OH Senate Bill (SB) 165, MOLST (Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment)
ACTION ALERT - Wednesday's (May 4, 2016) committee hearing is critical. It is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. We must make our voices heard. Please take the following action steps:
- Pray. God alone can change hearts and minds, and trust me, I was at last week's committee hearing and He will have to change several members' hearts and minds for this to be defeated.
- If you haven't called, please do so today! (or before Tuesday, May 3)
- If you have called, please use the suggested letter to email your senator as a followup. Feel free to attach some of the reference materials we refer to on our web site www.gtrtl.org.
- If you are not comfortable in calling, the please at least email them.
We have some strong allies in the senate but they need to hear from you. They need to know taht the pro-life community is Not Neutral on SB 165!
- Ohio State Senator - Randy Gardner 614-466-8060 or email to Gardner@ohiosenate.gov
- Ohio State Senator - Cliff Hite 614-466-8150 or email to Hite@ohiosenate.gov
- Ohio Senate President - Keith Faber 614-466-8064 or email to Hite@ohiosenate.gov
- Senate Civil Justice Committee Chairman - Kevin Bacon 614-466-8064 or email to Bacon@ohiosenate.gov
See Sample Letter Here
UPDATED (5-4-16) Key Concerns
with Senate Bill 165
(With Bill Sections Where Found)
May 4, 2016
COALITION* OPPOSING OHIO S.B. 165, MEDICAL ORDERS FOR LIFE SUSTAINING TREATMENT (MOLST)
UPDATED: Key concerns with SB 165 (with bill sections where found):
- Bill allows more than attending physician to issue and certify MOLST form, including: certified nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist, or physician assistant (2133.23, 2133.30). Shouldn't the primary care physician be the only one to work with patients to make such a significant decision regarding their own health care?
- Preparation of the form with the patient is not limited to the attending physician, but also includes “the individual who completes the form pursuant to the practitioner's delegation...(2133.30(K))” which can include any personnel, from social worker to chaplain. Even the proposed form to be established in statute excuses the issuing practitioner from liability by stating “My signature in this section indicates, to the best of my knowledge, that these orders are consistent with the patient's current medical condition and preferences...” Again, shouldn't the primary care physician be the only one to work with patients to make such a significant decision regarding their own health care?
- SB 165 allows for the MOLST to include withdrawal of comfort care measures (2133.30 P), which includes by definition (2133.30 E 1 & 2) nutrition and hydration. This is a major reason why the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network opposes SB 165.
- Life sustaining treatment is defined in the bill as any medical procedure, treatment, intervention or other measure that is intended to serve principally to "prolong the process of dying" (2133.39 O). Tacit change from preserving life to hastening death with this bill.
- Amendments that were offered and accepted in an earlier hearing removed language from the proposed MOLST form that stated the following: “You will still receive medical treatment regardless of whether this form is signed.” Why was this removed?
- Language changes created, as a standard for when a MOLST is recommended, the assessment that “(patient) for whom a health care professional would not be surprised if they died within one year”...this is a very subjective standard for issuing a standing medical order.
- Contrary to the sponsor and proponent testimonies, the bill establishes in law that a MOLST form can be issued for any patient, at any time (2133.33) regardless of age or condition. Once issued, a MOLST form “is valid and the instructions in it become operative and govern how the patient who is the subject of the form is to be treated with respect to hospitalization, administration or withdrawal of life saving treatment and comfort care...” Section 2133.39 states that “unless revoked (and replaced by an updated form)...a MOLST form does not expire”. Proponents have argued that the form expires after 1 year if not reviewed (language which is in the proposed instructions of the form itself), but this claim, and the form's instruction language, does not align with the new statutory section as stated above.
- The bill includes incomplete conscience clauses to protect facilities or practitioners who cannot follow a MOLST treatment order due to the institution’s or person’s moral, ethical, or medical concerns; the bill’s required referral to those who will implement a MOLST order still keeps the facility or practitioner complicit in the morally objectionable act (Sections 2133.24 (B), 2133.45 (B)). This is similar to forcing those who do not want to perform abortion to refer a patient to an abortionist who will kill the child instead.
