Patient termination of a life-sustaining medical device: Suicide or natural death?

Medical technology has made tremendous strides in extending the lives of patients who have suffered organ failure. Machines can now replace the function of the kidneys, the heart, and other vital organs. Much has been written about a patient's right to refuse or direct the withdrawal of medical treatment, especially at the end of life, under the guise of "death with dignity." However, little attention has been paid to the situation where a patient elects to deactivate their life-sustaining medical device without a physician's involvement. This raises the challenging question of whether the patient's manner of death should be classified as suicide or natural. Surprisingly, common law, statutes, medical ethics, and public health practice are not in alignment on the answer. This article will explore the ramifications and far-reaching impact that such divergence has on the survivors and the medical community, as well as recommend corrective actions and practical approaches for the medical and legal practitioner.

Medical malpractice actions: procedural elements.

Medical malpractice suits are intensely anxiety-provoking for physicians, in part because of the foreignness of legal terminology and procedure that accompanies them. Consultations with attorneys in such matters may be confusing, and the sequence of necessary legal steps, after the filing of a complaint against the physician, can appear to be arcane and laborious. This brief discussion outlines the legal terminology and procedure that are part of any tort action--including malpractice--with the goal of reducing unfamiliarity with those elements on the part of physicians.