In my preceding posts, I have addresses the value that a MOLST paradigm program can bring to a state. I have also highlighted where a MOLST paradigm program can thrive and flourish, whether alone or in with another healthcare framework. However, a review of the legal barriers that could hinder its execution must be reviewed.
In my last Post, I discussed the value associated with identifying avenues where the MOLST program can flourish within traditional end-of-life institutions. It focused how well palliative centers and MOLST paradigm programs could work in unison.
The goal of palliative care is to ease the burden for all members affected by the patient’s deterioration in health, which include: the patient, family, physicians, nurses and nurse practitioners, social workers, chaplains, counselors, and alternative therapists. When others handle external issues, the patient could to focus his strength and efforts on maximizing the quality of his remaining life.
In response to the criticism of advanced directives highlighted in my last post, certain states have proactively attempted to address the flaws associated with the current end-of-life options. Recently, New York State has taken a more patient and family oriented approach in regards to the method of how the state treats end-of-life decisions.
In examining the health care proxy, it was discovered that affording the full control to proxy only when the patient is incapacitated, could lead to the proxy being unclear as to what exactly the wishes of the patient are. Additionally, the patient may change his mind over time, and discuss these changes with his proxy, yet not reflect these alterations in the form, which delegated the power initially.
Over the next several weeks I will delve into the current advanced directives options available in a number of states. In this, my inaugural post, I would like to define what an advanced directive is, what are the options, and why each is important.