Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:38:55.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Patient Self-Determination Act: A Cooperative Model for Implementation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2009

Alexander Morgan Capron
Alexander Morgan Capron
Affiliation:
Henry W. Bruce University Professor of Law and Medicine and Co-Director, Pacific Center for Health Policy and Ethics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1990, I voiced strong doubts about a bill entitled the Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA), which had been introduced in the U.S. Senate by John Danforth (R-MO) and Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY). I hoped to see it defeated. In 1991, after the bill had become a small part of a massive status (the Omnibys Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) adopted in the waning hours of the 101st Congress, I devoted countless hours to its implementation. I wanted to see it succeed. Why the change?

Type
Special Section: The Patient Self-Determination Act
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , Spring 1992 , pp. 97 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Capron AM. The PSDA: not now. Hastings Center Report 1990; (09/10):35–6.Google Scholar

2. Pub. Law 101–508, Sec, 4751(a) (1990). codified at, 42 U.S.C. 1396(a) (58) (suppl 1991).Google Scholar

3. Pub. Law 101–508, Sec, 4206(a) (2) and 4751(a) (2) (1990), codified at, 42 U.S.C. 1395cc(a) (1) (f) and 1396a(w) (1) (A) (Suppl 1991).Google Scholar

4. The Consortium consists of the following groups: California Association for Health Serivices at Home; California Association of Catholic Hospitals; California Association of Health Facilities; California Association of Health Maintenance Organizations; California Association of Homes for Aging; California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems; California Association of Public Hospitals; California Commission on Aging; California Department of Health Services; California Dialysis Council; California Health Decisions; California Medical Association; California Nurses Association; California State Hospice Association; Center for Healthcare Ethics, St. Joseph Health System; College of Chaplains, California Chapter; Hospital Council of Southern California; International Bioethics Institute; Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program; LACMA-LACBA Joint Committee On Biomedical Ethics; Pacific Center for Health Policy and Ethics, University of Southern California; Society For Hospital Social Work Directors; Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics; United Hospital Association; University of California Office of General Counsel. A further serveral dozen individuals served as informal reviewers and consultants for the Consortium.Google Scholar

5. The Consortium is continuing to meet, and the development of model or sample policies on these additional issues is a major task.Google Scholar