| Nurse Resuscitates Patient With Failing Heart and Keeps Him Alive Despite "No Code Blue" |
| Are the Nurse and Hospital Liable for Prolonging Patient's Life? |
| Life Is Not a Compensable Harm |
Generally, when a physician does something to a patient, albeit negligently, that results in the patient's death, there may be a cause of action against the physician for wrongful death. But what if the physician's or the nurse's action prolongs the person's life, possibly against his wishes, could there be an action for "wrongful living?" Of course, when a physician treats a patient without consent, doctor is committing battery_ a principle well-recognized in the law. The Court of Appeals of Ohio tackled these two questions in this interesting case. I'm sure similar scenarios are being played out more often than we think in many hospitals around the country.
Wrongful Living: Nurse Resuscitates Patient Despite No "Code Blue"
Facts: Plaintiff-appellant, Keith Anderson, Esq., the administrator of the estate of Edward H. Winter alleged in a lawsuit against the hospital that on May 25, 1988, Winter was admitted to St. Francis _ St. George Hospital (SFSG) suffering chest pain. After initial treatment in the emergency room, Winter was given additional care in the hospital's coronary unit. Appellant further alleged that Winter had a discussion with his family and his private physician, Dr. Russo, about the type of treatment that he was to receive while at SFSG. In addition, there is evidence to show that as a result of that discussion, Dr. Russo entered the instruction in the hospital record: "No Code Blue." In his complaint, appellant claimed that the no-code-blue entry indicated that Dr. Russo specifically instructed that Winter not be resuscitated.
On May 28, 1988, during Winter's subsequent treatment at SFSG, he suffered a ventricular fibrillation. Appellant alleged that, despite Dr. Russo's instructions, a nurse resuscitated Winter by shocking his heart with an electric current. Appellant further maintained that the nurse's act of resuscitation was a battery to Winter. Appellant also asserted that the nurse was negligent by resuscitating Winter contrary to Dr. Russo's orders. Finally, appellant maintained that, by keeping Winter alive, SFSG caused him "great pain, suffering, emotional distress and disability" as well as medical and other financial expenses.
Administrator of the estate of the deceased patient brought suit against hospital, alleging battery, negligence and "wrongful living."
Court Decision: The court first defined battery: In medical settings when a physician treats a patient without consent, the doctor has committed battery. Physician's acts are lawful when the patient expressly consents prior to medical treatment. Medical treatment will be lawful under the doctrine of implied consent when medical emergency requires immediate action to preserve health or life of patient. If potential patient expressly refuses treatment, even in an emergency, any medical treatment is battery.
The appellant claims that decedent's life was prolonged by the defibrillation, but that life "was, for him, not worth living." Appellant "coins" a name for the cause of action for the life that was forced on decedent by the resuscitation _"wrongful living."
This rather novel notion has not been addressed directly in Ohio courts. Nonetheless, it is possible to determine that life is not a compassable harm; therefore, there is no cause of action for wrongful living.
First, the Ohio Supreme Court has declined to consider the lack of life to be a possible benefit. Similarly, the court has noted with disapproval the wrongful-life cause of action for children of negligently sterilized mothers, which measures "damages on the relative merits of being versus nonbeing." Finally, the Ohio Supreme Court has referred to the joy of life as an "intangible benefit" that cannot be valued monetarily.
Damages, therefore, are not those things that add to life, but those that subtract from it. Examples of compassable
damages are: wrongful death, unlawful shortening of a person's
life, general physical injuries, loss of the use of a limb, emotional harm caused by another's negligence.
Nonconsensual medical treatment that prolongs a person's life may be a battery for which plaintiff would be entitled to some relief; however, when nonconsensual treatment is harmless or beneficial, damages for wrongful act are nominal only, not actual.
Anderson v. St. Francis St. George Hospital, 614 N.E. 2d 841
Next Chapter