Skip to content

McGill Journal of Law and Health

  • Home
  • Online
  • Jurisprudence
  • Issues
    • Volume 10, Issue 2 (10:2 – 2017)
    • Volume 10, Issue 1 (10:1 – Special Issue 2016)
    • Volume 9, Issue 2 (9:2 – 2016)
    • Volume 9, Issue 1 (9:1 – 2015-16)
    • Volume 8, Issue 2 (8:2 – Special Issue 2015)
    • Volume 8, Issue 1 (8:1 – 2014-15)
    • Volume 7, Issue 2 (7:2 – 2013)
    • Volume 7, Issue 1 (7:1 – Special Issue 2013)
    • Volume 6, Issue 2 (6:2 – 2012)
    • Volume 6, Issue 1 (6:2 – 2012)
    • Volume 5, Issue 2 (5:2 – 2011)
    • Volume 5, Issue 1 (5:1 – 2011)
    • Volume 4, Issue 2 (4:2 – 2011)
    • Volume 4, Issue 1 (4:1 – 2010)
    • Volume 3, Issue 1 (3:1 – 2009)
    • Volume 2, Issue 1 (2:1 – 2008)
    • Volume 1, Issue 1 (1:1 – 2007)
  • Colloquium
  • News
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Contact
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
McGill Journal of Law and Health

Estate Planning

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • More
  • Google
  • Reddit
  • Print

Recent Posts

  • Estate Planning: Ten Practical Steps to Improve Written Advance Directives in Powers of Attorney for Healthcare March 30, 2017
  • The All Families are Equal Act: Does it Fulfill its Potential? March 23, 2017
  • How Bright is the Line: Children, Natural Remedies and Consent to Care March 9, 2017
  • 9th Annual MJLH Colloquium in Review: Indigenous Health and Access to Medicines in Canada February 23, 2017
  • Thompson v Ontario (Attorney General), 2016 ONCA 676 February 20, 2017

Dr. Laura Hawryluck

  • Introduction
  • 1. Change the “No heroics” clause
  • 2. State what values, beliefs or outcomes the person wants to be considered with respect to initiating/continuing a treatment trial or withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments and resuscitation
  • 3. State what values and wishes are to be considered with respect to other potentially needed treatments such as tracheostomy, artificial nutrition, surgical/ interventional radiology treatments, and antibiotics
  • 4. State acceptable treatment outcome considerations with respect to cognitive and/or physical dysfunction
  • 5. Express any wishes with respect to obtaining a second opinion
  • 6. State wishes with respect to organ and tissue donation
  • 7. State any wishes should requests for medical assistance in dying be legalized in the event of loss of capacity
  • 8. If appointing several substitute decision-makers for personal care, state how conflicts ought to be resolved with a view to decision-making
  • 9. Ensure advanced directives are internally consistent with respect to treatment goals
  • 10. Insert a clause providing that the document can be released to the healthcare team upon request, and provide a wallet card to signal the existence of a power of designated substitute decision-maker for personal care
  • Conclusions
  • Home
  • Online
  • Jurisprudence
  • Issues
    • Volume 10, Issue 2 (10:2 – 2017)
    • Volume 10, Issue 1 (10:1 – Special Issue 2016)
    • Volume 9, Issue 2 (9:2 – 2016)
    • Volume 9, Issue 1 (9:1 – 2015-16)
    • Volume 8, Issue 2 (8:2 – Special Issue 2015)
    • Volume 8, Issue 1 (8:1 – 2014-15)
    • Volume 7, Issue 2 (7:2 – 2013)
    • Volume 7, Issue 1 (7:1 – Special Issue 2013)
    • Volume 6, Issue 2 (6:2 – 2012)
    • Volume 6, Issue 1 (6:2 – 2012)
    • Volume 5, Issue 2 (5:2 – 2011)
    • Volume 5, Issue 1 (5:1 – 2011)
    • Volume 4, Issue 2 (4:2 – 2011)
    • Volume 4, Issue 1 (4:1 – 2010)
    • Volume 3, Issue 1 (3:1 – 2009)
    • Volume 2, Issue 1 (2:1 – 2008)
    • Volume 1, Issue 1 (1:1 – 2007)
  • Colloquium
  • News
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Contact
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
McGill Journal of Law and Health Blog at WordPress.com.
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.