HELP ! UK - new law to allow one person to refuse blood for another

by Enjoying freedom 9 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Enjoying freedom

  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005

  Does anyone know if the WTBTS are doing anything about the new provision within the Mental Capacity Act for a person to authorise another to make healthcare decisions?

  This is a completely new concept for those of us in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Until now (well 1 October!) an Enduring Power of Attorney would only allow an attorney to be appointed to make decisions about finance.

  Under the new Lasting Power of Attorney (Mental Capacity Act 2005 s9) the donor (aged over 18 years) can appoint an attorney to make Personal Welfare decisions (ie HEALTHCARE DECISIONS) on their behalf if they lose capacity to make the decision for themselves.

  THE LAW WILL MAKE PROVISION FOR THE ATTORNEY TO BE GIVEN THE POWER TO REFUSE LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DONOR.

  The law does include some safe-guards, ie the attorney must act in the donor’s best interests.

  Anyone who doubts that the attorney is acting in the donors best interests can apply to the Court of Protection.

  You know where I am going with this don’t you?

  WHAT IS THE WTBTS DOING ABOUT THIS????

  Does anyone know if the WTBTS are going to encourage JWs to set up Lasting Power of Attorney so that a fellow JW (named elder or named Hospital Liaison Committee member for instance) can make the decision to refuse blood transfusions for that JW patient?

  I will eat my hat (if I wore one!) if they don’t try the guilt ploy with JWs and force them to set up Lasting Power of Attorney.

  Advance decisions will still be valid under this new Act, so I am sure the WTBTS will still be pushing their NO Blood cards.

  HELP NEEDED ON THIS ONE FOLKS!!!!!!!!
• 

  anglise

  Hi EF

  Was any of this covered on the last BC issue with giving the elders access to personal medical files.

  Sorry I cant remember all the relevant info.

  Maybe someone else can help

  Anglise
• 

  Enjoying freedom

  As far as I know an elder (or anyone else for that matter) would only be able to access a patient's file if that patient gives written consent.

  So without written consent the elder would have no right to that file.

  If the elder were to have Lasting Power of Attorney over healthcare decisions then I suspect that they will also have access to the medical file to allow them to make the "best interests" decision for the patient.

  Otherwise, the argument would go that they are in posession of all the facts to enable them to make a "best interests" decision.

  But we all know what type of "best interests" test would be applied by an elder in the case of a JW patient don't we?
• 

  rebel8

  "Does anyone know if the WTBTS are going to encourage JWs to set up Lasting Power of Attorney so that a fellow JW (named elder or named Hospital Liaison Committee member for instance) can make the decision to refuse blood transfusions for that JW patient?"
  
  Here in the wt fundie capital of the universe, New York State, we have had this for years....and yes, the borg have been encouraging the jws to name a fellow member as their healthcare power of attorney. I can't remember when the law went into effect, but I know they've been encouraging this since at least the 1980s (maybe before there was a law about healthcare POAs).
  
  People with unbelieving mates were told to designate an elder for their POA to take the decision-making authority away from their spouse.
• 

  Enjoying freedom

  Rebel 8 - Many thanks for the info! This is exactly what I was suspecting may happen.

  Does anyone know what plans the WTBTS have for the UK???
• 

  Mackin

  ***Here in the wt fundie capital of the universe, New York State, we have had this for years....and yes, the borg have been encouraging the jws to name a fellow member as their healthcare power of attorney. I can't remember when the law went into effect, but I know they've been encouraging this since at least the 1980s (maybe before there was a law about healthcare POAs). People with unbelieving mates were told to designate an elder for their POA to take the decision-making authority away from their spouse.*** They did this in New Zealand about a decade ago too. It was the "last straw" that convinced me to leave. Mackin edit. Sorry about the formatting. This site is Linux unfriendly.
• 

  Enjoying freedom

  Just want to bring this to the top of the board again as I need any information that is out there!
• 

  JWdaughter

  Wow, all this is news to me! The WT is encouraging people to give their POA to elders? Is that documented?
• 

  core

  The new provision of Lasting Power of Attorney replaces the present provision of an Enduring Power of Attorney - and it has indeed got much wider scope - however it is highly unlikely that very many will execute the new LPA as they all now need registering with the Court of Protection and the cost is several hundred pounds - under the old arrangement - which had no implications for healthcare, only financial management, an EPA was only required to be registered if the donor (the person granting the power) had lost mental capacity. A further difference is that with a LPA the attorney has to maintain and provide for the Court of Protection detailed accounts every year, regarding the use of the donors assets - the main reason for the change as currently attorneys were freely able to plunder the assets of those they served with little prospect of discovery.
  
  Given the cost of registration it seems unlikely that many dubs will use this system.
  
  As with most UK legislation the government has rushed this through but has as yet still not published to forms to be used and legal practices are not yet advised of all the fees, regulations etc involved - another cock-up ala HIPS.
  
  As a final point - any existing EPAs are still valid for financial management and do not need registration unless the donor becomes mentally incapable.
• 

  Enjoying freedom

  I can see why something like this would make sense for an individual to set up if they have a degenerative illness that they know will result in them losing capacity and unable to make their own decisions.

  But not so that one JW can refuse blood on behalf of another, when, in a lot of cases, the patient would survive the injury/operation and lead a normal life otherwise.

  Again, each person has the right to choose. But how much real CHOICE does the average JW have when they are in a hospital bed, sick, and surrounded by JW family, friends and the Hospital Liaison Committee all using subtle but significant pressure on that individual to refuse blood?

  This is not patient choice, this is bullying by any other name.

  This is the situation that desperately needs to be avoided.