THat is a reasoned objection. But the headline of this thread is a lie and a distortion.
I am deeply suspicious of medical advance directives and always have been. THey are to cover the providers in case they get sued and really do not cover the territory of the last days. People with DNR/s,,I have seen this with my family,,do not get even minimal treatment from what I see.
The best thing available is someone you love and trust and whom you empower to make decisions if you cannot. I see all the time people making decisions about these matters under theinfluence of feeling dreadful and hopeless. Not a good time to say quit treating me.
THe default positon should be treat as you want yourself treated and treat with available means. Not the other way around.
>I agree there is no explicit reference to assisted but I feel the bill’s language may create an opt in requirement for life sustaining treatment.<
How much more explicit does it have to get?
(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
20 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail
21 able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene
22 fits for such services and supports that are available
23 under this title.