Texas Senate Bill SB1632

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 3/11/11
• Refer: 3/23/11

Caption

Relating to certain do-not-resuscitate orders and advance directives; providing penalties.

Impact

The implications of SB 1632 are significant for state laws governing end-of-life care, as it introduces new standards that healthcare providers must follow when dealing with DNR orders. By defining when a DNR order can be executed and the circumstances under which it can be revoked, the bill seeks to enhance patient autonomy while ensuring that medical professionals act in accordance with the law. Specifically, it establishes processes by which legal guardians or relatives can revoke a DNR order if they believe it was not properly executed, which adds another layer of protection for patient rights.

Summary

Senate Bill 1632 relates to the regulations surrounding do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and advance directives within the state of Texas. It amends the Health and Safety Code to clarify the rules and penalties associated with these medical orders. The bill aims to establish a comprehensive protocol that governs the issuance, recognition, and execution of out-of-hospital DNR orders, thereby ensuring that healthcare professionals adhere to the patient’s wishes regarding resuscitation in both hospital and out-of-hospital settings.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding SB 1632 appears to be supportive due to its focus on patient rights and clearly defined medical protocols. Advocates argue that this bill provides essential clarity for patients, families, and healthcare providers, which can help to avoid confusion during critical moments. However, some concerns may arise regarding potential misinterpretations or abuse of the new rules, particularly in terms of how broadly or narrowly the definitions and legal justifications are applied.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise regarding the strict penalties laid out for non-compliance with the provisions surrounding DNR order execution. By classifying violations as felonies, SB 1632 raises questions about the implications for healthcare professionals who may inadvertently breach these rules, raising concerns about fear of liability over compassionate patient care. Overall, while the intent of the bill to protect patient rights and ensure informed medical decisions is widely supported, the balance between regulation and accessibility to appropriate medical care remains a pivotal debate.