘life threatening situation’ or ‘imminent danger’, etc. However, it may be necessary to anonymise the details of the individuals in these cases given the sensitive nature of the issues under discussion.
    mental health advance health directives australia and new zealand canada and germany

    Mental Health Advance Health Directives: Australia and New Zealand (+ Canada and Germany)

    Piers Gooding

    new zealand 1
    New Zealand
    • The National Mental Health Commission of New Zealand, est. 1998 as an independent statutory authority
    new zealand 2
    New Zealand
    • The National Mental Health Commission of New Zealand, est. 1998 as an independent statutory authority
    • National Mental Health Sector Standards (2001) but has not been harmonised with the CRPD
    new zealand 3
    New Zealand
    • The National Mental Health Commission of New Zealand, est. 1998 as an independent statutory authority
    • National Mental Health Sector Standards (2001) but has not been harmonised with the CRPD
    • 2006 International forum on ‘No Force Advocacy’
    new zealand 4
    New Zealand
    • The National Mental Health Commission of New Zealand, est. 1998 as an independent statutory authority
    • National Mental Health Sector Standards (2001) but has not been harmonised with the CRPD
    • 2006 International forum on ‘No Force Advocacy’
    • Produced comprehensive, publicly accessible materials that provide analysis and advice on advance directives
    new zealand 5
    New Zealand
    • The National Mental Health Commission of New Zealand, est. 1998 as an independent statutory authority
    • National Mental Health Sector Standards (2001) but has not been harmonised with the CRPD
    • 2006 International forum on ‘No Force Advocacy’
    • Produced comprehensive, publicly accessible materials that provide analysis and advice on advance directives
    • Developed complaints process to report non-compliance to Health and Disability Commission
    new zealand 6
    New Zealand
    • The National Mental Health Commission of New Zealand, est. 1998 as an independent statutory authority
    • National Mental Health Sector Standards (2001) but has not been harmonised with the CRPD
    • 2006 International forum on ‘No Force Advocacy’
    • Produced comprehensive, publicly accessible materials that provide analysis and advice on advance directives
    • Developed complaints process to report non-compliance to Health and Disability Commission
    • Weller reports (2012) there appears to be little interest among service users, a very low uptake
    australia 1
    Australia
    • Federation of 8 jurisdictions, considerably varied
    australia 2
    Australia
    • Federation of 8 jurisdictions, considerably varied
    • Reservation and Declaration of the CRPD to maintain substituted decision-making
    australia 3
    Australia
    • Federation of 8 jurisdictions, considerably varied
    • Reservation and Declaration of the CRPD to maintain substituted decision-making
    • Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council have created a National Framework for Advance Care Directives
    australia 4
    Australia
    • Federation of 8 jurisdictions, considerably varied
    • Reservation and Declaration of the CRPD to maintain substituted decision-making
    • Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council have created a National Framework for Advance Care Directives
    • Victoria has just introduced a Bill to formalise mental health ADs with low enforceability; Western Australia has informal ADs with low enforceability (doctor’s must ‘give regard to’)
    australia 5
    Australia
    • Federation of 8 jurisdictions, considerably varied
    • Reservation and Declaration of the CRPD to maintain substituted decision-making
    • Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council have created a National Framework for Advance Care Directives
    • Victoria has just introduced a Bill to formalise mental health ADs with low enforceability; Western Australia has informal ADs with low enforceability (doctor’s must ‘give regard to’)
    • Towards a CRPD supported decision-making regime – informal safeguards built into policy.
    canada 1
    Canada
    • Varied across Canada; focus shifts from ‘treatment’ and ‘dangerousness’
    • Main shortcoming with both is lack of access to adequate support
    • Ontario has equality-based provisions around consent and capacity
    • Strong emphasis on wishes and preferences.
    • Fleming v Reid (1991) – person was detained under mental health law but not treated
    • The court drew on the right to bodily integrity captured in section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act
    advance directives germany
    Advance Directives - Germany
    • ‘12 legal changes made non-compliance with advance directives a criminal offence
    • Constitutional Ruling in two states invalidated certain powers under mental health legislation
    • There a three different forms of advance directives: power of attorney, advance guardianship directive and patient wills.
    • Advance patient wills have only been recognised in statutory 2009
    things to keep in mind
    …Things to keep in mind
    • All currently rely on a (discriminatory) mental capacity test
    • Generally, a low uptake on advance directives
    • To increase:
      • Build Awareness-Raising Into Proposals
      • Link to recovery and person-centred care
      • Ensure Process – from design to implementation – is undertaken with people with psychsocial disabilities