Almost always, when the wishes of a suddenly and critically ill person can be ascertained, they want to revoke thir "living will" and go for the gold.
People, especially young and healthy ones, routinely overestimate how unacceptable intrusive care would be, and routinely underestimate the probability that such care would lead to meaningful recovery.
It should tell you something that the main pushers of "living wills" today are the government, and HMOs.
They were invaluable in dealing with his affairs, making the proper decisions, and proving to the doctors that a 92 year old man would not want a feeding tube and ventilator as they were suggesting.
There was pressure put on my husband, as health care surrogate, to put his father on a feeding tube and ventilator, even though it was clearly stated in his living will that he did not wish one, and even though the doctor told us his condition was "terminal."
We did prevail and they honored his and our wishes to not artificially prolong his life.
But I have become very suspicious of the "medical" community and it's desire to keep people alive through unusual measures even though their wishes have been made known in a living will.
The doctors and hospitals like to have blanket permission to revive, extend life, try exotic treatments, and so forth -- if the patient has medical insurance. If not, and if they feel the family's financial resources are exhausted, they'd like authority to terminate life support for aything more severe than a hangnail.
The insurance companies, of course, see things differently. They love "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" orders, and living wills that direct the termination of life under a wide range of conditions. If a family member hold's the patient's durable power of attorney and the insurance company can get to him, he'll be subjected to pressure to terminate even against the terms of any living will the patient might have left.
When these titans clash, it's best to have one's affairs in impeccable order. It's also best to leave one's power of attorney in the hands of someone absolutely trustworthy with one's life -- but I'm not telling you anything you don't know.
All in all, living wills and the like are a chancy business.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
If you will do a search on the FLP, it is an airtight way to keep anyone from seizing your property in a legal judgment. Odds are 1 in 3 you will be sued, if you are wealthy enough to own $50,000 in assets, and especially if you own a business. Small business owners are expected to be sued 5 times, on the average.
I have personally used this method, and when I was sued, the plaintiff dropped the case, because I had "no assets".
One word of caution: The powers of attorney (or of personal representative) for financial affairs last ONLY while the principal is alive. The instant that person is dead, the power to use his money ceases. Between the moment of death and the time the estate is distributed with permission of the probate court, it is possible that nobody is authorized to spend the decedant's money even for things that are sort of obvious, such as the expenses of his final illness and for his funeral. Sometimes people have not been buried for a long time because, until their estate was distributed, nobody was able (or willing) to stretch themselves out financially by paying for the funeral out of their own money in expectation of reimbursement. It may be highly desirable to make specific arrangements to assure that at least certain of the survivors have access to some assets during that interim.