Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

directive to physicians

Read a random definition: per bouche

A quick definition of directive to physicians:

A directive to physicians is a legal document that lets a person say what medical treatments they want or don't want if they become very sick and can't make decisions for themselves. It can also give someone else the power to make those decisions for them. The rules for making a directive are different in each state, but everyone can change their mind and get medical treatment if they want to.

A more thorough explanation:

A directive to physicians, also known as a living will, health care directive, or advance directive, is a legal document that allows an individual to make decisions about their medical treatment in advance. This document can prevent medical personnel from using life-sustaining treatments for life-threatening health situations. It can also transfer the authority of deciding whether or not to use life-sustaining health treatments to another individual if the person becomes incapacitated.

For example, a person may create a directive that states they do not want to be put on a ventilator if they are in a coma. Or, they may specify that they do not want to receive CPR if their heart stops.

The requirements for creating a legally recognized directive vary from state to state. Some states require multiple witnesses to the signing of a directive, approval by a physician, a specific form, and sometimes even requiring the directive to be notarized. Others may even accept an oral directive. In all states, the person creating the directive may decide at any time to change their mind and receive medical treatment, and a person may make adjustments to the directive later which in some states will require following formal procedures.

directed verdict | director

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.