Texas House Bill HB577

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of House Committee: 5/2/11
• Introduced: 1/10/11
• Voted on by House: 5/6/11
• Refer: 2/18/11
• Out of Senate Committee: 5/18/11
• Report Pass: 4/26/11
• Voted on by Senate: 5/24/11
• Governor Action: 6/17/11
• Enrolled: 5/26/11
• Passed: 6/17/11

Caption

Relating to emergency prehospital care provided by emergency services personnel.

Impact

The bill is significant as it formalizes the roles of both personal physicians and the medical directors of EMS systems when dealing with resuscitation efforts in emergency scenarios. Provisions established in this bill indicate that if a personal physician is present, they can guide the cessation of CPR based on their professional judgment. If absent, the EMS medical director assumes responsibility, ensuring that there is always a structured authority directing emergency care in such high-stakes situations. This focuses on improving the outcomes and ethical considerations in emergency healthcare performance.

Summary

House Bill 577 addresses the protocols for emergency prehospital care provided by emergency services personnel in Texas. It specifically outlines the responsibilities of emergency medical personnel in relation to do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and the authority of physicians in making decisions regarding the continuation or termination of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The bill amends existing sections within the Health and Safety Code to clarify these duties, ensuring that emergency medical services (EMS) personnel are guided by clear regulations during critical care situations.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB577 may involve discussions on the autonomy of emergency medical personnel versus the directives of medical professionals. While the clarification of roles can enhance coordination, concerns might arise regarding the reliance on physicians' judgments in fast-paced emergency situations. Some may argue that the bill could create barriers for EMS personnel who might need to act independently based on established protocols. Others may advocate for the necessity of clear guidance to ensure that patients' end-of-life preferences are respected during emergency responses.