This article makes assumptions about the best possible care and then justifies them through legal means.

• The legal requirements relating to consent and decision-making in adults at the end-of-life are often overruled by fate.
  
• No two patient deaths are the same, yet patients die one of two ways: holding out hope or putting hope to rest.
  
• Generalized end-of-life protocols are preferred over individualized care planning, yet most people generally prefer to die at home and most "individuals" die in the hospital.
• Person-centered care can only be achieved with knowledge of the patient’s wishes, yet most people don't wish to die and sacrifice their best interest to prolong life.
• There's no clear legal framework for administering care to patients unable to consent to treatment, yet EM physicians act in accordance with the standard of care (What would a reasonable EM physician do?)
• In emergency situations, treatment may lawfully proceed without a patient’s consent could be the basis for providing comfort care to all patients who are expected to die and are actively dying.
• The absence of a valid advance directive may present difficulties in practice, but only if your family members are not utilizing common sense.
• If your end-of-life decision becomes a legal matter (or Act of Congress), you've lost control of the situation.