HARRY HUGHES, Governor

4005

"hospital and a related institution" from provisions authorizing
unconsented treatment of the disabled individual and those
according certain ' immunity. Also, House Bill 309 amends
subsection (d) which House Bill 159 and Senate Bill 433 repeal in
its entirety.

For these reasons, I have vetoed House Bill 309.

Sincerely,
Harry Hughes
Governor

May 23, 1984
Honorable Harry Hughes
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Re: House Bill 159 and
House Bill 309

Dear Governor Hughes:

You have requested advice on whether the provisions of House
Bill 159 and House Bill 309, both of which have been previously
approved for constitutionality, are so inconsistent that only one
of the bills should be signed.

Both bills amend § 20-107 of the Health General Article
which presently provides that under certain circumstances a
"physician or a health care facility" may treat a disabled
individual without consent. In addition, in § 20-107(d),
existing law confers certain immunity from civil suit or criminal
prosecution on a "physician or an individual under the direction
of a physician" who treats a disabled individual without consent.
The revisor's note to this section states the following:

"The Commission to Revise the Annotated Code notes,
for consideration by the General Assembly, that, while
subsection (c) of this section permits a 'health care
facility' or physician to provide treatment,
subsection (d) of this section does not provide
immunity to the health care facility."

Apparently responding to this omission in the law, House
Bill 309 amends § 20-107(d), and confers immunity upon "a health
care facility that renders treatment to a disabled individual."
Although House Bill 309 is aimed at this narrow issue, House Bill
159 is a comprehensive rewrite of the entire section. In so
doing, the latter bill confers immunity for treatment upon a
"health care provider." The bill defines the term in the
following fashion: