Circumstances surrounding the care of patients often present lawyers and their clients with issues that have no clear-cut (much less, easy) answers. A hospital frequently is confronted with the question of "what is the right thing to do" and turns to its lawyers for guidance. Many times, the answer to that question requires a melding of legal, medical, and ethical principles to determine the "best" course of action. This essay presents the perspectives of 3 experienced healthcare attorneys facing the challenging task of advising a hospital in the case of "Mr V." In the case of Mr V, the legal principles guiding the actions of the hospital are more definite than the ethical and medical issues. If Mr V is clinically (and legally) dead, and the physicians caring for him make that diagnosis, then no further "treatment" is legally warranted. Patients and families do not have legal rights to "consent" to a diagnosis of death, and families have no legal authority to direct medical treatment for their deceasedrelatives. On the other hand, if the physicians cannot clearly diagnose death, then the care of the patient falls within the legal parameters of withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining or prolonging care, where patient consent and family involvement are pivotal to determining the patient's treatment plan.*
展开▼
