AB 2747 – End-of-Life Obligations and Communication

There are two parts to this California legislation. The first part addresses your obligations when your values limit what valid medical options you are willing to offer. The second part addresses when and how you should communicate about end-of-life choices.

The bill states that some patients and families suffer from a bad death since some physicians will not offer valid medical options. For example: If you your morals/values will not allow you to withdraw support or to write a DNR, then you are allowed to not participate in procedures you are morally opposed to. But according to AB 2747, you are not allowed to impose your values on the patient by not telling the patient about the other medical options. The law states that:

If a health care provider does not wish to comply with his or her patient’s request for information on end-of-life options, the health care provider shall do both of the following:
(a) Refer or transfer a patient to another health care provider that shall provide the requested information.
(b) Provide the patient with information on procedures to transfer to another health care provider that shall provide the requested information.

This has been the ethical standard for many years, but now it is the law. If you don’t want to talk about end-of-life issues, then by law, you must help the patient transfer to another doctor.

This brings me to the second part of the law. When a health care provider makes a diagnosis that a patient has a terminal illness or has less than one year to live, the health care provider shall, upon the patient’s request, provide the patient with comprehensive information and counseling regarding legal end-of-life care options. If the patient indicates a desire to receive the information and counseling, the comprehensive information shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

(1) Hospice care at home or in a health care setting.
(2) A prognosis with and without the continuation of disease-targeted treatment
(3) The patient’s right to refusal of or withdrawal from life-sustaining treatment.
(4) The patient’s right to continue to pursue disease-targeted treatment, with or without concurrent palliative care.
(5) The patient’s right to comprehensive pain and symptom management at the end of life, including, but not limited to, adequate pain medication, treatment of nausea, palliative chemotherapy, relief of shortness of breath and fatigue, and other clinical treatments useful when a patient is actively dying
(6) The patient’s right to give individual health care instruction pursuant to Section 4670 of the Probate Code, which provides the means by which a patient may provide written health care instruction, such as an advance health care directive, and the patient’s right to appoint a legally recognized health care decision maker.

It has always been ethically appropriate to have meaningful end-of-life conversations which discuss all the valid medical options including the option of having a good death. But now it is the law. You must have these conversations and offer all of the above options.