Instruction Letter to Health Care Agent
Non-binding, client-voiced letter that supplements formal advance directives with operational guidance a health care agent can use at the bedside. Not a legal document — the most important supplement to one. In "clear and convincing evidence" jurisdictions (e.g., New York), the letter also serves a critical evidentiary function.
ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED — Draft must be reviewed by a licensed attorney before use.
Quick Start
- Run pre-draft intake (Checkpoint A)
- Frame letter and harmonize with legal documents
- Translate values into decision-making principles
- Draft scenario-based treatment guidance
- Address religious/spiritual/cultural commitments
- Establish agent authority and conflict management
- Draft closing and distribution plan
- Run post-draft alignment (Checkpoint B)
- Run quality audit
Checkpoint A: Pre-Draft Intake
Gather before drafting (apply labeled defaults if user says "use defaults" or doesn't respond):
| Topic |
Gather |
Default |
| Executed documents |
HCPOA/proxy, living will, POLST/MOLST, HIPAA auth, organ donation. If unavailable, frame letter as "pending harmonization with signed directives" |
Supplement to existing directive |
| Identity & audience |
Client name; primary agent + alternates (names, relationships); share now or upon incapacity |
Primary agent audience |
| Medical context |
Major diagnoses, chronic conditions, hospitalizations, cognitive baseline, formative experiences (e.g., caring for parent with dementia) |
— |
| Values & tipping points |
What makes life meaningful; independence definitions; cognitive thresholds; longevity vs. comfort; pain/sedation/dependence tolerance; home vs. facility |
Comfort-focused |
| Treatment preferences |
CPR, ventilator, dialysis, feeding tubes, antibiotics, major surgery, time-limited trials, palliative sedation |
Moderate detail |
| Religious/spiritual/cultural |
Rituals, sacraments, clergy contacts, dietary restrictions, modesty, doctrinal positions |
— |
| Family dynamics |
Likely objectors, communication wishes, conflict preferences, who to inform |
— |
| Tone |
Intimate, direct, spiritual, humorous, formal |
Warm but direct |
Step 1: Frame Letter and Harmonize with Legal Documents
| Element |
Requirement |
| Governing documents |
Identify by name and date (or [DATE] placeholder) |
| Non-binding statement |
Letter supplements, does not supersede, formal directives |
| Substituted judgment |
Tell agent: "You are being my voice, not making your own choice" |
| Terminology |
Mirror client's executed forms (Health Care Proxy / Medical POA / Advance Health Care Directive) |
Template opening:
"This letter is not a legal document and does not replace my [Health Care Power of Attorney / Advance Directive dated ______]. I wrote it to help you understand what matters most to me so that, if you ever have to speak for me, you can make decisions the way I would make them."
- Flag any discrepancy between letter and signed directives for attorney review
- Never present as binding instructions
Step 2: Translate Values into Decision-Making Principles
Address the three functional thresholds driving most bedside decisions:
| Threshold |
Question |
| Cognitive function |
What level of awareness/recognition is essential? |
| Physical independence |
What dependence is tolerable vs. unacceptable? |
| Pain experience |
What is the comfort vs. alertness tradeoff? |
- Address dementia stages specifically — use plain language, not clinical scales
- Distinguish temporary impairment (post-surgical delirium) from permanent loss (advanced dementia)
- Pair every values statement with a concrete scenario
Step 3: Draft Scenario-Based Treatment Guidance
For each category, state general preference + conditional scenarios:
| Category |
Cover |
| CPR and intensive care |
Frailty context vs. otherwise healthy |
| Breathing machines |
Short trial vs. indefinite support |
| Feeding tubes |
Temporary recovery aid vs. permanent dependence |
| Infections and antibiotics |
Curative vs. comfort-only contexts |
| Pain control and sedation |
Comfort priority even if life-shortening |
| Time-limited trials |
Duration, reassessment criteria, who decides to stop |
| Hospice and care setting |
Home vs. facility preferences |
| Sensory/environmental |
Music, touch, outdoors, lighting |
- Frame as guidance ("If my doctors believe… then I would prefer…"), not rigid orders
- Empower agent to ask: "What are best/worst outcomes? What does recovery look like? What if we do nothing?"
