Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/01/1998 01:06 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 383 - EXPECTED DEATHS Number 2092 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would hear HB 383, "An Act relating to expected deaths that occur at home or in a health care facility," sponsored by Representative Gary Davis. REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS stated that HB 383 clarifies whether a peace officer needs to attend or respond when a person who is expected to die passes away in a residence. Currently, the statute is vague and being treated differently by the different law enforcement agencies around the state. He said that an "expected death form" is signed when someone has a terminal illness and is expected to pass away at home. This bill says the police do not have to respond to the scene of an expected home death. It also clarifies the state law, but it leaves it up to local law enforcement agencies and municipalities if they desire to have such a law. He pointed out that the bill does allow for situations of suspicion if it is felt that the person has died from causes other than the illness. Number 2328 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute for HB 383, dated 4/1/98, as the working draft. Number 2360 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated that there was some disagreement on the bill between the agency and his office. The committee substitute was drafted at the last minute, and that is why there is not the normal heading on the bill. He stated that his office has checked with the Legislative Legal Services on the wording and they have made the necessary corrections. Number 2450 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection to the adoption of the committee substitute. Hearing none, he announced that CSHB 383, dated 4/1/98, was before the committee. TAPE 98-53, SIDE A Number 0053 MICHAEL PROPST, Medical Examiner, Division of Public Health, Department of Heath and Social Services, stated that he has been working with Representative Davis and he is in concurrence with the way the bill is currently drafted. He said he is available to answer any questions the committee may have. Number 0100 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there is still a requirement to respond to an unattended death without this legislation and is that what the bill is trying to correct. Number 0110 DR. PROPST responded that the department is trying to get some statewide consistency and there is currently no law or regulation which mandates anything which is causing a series of prevailing practices. In Anchorage, the practice is to send a uniformed officer to the scene of an unattended death, however, other jurisdictions do not send officers to the scene. He explained that the bill lines up the criteria that the person must have a known fatal disease and die of that disease. He stated that the bill will make the state's position clear. Number 0266 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if this would affect the provisions requiring an autopsy. Number 0286 DR. PROPST replied that it does not. He stated that if there was anything suspicious about an expected death he would be notified and the department would have the jurisdiction to make the appropriate decision. Number 0295 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there is a state form that is required. Number 0311 DR. PROPST stated that the forms that are in use now are of the Comfort One Program, which was passed by the legislature four years ago. Number 0324 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that the committee has some testimony from a mother who went through a very trying time with the death of her son at home regarding the additional stress she had due to how the death was investigated. He asked how often are the unattended "naturally caused" deaths a factor in police investigations. Number 0410 DR. PROPST replied that it is rare, individual police officers vary in their ability and sensitivity in handling these situations. He stated that occasionally there has been a lack of sensitivity in the investigating officer, but it is not a frequent situation. Number 0445 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT asked if the practice in Juneau is that the police are required to be notified, but they often do not go to the home. DR. PROPST replied that is correct, as far as he knew. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if that is under the current law. DR. PROPST replied that there is no current law, that is the current practice. Number 0471 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if the Anchorage police could modify what they do now without this bill. Number 0479 DR. PROPST replied absolutely. Number 0500 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that probably when the legislature adopted the new medical examiner bill they deleted a lot of stuff that maybe should have been looked at a little closer. Number 0508 DR. PROPST stated that the entire expected home death program was acquired from the coroner's office in Anchorage. Number 0525 CHRIS STOCKARD, Captain, Department of Public Safety, stated that the department does not have a problem with the bill. Number 0544 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if it was true that each jurisdiction handles the expected death situation on their own. Number 0550 CAPTAIN STOCKARD replied that is pretty much the case. State troopers are consistent because they try to do things by policy, statewide. He stated that 10 years ago police responded to every out of hospital death because the policeman had to be there until the coroner gave permission to remove the body. He stated that is what is continued to be done, out of habit. Number 0634 CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the bill states that there would be an expectation for the physician to file a form with the law enforcement agency for that jurisdiction and asked if it would be the public safety agency in the bush. Number 0646 CAPTAIN STOCKARD replied that if you are in a city police jurisdiction, it would be with the city of Juneau, if it was in Hoonah it would be with the Department of Public Safety. Number 0670 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what about the Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs). CAPTAIN STOCKARD said that is a good question. He thought they would opt to have it go to the trooper post that covers that area because the record keeping is more formal. Number 0713 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move CSHB 383( ), April 1, 1998, with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what the changes are between this version and Version B. Number 0766 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated that Version B gave the nurses the authority to sign the death certificate, but it was then found out that they already had that authority, therefore that was deleted. He stated that the version before the committee deletes the duty to respond to an expected death from state law. Number 0841 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if Version B had it so someone is not required to notify and the current version states "a peace officer is not required to respond" and asked if that was the major shift. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied that is correct. Number 0861 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that the deaths are still requiring notification. It is just that the peace officers do not have to come to the house if they choose not to. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT that under the current state law, there are some places where peace officers do not come to the home, such as Juneau. Number 0895 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied that they believed they still utilized the form, but if it is known that it is a expected death, they may not respond. Number 0899 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he thought it was a good idea and a good bill, but he is trying to get a clearer idea. He asked if Juneau is not responding now, what effect will this have on the current state law. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied that it makes it uniform throughout the state, and currently it is being handled differently in different areas by different agencies. DR. PROPST stated that the bill allows local areas to negotiate with the police agency for those that have disagreement between how the police agency might want to respond and the way those who care for the dying would like them respond. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that they can do that now. DR. PROPST replied that yes, they can. CHAIRMAN GREEN noted the addition of "medical examiner" and "peace officer" in this latest version of the bill. Number 0966 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated that the latest version takes out the duty to notify the medical examiner in Section 12.65.007, subsection (a)(4). CHAIRMAN GREEN responded that he was referring to (b)(2). Number 0981 DR. PROPST stated that the version before the committee should not have the medical examiner in the language. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated that is in (b)(2) regarding suspicious or unusual circumstances. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that in (b)(2), "peace officer" was added, which was not in the prior version. Number 1025 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he wanted to check the statute, and it would appear that every kind of a death that is not attended by a physician requires notification. Number 0150 DR. PROPST agreed with that. Basically, this bill would change the definition to attended deaths. Number 1060 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would renew his motion by amending the description of the bill to the version dated 4/1/98. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was any objection. There being none, CSHB 383(JUD) passed from the House Standing Judiciary Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|