A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 44-7-268 SO AS TO PROHIBIT HEALTHCARE FACILITIES FROM INITIATING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT "DO NOT RESUSCITATE ORDERS" WITH PATIENTS AND PATIENTS' FAMILY MEMBERS, WITH EXCEPTIONS.
Summary
H3615 would add a new section to the South Carolina Code prohibiting healthcare facility staff and other agents from initiating discussions with a patient or the patient’s family about executing a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order. The bill creates one express exception: a healthcare facility’s designated patient advocate may still initiate such a discussion. The measure applies to healthcare facilities operating in South Carolina and would take effect upon the Governor’s approval.
In practical terms, the bill would limit when and by whom end-of-life resuscitation discussions may be started in healthcare settings. It does not appear to ban DNR orders themselves or prevent patients and families from raising the topic; rather, it restricts facility-initiated conversations. The bill would amend Title 44, Chapter 7 of the South Carolina Code, which governs healthcare facilities and related regulation.
Impact
If enacted, H3615 would add Section 44-7-268 to South Carolina’s health facilities law and impose a new statutory restriction on healthcare facility personnel. It would affect hospitals, nursing facilities, and other covered healthcare facilities by limiting staff-initiated discussions about DNR orders, while preserving an exception for a designated patient advocate. The bill would likely alter facility policies, staff training, and advance-care-planning procedures, and could affect how end-of-life decisions are communicated between providers, patients, and families.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, there is no documented public sentiment in the record here. The bill’s framing suggests a protective approach toward patients and families, emphasizing limits on facility-initiated pressure or discussion regarding DNR orders. Because no transcripts or voting history are available, support or opposition cannot be reliably characterized from the provided context.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between patient autonomy and limits on provider-initiated end-of-life discussions. Supporters may view the bill as preventing undue influence or premature pressure from healthcare facilities, especially in emotionally difficult situations. Opponents may argue that restricting staff from initiating DNR conversations could interfere with informed consent, advance care planning, and clinically appropriate communication. The exception for a designated patient advocate may also raise questions about who qualifies and how the rule would be implemented in practice.