- Never draft to resemble a POLST/MOLST — recommend as separate clinical/legal workflow
Step 4: Address Religious, Spiritual, and Cultural Commitments
- State beliefs in client's own words
- Translate into concrete requests (clergy contacts, sacraments, dietary needs, modesty requirements)
- Address conscientious-objection scenarios: instruct agent on facility transfer if needed
- If religiously significant refusals exist (e.g., blood products), ensure documented in formal legal/medical forms, not just this letter
Step 5: Establish Agent Authority and Conflict Management
Authorize the agent to:
- Request ethics consults, palliative care consults, family meetings
- Obtain second opinions
- Rely on treating team when consistent with client values
- Make decisions without unanimous family agreement
Template conflict language:
"You do not need unanimous agreement from the family to follow my wishes. If there is conflict, request a family meeting with the medical team and, if helpful, an ethics consult."
- Name anticipated objectors and reinforce agent authority
- Do not create de facto co-agents by asking multiple people to "decide together"
- Address HIPAA information-sharing boundaries
Step 6: Draft Closing and Distribution Plan
| Element |
Include |
| Gratitude and reassurance |
Thank agent; transfer moral responsibility back to client |
| Permission statement |
"You are not 'doing this to me,' you are doing this for me" |
| Distribution |
Who gets copies; share now or upon incapacity |
| Document location |
Where formal legal documents are kept |
| Signature and date |
Optional witness/notary for evidentiary weight |
Checkpoint B: Post-Draft Alignment
Ask after delivering initial draft:
- Does the letter reflect your voice — would the agent recognize this as you?
- Are dementia-stage and cognitive-decline preferences correctly stated?
- Is there anyone who might challenge the agent that we should address more directly?
- Should this letter be shared now or sealed until incapacity?
If no answer, recommend reviewing dementia-specific guidance (most common gap).
Quality Audit
Guidelines
Compliance:
- Rule 1.1: Supplemental narrative only; never imply it changes legal rights
- Rule 1.14: If diminished capacity or coercion suspected, advise attorney-conducted capacity-sensitive interview
- Rule 1.6: Client decides recipients; warn that medical-record placement makes letter broadly accessible
- Rules 1.7/1.8(f): Do not take instructions from agents or family; flag third-party steering
Jurisdiction notes:
- Match terminology to client's executed forms and local usage
- NY and "clear and convincing evidence" states (In re Storar, 52 N.Y.2d 363 (1981)
[VERIFY]): draft with heightened specificity
- CA, TX, FL and states allowing form attachments: note letter may be incorporated by reference (attorney decision)
- MAID jurisdictions (OR, WA, CA, etc.): agent generally cannot request MAID for principal — flag as separate workflow; do not imply agent MAID authority
Anti-hallucination:
- Do not invent facts, diagnoses, family relationships, document dates, or religious beliefs
- Do not draft language resembling a POLST/MOLST or medical order
- Do not use legalese ("principal," "attorney-in-fact") in the client-facing letter
- Do not include medical statistics without a citable source
- Do not state the letter is "legally binding"
- Do not invent registry names; ask if a state registry is in use
1---2name: health-care-agent-letter3description: Drafts a non-binding instruction letter (values letter / legacy letter) from a client to their designated health care agent, translating personal values, quality-of-life thresholds, and scenario-based treatment preferences into operational bedside guidance for substituted judgment. Trigger when the user mentions values letter, legacy letter, instruction letter to healthcare proxy, substituted judgment guidance, supplementing an advance directive with personal guidance, or communicating treatment wishes to a designated agent. Also trigger for family conflict around medical decision-making authority.4---5
6# Instruction Letter to Health Care Agent
7
8Non-binding, client-voiced letter that supplements formal advance directives with operational guidance a health care agent can use at the bedside. Not a legal document — the most important supplement to one. In "clear and convincing evidence" jurisdictions (e.g., New York), the letter also serves a critical evidentiary function.
9
10**ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED** — Draft must be reviewed by a licensed attorney before use.
