Health and Welffare LPOA - Option A or Option B?

[NeedSomeInfoAgain]

I'm helping my elderly mum set up LPOA for both her finance and health/welfare. She has a health condition that makes it very likely she will lose mental capacity within the next few years. I'm struggling to understand all the ramifications of the Health and Welfare one. My mum has to specify either:

Option A – I give my attorneys authority to give or refuse consent to life-sustaining treatment on my behalf

Option B – I do not give my attorneys authority to give or refuse consent to life-sustaining treatment on my behalf

It's Mum's decision of course, but I'd like her to take into account what this might really mean with regard to possible end of life care. I would like to talk it through with her, so we are all clear about what each option means.

Option A obviously gives more decision-making on life-sustaining treatment to the attorneys (her three children). As I understand it, treatment for her condition towards end of life might well include tube feeding and hydration. From what I've read, this can be a good thing, but also painful and sometimes distresses a patient who is very elderly and weak. Would having the option to say no when invasive medical treatment seemed to be too much for her, mean mum could go to a hospice for less invasive palliative care, or even stay at home? I'm also mindful there will be three attorneys on the document and we'll all need to agree when this time comes.

Option B places final decisions about continuing life-sustaining treatments with the medical staff. They will obviously be experts and also have mum's best interests at heart.

Has anyone had experience of this and the pros and cons of selecting one over the other? Option B seems to put less pressure on the attorneys, but could it lead to mum being sustained with invasive or painful treatment (that she probably wouldn't want, but can't forsee or acknowledge the likelihood of at the moment)?

But I'm worried Option B means we wouldn't be able to advocate for her at all......or would the doctors still take our views into account as normal family members (just not as attorneys)?

Any experiences or advice much appreciated. Apologies if this is in the wrong place, I guess it is part legal and part health!

Option A (and I'd advise combining it with doing an Advance Directive) would mean you could work with the medical team to decide that tube feeding wasn't in your mums best interest overall, and your voices would be as strong as your mums in the decision, had she been able to say at that point.
I sadly had to decide on whether mum was treated in a way that would have meant hospital admission from the care home last year, and the GP was incredibly sensitive about it. Hardest thing I've ever done though, and with three of you on the POA, you really need to talk things through in advance

Option A. Healthcare worker in this area. Option A doesn't mean that you can't still ask the medical team what they feel would be best and follow that but it does give you more opportunity and power to challenge if you strongly disagree with their recommendations and need to.

Another health care worker go for A and all get together with your mum to discuss her future wishes - if all 3 are going on the document you all need to be aware of what you mum would have wanted. Medical / care professionals will also give input in decisions if appropriate.

Thank you so much for both replies. One of my siblings favours Option B, since the medical staff are the experts....we also want to avoid feeling we personally are ending mum's life...easier to have the doctor make the decision. In reality of course, the doctor would only allow us to act under Option A if there was no prospect of recovery. So it's really reassuring to hear that we could still just agree to take the doctor's opinion under Option A. None of us have ever been in a position where we've felt we needed to challenge a doctor but if we felt it was in Mum's best interest, it would be very upsetting not to have the option. It's such a sensitive subject because until you start looking into it, Option B could read as the one that gives the donor most protection. In reality, it's maybe Option A.

Thanks too Pixie; you are all saving me from another sleepless night over this.

It's strange that the Finance LPOA form states which are the most flexible choices to make, but the Health one, even in the detailed guidance, gives no direction at all.

I have chosen option A on my lpoa but in the preferences section (not instructions which would invalidate option A) I have stated I would like my attorneys to take and act on advice from doctors re life sustaining treatment.

.we also want to avoid feeling we personally are ending mum's life...

I had POA with DSis for both DM and DF, so I have some insight into the responsibilities and decisions required.

The way we shared responsibility was for her to 'lead' the health/welfare decisions while I lead the property and finance decisions. We were named as joint but always agree with the lead.

The last thing you want when you are faced with these so, so sensitive decisions are to have find that you do not agree amongst yourselves as attorneys.

I appreciate that this might very much not be relevant but think it is so important that I'm going to mention it: anyone who is not comfortable with taking the responsibility would honestly be better not accepting the role as attorney. Taking responsibility is literally what the POA is about.

Taking Option B does indeed take away some of that responsibility but then it also takes away your chance of being a force for good.

It might be worth thinking through the way things might work, especially if you disagree and Wooten out from there what to do for the best.

p.s. I'm guessing you already have wills sorted. The POA ceases when the will comes into force, we found it helpful to have the attorneys and executors aligned.

All the best.