Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:27:24.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Withholding and Withdrawing Treatment: The Role of the Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Leonard H. Glantz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Doctors or hospitals facing the issue of withholding or withdrawing treatment from patients voice a number of concerns, some factually based and some less so. One important concern is the possibility that such behavior will lead to an indictment for murder. How realistic is this fear? This article will review the U.S. cases involving withholding or withdrawing treatment, as they pertain to the issue of criminal liability.

The criminal law, in general, has not been used as a tool to regulate medical practice. While criminal actions against medical professionals are not unknown, few such actions arise dircctly from the practice of medicine. A physician charged with Medicaid fraud, sexually molesting patients, or prescribing drugs for non-therapeutic purposes has not been charged with a crime that involves scrutinizing the standard of care he or she uses in practicing medicine. For example, by definition, there is no medical standard for the non-therapeutic use of prescription drugs.

Type
Euthanasia
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , Winter 1987 , pp. 231 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Research support for this paper was partially provided by a contract from the Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States.Google Scholar
Commonwealth v. Edelin, 359 N.E.2d 4 (Mass. 1976).Google Scholar
Id.: 13.Google Scholar
Id. (emphasis added).Google Scholar
Id.: 14.Google Scholar
Id.: 18.Google Scholar
Ginex, G, A prosecutor's view of criminal liability for withholding or withdrawing medical care: The myth and reality, in Doudera, E, Peters, J, eds., Legal and ethical aspects of treating critically and terminally ill patients, Ann Arbor: AU-PHA Press, 1981, at aog.Google Scholar
Perkins, R, Perkins on criminal law, Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Id.: 37.Google Scholar
Id.: 51.Google Scholar
Survey, Euthanasia: Criminal, tort, constitutional and legislative considerations, Notre Dame Lawyer 1973, 48: 1202; Nesbitt, J, Terminating life support for mentally retarded, critically ill patients: The prosecutor's perspective, Journal of Legal Medicine 1982, 3: 145.Google Scholar
Survey, supra note 10; Morris, A, Voluntary euthanasia, Washington Law Review 1979, 45: 139.Google Scholar
Mitchell, P, Act of love: The killing of George Zygmanik, New York: Knopf, 1976.Google Scholar
Medical World News, Feb. 22, 1974, at 15; New York Times, Jan. 13, 1974, at 44.Google Scholar
Humphrey, D, ed., Assisted suicide: The compassionate crime, Hemlock Society, 1984.Google Scholar
Id.: 4.Google Scholar
Id.: 7.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.: 14.Google Scholar
Id.: 16.Google Scholar
Even given all this, the governor of Florida made it clear that he supported Mr. Gilbert's release during the pending of the appeal that was expected to take two years. The governor needed three of the six members of his cabinet to concur to secure Mr. Gilbert's release but was able to obtain the concurrence of only two.Google Scholar
An English case involving Dr. Leonard Arthur lends further support for the causation problem. Dr. Arthur prescribed 5–mg. doses of dihydrocodeine, not more than every four hours, to a newborn with Down's syndrome. The baby's parents, as his hospital note indicated, did “not wish it to survive.” The prosecution alleged that the baby died of branchopneumonia due to lung stasis caused by dihydrocodeine poisoning. The defense argued that the baby died due to various congenital abnormalities. The jury acquitted Dr. Arthur after two hours of deliberation. Lancet, Nov. 14, 1981, at 1101.Google Scholar
70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647 (1976).Google Scholar
Brief on Behalf of the Prosecutor of Morris County, In the Matter of Karen Quinlan, Docket No. 12,041, at 16–22.Google Scholar
Supra note 22, 355 A.2d at 670.Google Scholar
Glantz, L, The role of personhood in treatment decisions made by courts, Milbank Memorial Quarterly 1983, 61: 76.Google ScholarPubMed
In the Matter of Spring, 405 N.E.2d 115 (Mass. 1980).Google Scholar
Id.: 121 (emphasis added).Google Scholar
Commonwealth v. Youngkin, 427 A.2d 1356 (Pa. Super. 1981).Google Scholar
Id.: 1361.Google Scholar
Alger, T, A California dentist is charged with 3 deaths in the chair, National Law Journal, May 14, 1984, at 6.Google Scholar
Barber and Nejdl v. Superior Court, 195 Cal. Rptr. 484 (Cal. App. 2 Dist., 1983).Google Scholar
Kirsch, J, A death at Kaiser Hospital, California, Nov. 1982, at 80.Google ScholarPubMed
Supra note 31 at 487.Google Scholar
Id.: 486.Google Scholar
Id.: 488.Google Scholar
Id.: 489.Google Scholar
Id.: 490.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.: 491.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
In the Matter of Claire Conroy, 486 A.2d 1209 (N.J. 1985).Google Scholar
In the Matter of Claire Conroy, 190 N.J. Super. 453, 464 A.2d 303 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supra note 41 at 1229.Google Scholar
John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital v. Bludworth, 452 So.2d 921 (Fla. 1984).Google Scholar
People v. Robbins, 443 N.Y.S.2d 1016 (App. Div. 1981).Google Scholar
Commonwealth v. Konz and Erikson, 450 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1982).Google Scholar