Skip to content

McGill Journal of Law and Health

  • Home
  • Online
  • Jurisprudence
  • Issues
    • Volume 12, Issue 1 (12:1, 2018)
    • Volume 11, Issue 2 (11:2, 2017)
    • Volume 11, Special Issue (11:1, 2017)
    • 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

  • Jurisdictional Disputes and Indigenous Health: The Emergence of Jordan’s Principle November 20, 2018
  • The Criminalization of HIV Non-Disclosure: A Closer Look at the Duty to Disclose November 8, 2018
  • Moving Toward Inclusiveness in Safe Injection Sites October 18, 2018
  • Recruitment 2018/2019 August 28, 2018
  • Climate Change and Human Health: Who Should Bear the Cost? April 6, 2018

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 12, Issue 1 (12:1, 2018)
    • Volume 11, Issue 2 (11:2, 2017)
    • Volume 11, Special Issue (11:1, 2017)
    • 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.