Kentucky House Bill HB73

Kentucky 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/4/22
• Refer: 1/4/22

Caption

AN ACT relating to medical order for scope of treatment.

Impact

The legislation would provide legal protections for health care professionals and facilities when they adhere to advance directives and MOST forms, mitigating potential civil liabilities for following a patient's or surrogate's treatment preferences. It emphasizes the importance of honoring patients' decisions about their medical care, thus encouraging proactive communication between health care providers and patients or their designated representatives. The bill would also allow for the implementation of a standardized form for medical orders, promoting consistency and clarity in health care decisions across Kentucky.

Summary

House Bill 73 pertains to the establishment and governance of medical orders for scope of treatment (MOST) in Kentucky. The bill aims to amend existing legislation related to advance directives and enhance patient and surrogate decision-making concerning medical interventions. It provides clear guidelines for health care providers and patients regarding the use, withholding, or withdrawal of life-prolonging treatment and artificially provided nutrition and hydration. The bill aims to ensure that patients' wishes regarding their end-of-life care are respected and documented appropriately.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 73 appears to be largely supportive from health care advocates who prioritize patient autonomy and the right to make informed decisions regarding medical treatment. Proponents argue that the bill empowers patients and enhances the ethical obligations of health care providers. However, there may be some opposition from religious or moral commentators who may view the provisions for withholding life-prolonging treatment with concern, indicating a need for careful navigation of differing values regarding end-of-life care.

Contention

One notable point of contention revolves around the ethical implications of allowing patients to refuse life-prolonging treatments. While proponents argue for the dignity of choice in end-of-life scenarios, opponents may express concerns regarding potential abuses or misinterpretations of the law. Moreover, the requirement for sufficient documentation and the roles of surrogates in decision-making might raise questions about consent and the patient's true wishes, necessitating clear communication and understanding among all parties involved.