11
12## Quick Start
13
141. Run pre-draft intake (Checkpoint A)
152. Frame letter and harmonize with legal documents
163. Translate values into decision-making principles
174. Draft scenario-based treatment guidance
185. Address religious/spiritual/cultural commitments
196. Establish agent authority and conflict management
207. Draft closing and distribution plan
218. Run post-draft alignment (Checkpoint B)
229. Run quality audit
23
24## Checkpoint A: Pre-Draft Intake
25
26Gather before drafting (apply labeled defaults if user says "use defaults" or doesn't respond):
27
28| Topic | Gather | Default |
29|---|---|---|
30| Executed documents | HCPOA/proxy, living will, POLST/MOLST, HIPAA auth, organ donation. If unavailable, frame letter as "pending harmonization with signed directives" | Supplement to existing directive |
31| Identity & audience | Client name; primary agent + alternates (names, relationships); share now or upon incapacity | Primary agent audience |
32| Medical context | Major diagnoses, chronic conditions, hospitalizations, cognitive baseline, formative experiences (e.g., caring for parent with dementia) | — |
33| Values & tipping points | What makes life meaningful; independence definitions; cognitive thresholds; longevity vs. comfort; pain/sedation/dependence tolerance; home vs. facility | Comfort-focused |
34| Treatment preferences | CPR, ventilator, dialysis, feeding tubes, antibiotics, major surgery, time-limited trials, palliative sedation | Moderate detail |
35| Religious/spiritual/cultural | Rituals, sacraments, clergy contacts, dietary restrictions, modesty, doctrinal positions | — |
36| Family dynamics | Likely objectors, communication wishes, conflict preferences, who to inform | — |
37| Tone | Intimate, direct, spiritual, humorous, formal | Warm but direct |
38
39## Step 1: Frame Letter and Harmonize with Legal Documents
40
41| Element | Requirement |
42|---|---|
43| Governing documents | Identify by name and date (or `[DATE]` placeholder) |
44| Non-binding statement | Letter supplements, does not supersede, formal directives |
45| Substituted judgment | Tell agent: "You are being my voice, not making your own choice" |
46| Terminology | Mirror client's executed forms (Health Care Proxy / Medical POA / Advance Health Care Directive) |
47
48Template opening:
49
50> "This letter is not a legal document and does not replace my [Health Care Power of Attorney / Advance Directive dated ______]. I wrote it to help you understand what matters most to me so that, if you ever have to speak for me, you can make decisions the way I would make them."
51
52- Flag any discrepancy between letter and signed directives for attorney review
53- Never present as binding instructions
54
55## Step 2: Translate Values into Decision-Making Principles
56
57Address the three functional thresholds driving most bedside decisions:
58
59| Threshold | Question |
60|---|---|
61| Cognitive function | What level of awareness/recognition is essential? |
62| Physical independence | What dependence is tolerable vs. unacceptable? |
63| Pain experience | What is the comfort vs. alertness tradeoff? |
64
65- Address dementia stages specifically — use plain language, not clinical scales
66- Distinguish temporary impairment (post-surgical delirium) from permanent loss (advanced dementia)
67- Pair every values statement with a concrete scenario
68
69## Step 3: Draft Scenario-Based Treatment Guidance
70
71For each category, state general preference + conditional scenarios:
72
73| Category | Cover |
74|---|---|
75| CPR and intensive care | Frailty context vs. otherwise healthy |
76| Breathing machines | Short trial vs. indefinite support |
77| Feeding tubes | Temporary recovery aid vs. permanent dependence |
78| Infections and antibiotics | Curative vs. comfort-only contexts |
79| Pain control and sedation | Comfort priority even if life-shortening |
80| Time-limited trials | Duration, reassessment criteria, who decides to stop |
81| Hospice and care setting | Home vs. facility preferences |
82| Sensory/environmental | Music, touch, outdoors, lighting |
83
84- Frame as guidance ("If my doctors believe… then I would prefer…"), not rigid orders
85- Empower agent to ask: "What are best/worst outcomes? What does recovery look like? What if we do nothing?"
