This is extremely worrying

4. Regarding end-of-life matters: [initial one of the two choices] (a) I do not want my life to be prolonged if, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, my situation is hopeless. (b) I want my life to be prolonged as long as possible within the limits of generally accepted medical standards, even if this means that I might be kept alive on machines for years.

I do not want my life to be prolonged if, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, my situation is hopeless. Who determines whether the individuals situation is hopeless and what does hopeless even mean? And when does an individuals situation become hopeless?

There are numerous situations where a person could be left to die by withholding medical aid that makes this a terrible thing to agree to.

For instance, a person may need



What is a Doctor supposed to make of this statement when he first sees the patient? He would realize that without his intervention the individuals situation is hopeless and only by that intervention can he prolong the patients life but if he reads the card, the individual has taken away his authority for the Doctor to intervene.



Hopeless can be defined a number of ways, here is a simple definition of the word

: having or feeling no hope : unable to be changed

: unable to be helped or improved : very bad

A patient may be in a coma and injured his neck. It is unlikely that he will ever walk again, in this aspect his situation is hopeless. The medical team may have no option if they followed the very loose wording in the directive, to turn off the patients machines.



That statement does not even qualify that the situation of hopelessness must be in relation to the prospect of life. It also doesn't qualify anything about the length and quality of that life.



I can see hospitals using this clause to avoid legal repercussions when the care of the patient has gone wrong. There will be cases also that by adhering strictly to the wording of this request that there will be individuals who are not given medical support that would have given them a better outcome.



I am so puzzled as to why the organization is getting itself involved in this.







It appears that this statement is new and has wider implications than just blood. This is not the business of the organization to oversee and they are stepping way beyond bible commands and interpretations.They've already provided a blank section for the individual to add to the directive, so why have they put this statement in, providing the option of only 1 of 2 statements, worded by the org. and way too simplified?It actually borders on being sinister. They are influencing the individual to choose option 1 as option 2 means that the individual would also be accepting of being kept alive on machines for years. I doubt many people would want that.With the likelihood of most signing Option 1, I wonder what they are really agreeing to?resuscitation and without applying any of the various methods normally used, the individual would die. When the person is unconscious his situation is hopeless, but in order to prolong his life, resuscitation is applied.A person may be bleeding to death and his situation is hopeless unless he has medical aid to stop the flow of blood and by doing so his life is prolonged.