- MOLST is to replace Ohio's current Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) protocol due to claims that existing DNR is too complicated. But Ohio's DNR is a simple one-page form (odh.ohio.gov/pdf/forms/dnrfrm.pdf). Significantly, the Ohio DNR form defines what DNR comfort care will and will not include—clarity MOLST forms omit.
- S.B. 165 negates any duty of the health care provider to obtain informed consent before implementing the MOLST. Obtaining informed consent to treatment (including refusing treatment) or a care plan requires disclosure of diagnosis, prognosis, treatment alternatives and their benefits and burdens so that the patient's (or surrogate's) decision is "informed."
- Doctors really don't know when a person will die, yet S.B. 165 assumes that if a person is terminal indicates a clear time of death. Yet "terminal" is not defined in the bill. A terminal diagnosis can assume life expectancy with normal medical care, or without care. S.B 165 also does not take person-specific needs into account regarding a terminal diagnosis, for example, if a person is insulin-‐dependent, is life expectancy based on receiving insulin or not?
The Growing *Coalition Opposing Ohio S.B. 165, MOLST Now Includes, as of
May 4, 2016 (alphabetical order):
to add your organization email: email@example.com
May 4, 2016 (alphabetical order):
to add your organization email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Center for Bioethics, Cedarville University
Citizens for Community Values
Clermont County Right to Life
Cleveland Lawyers for Life
Cleveland Lutherans for Life
Cleveland Prays for Life
Cleveland Right to Life
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, U.S.A.
Fostoria/Bascom Area Pro-Life
Fostoria Teens for Life
Geauga County Right to Life
Geauga County Tea Party
Greater Toledo Right to Life
H.E.L.P. Pro-Life Apostolate
Hancock County Right to Life
Henry County Right to Life
Hospice Patients Alliance
Institute for Principled Policy
ational Right to Life Federation
Lake County Right to Life
Life Issues Institute
Lima & Allen County Right to Life
National Black ProLife Coalition
National Lawyers Association
Northeast Ohio Values Voters
Ohio Christian Alliance
Ohio Pro-Life Action
Putnam County Right to Life
Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati
Right to Life of Northeast Ohio
Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Foundation
Tiffin Right to Life
Warren County Right to Life
What's Right/What's Left Ministries
The Myth of Neutrality
SB 165 Stated Aim is to Bring Simplification and Clarity to End of Life Directives.
- Senate Bill 165 fails to bring clarity and creates far more questions than it answers.
- The Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) tries to simplify a very complex and dynamic situation into shopping check lists that tilts toward non-treatment instead of providing the care you may need.
- Treatment options are presented as if they are morally neutral even though certain decisions may lead to euthanasia by omission.
- MOLST bases medical decisions on theoretical future scenarios, not the patient's actual condition and needs, which cannot be foreseen with accuracy.
- MOLST is a medical document and the advance directive is a legal one. The MOLST takes effect as soon as it is signed, and the advance directive takes effect only when you are not able to make your own decisions about your health care.
- The MOLST form does not require it be discussed with a physician. The law permits an "issuing practitioner" which includes physician assistant, certified nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist.
- Current law is more than adequate in dealing with end of life directives, while minimizing potential abuse and or facilitating Euthanasia.
No matter how good the intentions of the authors of the MOLST legislation may have been, this legislation plays right into the hands of those who are quick to devalue life. We cannot look the other way. We are PRO-LIFE, no exceptions!
The legislation has not yet been voted on, so there is still time to stop it. Please, take action now and let your legislators know NO on MOLST! The pro-life community is not neutral on SB 165.
For complete information, see the printable, two-sided action brochure Protecting Life Till Last Breath: Oppose Ohio MOLST.
To read the full text of the proposed legislation, CLICK HERE
To read an analysis of SB165 from the Patient's Rights Council CLICK HERE.
To read the comments of the Catholic Medical Association against MOLST type forms, CLICK HERE
To read the comments of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition against MOLST, CLICK HERE.
To read the statement of the Pro-Life Health Care Alliance against MOLST,CLICK HERE.