I’m not really interested in what the case law, if any, says on the subject, but more what people think the law should be.
Here’s the scenario: I get into an argument with somebody and end up shooting them. The wound is not immediately fatal, and the person is rushed to the hospital. At the hospital, the person’s wife is on hand to inform the doctors that her husband has filled out a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order that states that, “I request that in the event my heart and breathing should stop, no person shall attempt to resuscitate me.” Soon thereafter, the person suffers a heart attack. The hospital staff honors the DNR order and the person dies.
Have I committed murder?
On one hand, I would say that I am responsible for anything that happens to my victim as a result of my actions, and therefore I am guilty of murder. The fact that he might have lived had the doctors tried to resuscitate him doesn’t change the fact that he only had the heart attack in the first place because I shot him.
On the other hand, I can certainly see where it wouldn’t be murder if, say, my victim got depressed during his convalescence and took an overdose of painkillers. And I wonder whether a DNR order could be considered a form of premeditated suicide. Yes, I did a horrible thing in shooting him, but his death may have been prevented except for an affirmative choice that he made.
As a side issue, would the wife be guilty of murder if it turns out that she forged the DNR order? Her “bad act” may have prevented her husband from being resuscitated, but she’s not the one who shot him and he may have died anyway.
The DNR is an intervening cause. You are not guilty of murder.
Unless, of course, the prosecutor can prove that, even without the DNR order, your victim would have died.
The wife, had she forged the DNR, may well be guilty of murder - again unless the victim was going to die anyway.
I don’t think a DNR applies to something easily treatable. It’s more like if someone is in a vegetative state, or enduring a long, painful illness being prolonged by ventilators and respirators or whatever.
Well if you said “Boo” and provoked the heart attack it would be a similar case… but how do you prove the gunshot didnt cause the heart attack itself physically speaking ?
TVAA: Interesting questions. Totally unhelpful, as usual, but interesting nonetheless.
SuaSponte: Yes, I am familiar with the what the law says regarding interevening causes. But as I said up front, I am more interested in what people think the law should be rather than what it currently is.
Guinastasia: Well, the versions I have seen don’t specify whether the illness is “easily treatable” or not. I think so-called “Living Wills” refer to “heroic measures,” but a basic DNR simply states that the person should not be resuscitated if his heart and breathing should stop.
Rashak Mani: Well, in the scenario I described, it’s pretty obvious that the gunshot did cause the heart attack. The point is that the victim might have survived the heart attack if not for the DNR order.
Well, I remember there having been a case in The Netherlands about a guy shooting is (ex?)-girlfriend, who got seriously wounded and didn’t want to continue living. He was convicted for either manslaughter or murder (I forgot which). Hence the eventual death was attributed to his act: by shooting he took upon himself the chance that his victim would eventually die.
If I understand your hypothetical correctly, this is similar. Of course U.S. law may be different, but it seems as if you are not asking about law but about morality.
Sorry, rereading I see you specifically did ask about the broader issue of what the law should be.
My reasoning would be similar to that in the case I mentioned. If you act in a way that may well cause someone’s death in normal circumstances, and the death eventually happens with intervening factors, while it would not have occurred without your actions (sine qua non causality), it may in principle be attributed to you. If you had intent, then it may be murder, otherwise it is manslaughter.
Of course this general principle should allow for exceptions in odd cases. Such an example would be: you shoot at someone, you miss, he goes out to calm his nerves, gets hit by a bus. Doesn’t seem like murder to me.
Maybe the principle should be tightened, to wit: your action has caused wounds that eventually lead to the victim’s death. The intervening element of suicide or DNR should in such a case not prove a barrier since you did wrongfully put the person in the position that he found himself forced to ‘choose’ death.
It seems to me that if you shoot someone with the intent of killing them, and they die, “he wouldn’t have died if others had worked to save him” is not a defense. Suppose he doesn’t have a DNR order, but the power goes out and they can’t save him. Or what if none of the witnesses bother to call 911. A DNR doesn’t seem like an intervening cause to me, because it doesn’t intervene; it works to prevent intervention.
It is Murder. True, a good attorney might plea bargain you down, and I can see where that might be the best way to serve justice- but you caused the death of another. The DNR woudl never have come into effect without the bullet you shot him with.
This does pose an interesting slippery slope, though.
Fifty years ago:
[ul][li]You put six bullets in somebody.[/li][li]They die.[/li][li]You get the chair.[/ul][/li]
Today:
[ul][li]You put six bullets in somebody.[/li][li]Medical science keeps them alive in a coma.[/li][li]You get lesser charges.[/ul][/li]
Fifty years from now:
[ul][li]You put six bullets in somebody (or use your 2050s-style death-ray)[/li][li]Nanotech patches them right up.[/li][li]Do you get charged?[/ul][/li]
The intent in each case is exactly the same, but the punishments have changed.
Well, the issue is not so much whether the DNR can be considered an “intervening cause” or not. A DNR is different from a power outage because it is something that the victim chose. That’s why I likened it to a case where the victim gets depressed as a result of his injuries and commits suicide. I doubt anybody would seriously claim that I would be guilty of murder in that case, and the DNR to me seems like a form of suicide that is planned in advance.
Good question, and I realize that intent can make the difference between murder and manslaughter. Let’s say, then, the question is whether I comitted homicide (which is defined as “an unlawful killing”).
If I pick up a penny from the ground, and inadvertently begin a chain of events that results in billions of potential people not being born, am I a murderer?
You attempted to kill the person, and you did. That makes it murder.
(For the purposes of this discussion, I’m ignoring the legal distinctions between murder, manslaughter and wrongful death, as they simply describe different degrees of culpability in ths matter.)
This debate depends a great deal on the degree to which the consequences of an event can be forseen by extrapolation.
Unless it could be shown that the bullet wound would not in itself have resulted in death, the shooter would be charged with murder. (The NDR would probably have been ignored, godzillatemple.)
Note: there’s a difference between being charged and being convicted. If the shooter was maliciously attempting to cause lethal harm, and the person dies as a direct result of being shot, that should count as murder, I think. If the death was only indirectly related at best, it can’t be. A lesser charge would be more appropriate.