Patient order: Third bill presented
The patient order provides further for controversies and discussions. The physicians would like an order, which considers the will patients. The policy looks for compromises. At least a partial compromise seems possible, after the third draft for a legal regulation was submitted now
Berlin - in the controversy over the patient orders a compromise settlement possibly appears in parts. On Wednesday a third group of delegate around Vice Chairperson of the CDU parliamentary group Wolfgang Zöller (CSU) submitted its bill. Zöller said in Berlin, he saw his conceptions as “middle course and compromise” between the two so far available concepts of the groups around Vice Chairperson of the CDU parliamentary group Wolfgang Bosbach (CDU) and to the SPD delegates Joachim Stünker. The crucial vote in the parliament is intended for the first quarter of the yearly 2009.
The Stünker camp signaled readiness to negotiate after the collecting main. In the detail the drafts differed, but it does not give “unbridgeable hurdles, which could be united not in the legislative procedure”, said the Mitinitiator of the Stünker draft, Michael Kauch (FDP). Both
Drafts reject a restriction of range, i.e., orders for therapy prohibitions should be possible for each illness. Also both want to switch the court of guardianship on only if physician and responsible persons cannot agree on the conversion of an order.
Zöller: Physician determines “actively” patient will
The crucial difference to the Stünker draft is according to Zöller that itself in his version the physician “actively” at the determination of the patient will involved and implementing of the patient order is not only. The CSU politician underlined that with its proposal, which under others also ex Federal Secretary of Justice Herta Däubler Gmelin (SPD) endorses, no “automatism” is set on, but rather “area for the view of the individual case” given. Even if a patient order is present, must be still determined current patient will.
The request continues to plan that patient orders are to be also without consultation or notarial authentication comprehensively valid - independently of the kind and the process of the illness. Also verbal
Orders are regarded as sufficient. Also in the Stünker draft an obligation is rejected for consultation.
Federal Medical Society and Marburger federation consider existing regulations sufficient
According to Bosbach draft must a patient, who submits ordered that he rejects life-supporting measures independently of kind and stage of the illness, a notarially recorded patient order, which a comprehensive medical consultation precedes. This order must be renewed every five years.
In a patient order humans specify first, who medical measures wish or reject it, if they cannot express themselves sometime any longer. One argues about how physicians and responsible persons are to behave, if an order requires the renouncement of life-supporting measures as for instance artificial respiration or a stomach probe. While the Hospizbewegung penetrates on a new legal regulation and on Wednesday the submitted draft as “placebo” designation, for example those holds
Federal Medical Society the existing regulations for sufficient.
Also the physician combination Marburger federation rejects a legal regulation as redundant. The valid jurisdiction and the vocational guidelines are already clear, said the federation chairman Rudolf Henke. It recommended patient, their order after consultation with its physician once a year too
update. Besides they should issue an authority for a man of confidence, who is to advise with the medical profession over the correct treatment, if they are in addition no more able.
