MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-second Session
April 16, 2003
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:40 p.m., on Wednesday, April 16, 2003, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske, Vice Chairman
Senator Maurice E. Washington
Senator Joseph Neal
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Valerie Wiener
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Dennis Nolan (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Ellen Marie Koivisto, Clark County Assembly District No. 14
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County Assembly District No. 8
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst
Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel
Patricia Vardakis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Edward E. Cotton, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources
Pam Becker, Chair, Washoe County Children’s Mental Health Consortium
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
R. Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association/Las Vegas
Chairman Rawson:
I shall open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 6.
ASSEMBLY BILL 6: Changes dates by which mental health consortia are required to prepare recommended plans and submit plans to Department of Human Resources and to Legislative Committee on Children, Youth and Families. (BDR 39-693)
Edward E. Cotton, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources:
Assembly Bill 6 changes the due date of the annual Mental Health Consortia plans to the Department of Human Resources from January 15 to July 15 of each year. It also changes the date of the submission of the plans to the Legislative Committee on Children, Youth, and Families from January 15 to August 15 of each year.
These changes fit the Division of Child and Family Services budget and planning cycles better than the current due dates. Currently, the report must be submitted by January 15, and I must analyze, respond, and submit the report to the legislative committee the same day. This would allow a month to make changes.
Pam Becker, Chair, Washoe County Children’s Mental Health Consortium:
I have provided written testimony for the record (Exhibit C) in support of A.B. 6.
Chairman Rawson:
I will close the hearing on A.B. 6 and open the hearing on A.B. 51.
ASSEMBLY BILL 51: Revises provisions regarding anatomical gifts. (BDR 40‑121)
Assemblywoman Ellen Marie Koivisto, Clark County Assembly District No. 14:
The issue of organ donation has become increasingly important as medical advances allow gifts of life to increase the duration and quality of life for many people. There is a wide disparity of organ procurement procedures leading some states to enact legislation addressing this matter. There are 61 organ procurement organizations in the nation. They differ widely in deciding whether to remove an organ from a deceased person for transplant. In 1999, a national survey of organ procurement organizations was conducted by the National Institute of Health, Department of Clinical BioEthics, and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The key findings were the disjointed way in which organ procurement and donation decisions are made.
There are 29 organizations that have an official policy on whether to follow the wishes of the deceased or family members. Seven organizations said they would probably remove the organ of a person who indicated this preference on a living will or donor card, but whose survivor opposed such action. Fifty‑two organizations said they rarely have documentation of the wishes of the deceased. When there is documentation, 51 organizations said families do not always honor the wishes of the deceased. When organizations were asked about priority in determining consent for organ donation, the responses were: 19 used the wishes of the deceased, 19 said the next of kin consented, 13 said they only procure organs if neither party objects, 8 said they proceed if neither party consents or objects, and 2 said they do not adhere to any of these policies.
According to the United Network of Organ Sharing, 78,000 people nationwide are currently waiting for a kidney, liver, heart, lung, or other organs. The organization notes that a new name is placed on the waiting list every 14 minutes. In 2000, there were 22,854 transplants performed. There are many people waiting. To assure a donor’s wishes are respected and to provide for an ample supply of organs, states need to provide a clear policy encouraging organ procurement and donation, and support the activities of organ procurement organizations. Such uniform policies would protect the wishes of organ donors and provide guidelines, which organizations can rely on when procurement activities meet with resistance from surviving next of kin.
Senator Neal:
What would happen if a dying person requests not to have their organs donated even though they signed a donor’s card?
Mrs. Koivisto:
The organs would not be donated. There would be a witness to the person’s wishes and that would take precedence over a prior decision.
Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel:
It appears our law has not been updated to correspond with the procedure used by the Department of Motor Vehicles and Safety. Originally, there was a declaration on the back of the driver license. There is a red heart on the back of the driver license, which states “organ donor” and the declaration does not appear.
Presently, a person must sign a declaration to be an organ donor but only the red heart appears on the driver license. The organ declaration is sent to the “living bank” in Texas where all the declarations are kept for verification. An amendment could be added to the bill’s language to make the system work.
Chairman Rawson:
Deciding to be an organ donor is a personal decision. If a person chooses to be an organ donor, their wishes should be honored. Family members should not have to make those decisions. Do you have any concerns with clarifying the language?
Mrs. Koivisto:
I have no objection.
Senator Washington:
Is there a bar code on the back of the driver license?
Ms. Erdoes:
The only indication is a red heart in the corner, which is on the back of the driver license.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
We feel it is the right of the individual to make such a decision and that should not be overruled by any other party. We support the bill and proposed language.
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County Assembly District No. 8:
I support A.B. 6. The change in dates will allow the consortiums to work more efficiently.
Chairman Rawson:
Are you familiar with Assembly Bill 302?
ASSEMBLY BILL 302: Repeals duplicative provision concerning penalty for sale of imitation controlled substances. (BDR 40-1284)
Mrs. Buckley:
Is this the bill resulting from the Nevada court case?
Ms. Erdoes:
Yes, it is.
Mrs. Buckley:
The Nevada Supreme Court’s decision questioned why a statute had two penalties. Therefore, a penalty was assigned so that it would not be duplicative when someone is selling imitation-controlled substances. There was no opposition in the Assembly.
Chairman Rawson:
I will accept a motion on A.B. 6.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 6.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
R. Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association/Las Vegas:
The Nevada Appellate Court found two penalties for the same offense. This occurs when a substance is represented to be a controlled substance and it is not. In 1977, it was passed as a felony but later considered a misdemeanor. The Assembly repealed the felony portion and left it as a misdemeanor.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 302.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson:
Do we need to discuss A.B. 51 further?
Ms. Erdoes:
It will be necessary to clarify the language on page 2, lines 11 through 14, to indicate a symbol on a driver license, enforced by a signed declaration, would be sufficient to trigger carrying out the organ donation. The language would also apply to lines 17 through 25, on page 3.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A. B. 51.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson:
There being no further business before us, I adjourn this meeting at 2:05 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patricia Vardakis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: