Is a tattoo providing medical instructions legally binding?
<p><a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/this-81-year-old-woman-got-a-dont-euthanize-me-tattoo-82673" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This article</a> describes an 81-year-old woman who got a tattoo reading &quot;Don't euthanize me&quot; to express her medical wishes if she were incapacitated.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Calgary grandmother recently had the words “Don’t euthanize me” tattooed on her arm.</p>
<p>“It’s drastic, but this very clearly says, ‘I’m going to live until God’s ready for me’,”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Would medical instructions tattooed in this way be legally binding in the absence of more recent legal documentation (e.g. an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_healthcare_directive" rel="nofollow noreferrer">advance healthcare directive</a>)?</p>
<p>For the purposes of this question, let's assume that the tattoo gave an explicit medical directive that would not be the default medical procedure (e.g. &quot;do not resuscitate&quot;, &quot;don't intubate me&quot;).</p>

<p>The specifics are set at the provincial level. In British Columbia, <a href="http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96181_01#section5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">consent is required</a> for medical treatment <a href="http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96181_01#section12" rel="nofollow noreferrer">except in certain circumstances</a> like being incapable of consenting. However, the law also says that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A health care provider must not provide health care under section 12
  if the health care provider has reasonable grounds to believe that the
  person, while capable and after attaining 19 years of age, expressed
  an instruction or wish applicable to the circumstances to refuse
  consent to the health care.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In some circumstances (i.e. as laid out in section 12), such a tattoo could trigger a "DNR" effect, but the "must not" provision has a narrower range of application, where it limits the exception to the consent requirement in the case of life saving emergency measures for an unconscious patient. </p>

<p>More general <a href="http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96181_01#part2.1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">advance directives</a> can be given, but such a directive has more detailed requirements, and usually takes the form of filling out a <a href="https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/forms/302fil.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">printed form</a> and including the signature of the individual and two witnesses. The aforementioned tattoo would not pass muster as a legal advance directive (even if the text were "don't transfuse me"). It might suffice under the "reasonable ground to infer consent refused" clause.</p>

canada medical