86- Never draft to resemble a POLST/MOLST — recommend as separate clinical/legal workflow
87
88## Step 4: Address Religious, Spiritual, and Cultural Commitments
89
90- State beliefs in client's own words
91- Translate into concrete requests (clergy contacts, sacraments, dietary needs, modesty requirements)
92- Address conscientious-objection scenarios: instruct agent on facility transfer if needed
93- If religiously significant refusals exist (e.g., blood products), ensure documented in formal legal/medical forms, not just this letter
94
95## Step 5: Establish Agent Authority and Conflict Management
96
97Authorize the agent to:
98- Request ethics consults, palliative care consults, family meetings
99- Obtain second opinions
100- Rely on treating team when consistent with client values
101- Make decisions without unanimous family agreement
102
103Template conflict language:
104
105> "You do not need unanimous agreement from the family to follow my wishes. If there is conflict, request a family meeting with the medical team and, if helpful, an ethics consult."
106
107- Name anticipated objectors and reinforce agent authority
108- Do not create de facto co-agents by asking multiple people to "decide together"
109- Address HIPAA information-sharing boundaries
110
111## Step 6: Draft Closing and Distribution Plan
112
113| Element | Include |
114|---|---|
115| Gratitude and reassurance | Thank agent; transfer moral responsibility back to client |
116| Permission statement | "You are not 'doing this to me,' you are doing this for me" |
117| Distribution | Who gets copies; share now or upon incapacity |
118| Document location | Where formal legal documents are kept |
119| Signature and date | Optional witness/notary for evidentiary weight |
120
121## Checkpoint B: Post-Draft Alignment
122
123Ask after delivering initial draft:
124
1251. Does the letter reflect your voice — would the agent recognize this as you?
1262. Are dementia-stage and cognitive-decline preferences correctly stated?
1273. Is there anyone who might challenge the agent that we should address more directly?
1284. Should this letter be shared now or sealed until incapacity?
129
130If no answer, recommend reviewing dementia-specific guidance (most common gap).
131
132## Quality Audit
133
134- [ ] Governing documents identified correctly (or placeholders used)
135- [ ] No contradiction with signed directives (discrepancies flagged)
136- [ ] Values are operational — agent can answer: "What would you want if doctors say you won't recover?"
137- [ ] No vague phrases ("no heroic measures," "vegetable") — replaced with functional descriptions
138- [ ] All facts, dates, relationships are user-provided, not inferred
139- [ ] Legal citations verified or marked `[VERIFY]`
140- [ ] Dementia-specific guidance included
141- [ ] Agent granted emotional/moral authority
142- [ ] Adversarial review: no sentence easily weaponized out of context
143- [ ] Written at accessible reading level in client's voice
144- [ ] Family conflict management addressed
145- [ ] Distribution plan included
146
147## Guidelines
148
149**Compliance:**
150- **Rule 1.1**: Supplemental narrative only; never imply it changes legal rights
151- **Rule 1.14**: If diminished capacity or coercion suspected, advise attorney-conducted capacity-sensitive interview
152- **Rule 1.6**: Client decides recipients; warn that medical-record placement makes letter broadly accessible
153- **Rules 1.7/1.8(f)**: Do not take instructions from agents or family; flag third-party steering
154
155**Jurisdiction notes:**
156- Match terminology to client's executed forms and local usage
157- **NY** and "clear and convincing evidence" states (*In re Storar*, 52 N.Y.2d 363 (1981) `[VERIFY]`): draft with heightened specificity
158- **CA, TX, FL** and states allowing form attachments: note letter may be incorporated by reference (attorney decision)
159- **MAID jurisdictions** (OR, WA, CA, etc.): agent generally cannot request MAID for principal — flag as separate workflow; do not imply agent MAID authority
160
161**Anti-hallucination:**
162- Do not invent facts, diagnoses, family relationships, document dates, or religious beliefs
163- Do not draft language resembling a POLST/MOLST or medical order
164- Do not use legalese ("principal," "attorney-in-fact") in the client-facing letter
165- Do not include medical statistics without a citable source
166- Do not state the letter is "legally binding"
167- Do not invent registry names; ask if a state registry is in use