The Texas Advance Directives Act or the Texas Futile Care Law

Health Policy: The Texas Advance Directives Act/Texas Futile Care Law
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Health Policy: The Texas Advance Directives Act/Texas Futile Care Law
Introduction
On September 1, 1999, a new act that regulates a number of decisions associated with the end-of-life care in Texas became effective (Fine, 2009). Among the instrumental figures behind the Texas Futile Care Law or the Texas Advance Directives Act (TADA) were the Baylor University Medical Centre Institutional Ethics Committee members. The drafters of the law were mandated with developing the new statute that has become unique and ground breaking in many ways (Fine, 2000). This paper explores the historical background of the Texas Advance Directives Act, the individuals and groups most interested in the policy, and opinions on the issue based on the information gathered and experience gained as a practicing professional nurse.
The concept of medical futility is as old as the tradition of Western medical practice. The ancient Greek practitioners suggested that the main goals of medical treatment are to relieve human suffering, cure complications, and refuse to treat those who have been overcome by their illnesses. Another ancient Hippocratic treaty, “The Art” also states that if a patient suffers from a complication that no medicine can cure, then they should not expect it to be overcome by treatment (Fine, 2000). In ancient Greek, patients were warned not to ask their healers to attempt treatment that was impossible to medicine. The same treaties also reminded doctors not to display ignorance in attempting any futile treatment since it was equated to madness (Fine, 2000). Ancient thinkers and healers noted that dreadful diseases required dreadful remedies, but as medical science has advanced, today’s futile treatment might become tomorrow’s bod experiment that may lead to efficacious therapy.
As the TADA law states, physicians may be permitted to deny advance decision or directive from patients requesting to continue life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT) if the doctor strongly believes that the continued care would medically be futile or hopeless (Marietta, n.d). However, the decision of the physician to deny treatment is subject to a thorough review by the ethics committee of the hospital. According to Marietta (n.d), after the committee has agreed with the physician and found the case to be futile, the surrogate or family of the patient will have ten days to arrange for the transfer of their patient to a hospital that will continue treatment. Although the hospital must provide LSMT pending transfer plans, the hospital will have no obligation to continue with the same treatment after the 10-days period has elapsed.
There are conflicts over the appropriateness of continuing LSMT, with commentators and clinicians calling for ...