Code of the District of Columbia

§ 21–2201. Purpose.

The purpose of this subchapter is to affirm the right of all competent adults to control decisions relating to their own health care and to have their rights and intentions in health care matters respected and implemented by others if they become incapable of making or communicating decisions for themselves.


(Mar. 16, 1989, D.C. Law 7-189, § 2, 35 DCR 8653; Feb. 5, 1994, D.C. Law 10-68, § 23(b), 40 DCR 6311; Mar. 24, 1998, D.C. Law 12-81, § 14(y), 45 DCR 745; Feb. 27, 2016, D.C. Law 21-72, § 2(c)(1), 63 DCR 208.)

Prior Codifications

1981 Ed., § 21-2201.

Effect of Amendments

The 2016 amendment by D.C. Law 21-72 substituted “subchapter” for “chapter.”

Applicability

Section 7011 of D.C. Law 22-33 repealed § 4 of D.C. Law 21-72. Therefore the creation of this section by D.C. Law 21-72 has been implemented.

Applicability of D.C. Law 21-72: § 4 of D.C. Law 21-72 provided that the change made to this section by § 2 of D.C. Law 21-72 is subject to the inclusion of the law’s fiscal effect in an approved budget and financial plan. Therefore that amendment has not been given effect.

Emergency Legislation

For temporary (90 days) repeal of § 4 of D.C. Law 21-72, see § 7011 of Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Support Congressional Review Emergency Act of 2017 (D.C. Act 22-167, Oct. 24, 2017, 64 DCR 10802).

For temporary (90 days) repeal of § 4 of D.C. Law 21-72, see § 7011 of Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Support Emergency Act of 2017 (D.C. Act 22-104, July 20, 2017, 64 DCR 7032).

Editor's Notes

As to life sustaining treatment, termination of treatment, due process, termination of nutrition and hydration, clear and convincing evidence standard, and substituted judgment of family members, see Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, U.S.Mo. 1990, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 497 U.S. 261, 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990).

As to equal protection, assisted suicide ban, right to withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment, see Vacco v. Quill, U.S.N.Y. 1997, 117 S.Ct. 2293, 521 U.S. 793, 138 L.Ed.2d 834, concurring opinion 117 S.Ct. 2302, 521 U.S. 702, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1990).