Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 19a — PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELL-BEING · Chapter 368w — Removal of Life Support Systems and Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-571 (2026)

Liability re removal of life support system of incapacitated patient. Consideration of wishes of patient

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, any physician licensed under chapter 370, any advanced practice registered nurse licensed under chapter 378 or any licensed medical facility who or which withholds, removes or causes the removal of a life support system of an incapacitated patient shall not be liable for damages in any civil action or subject to prosecution in any criminal proceeding for such withholding or removal, provided (1) the decision to withhold or remove such life support system is based on the best medical judgment of the attending physician or advanced practice registered nurse in accordance with the usual and customary standards of medical practice; (2) the attending physician or advanced practice registered nurse deems the patient to be in a terminal condition or, in consultation with a physician qualified to make a neurological diagnosis who has examined the patient, deems the patient to be permanently unconscious; and (3) the attending physician or advanced practice registered nurse has considered the patient's wishes concerning the withholding or withdrawal of life support systems. In the determination of the wishes of the patient, the attending physician or advanced practice registered nurse shall consider the wishes as expressed by a document executed in accordance with sections 19a-575 and 19a-575a, if any such document is presented to, or in the possession of, the attending physician or advanced practice registered nurse at the time the decision to withhold or terminate a life support system is made. If the wishes of the patient have not been expressed in a living will the attending physician or advanced practice registered nurse shall determine the wishes of the patient by consulting any statement made by the patient directly to the attending physician or advanced practice registered nurse and, if available, the patient's health care representative, the patient's next of kin, the patient's legal guardian or conservator, if any, any person designated by the patient in accordance with section 1-56r and any other person to whom the patient has communicated his or her wishes, if the attending physician or advanced practice registered nurse has knowledge of such person. All persons acting on behalf of the patient shall act in good faith. If the attending physician or advanced practice registered nurse does not deem the incapacitated patient to be in a terminal condition or permanently unconscious, beneficial medical treatment including nutrition and hydration must be provided.

(b) A physician qualified to make a neurological diagnosis who is consulted by the attending physician or advanced practice registered nurse pursuant to subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section shall not be liable for damages or subject to criminal prosecution for any determination made in accordance with the usual and customary standards of medical practice.

(c) In the case of an infant, as defined in 45 CFR 1340.15 (b), the physician, advanced practice registered nurse or licensed medical facility shall comply with the provisions of 45 CFR 1340.15 (b)(2) in addition to the provisions of subsection (a) of this section.

(P.A. 85-606, S. 2; P.A. 91-283, S. 2; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 91-11, S. 19; P.A. 93-407. S. 5; P.A. 01-195, S. 162, 181; P.A. 02-105, S. 7; P.A. 06-195, S. 64; P.A. 16-39, S. 20.)

History: P.A. 91-283 changed “incompetent” to “incapacitated”, added “in accordance with the usual and customary standards of medical practice” after “judgment of the attending physician”, deleted requirement of informed consent of next of kin, added requirement that physician qualified to make neurological diagnosis deem patient to be permanently unconscious, added provision re determination of wishes of patient, and added provision re immunity of physician qualified to make a neurological diagnosis for determination made in accordance with usual and customary standards of medical practice as new Subsec. (b); June Sp. Sess. P.A. 91-11 added Subsec. (c) to require compliance with federal regulations regarding an infant; P.A. 93-407 amended Subsec. (a) by adding reference to Sec. 19a-575a; P.A. 01-195 amended Subsec. (c) to make a technical change, effective July 11, 2001; P.A. 02-105 amended Subsec. (a) by adding a person designated by the patient in accordance with Sec. 1-56r to the list of those to be consulted to determine the wishes of the patient; P.A. 06-195 amended Subsec. (a) by substituting “health care representative” for “health care agent”; P.A. 16-39 amended Subsec. (a) by adding references to advanced practice registered nurse and making a technical change, and amended Subsecs. (b) and (c) by adding references to advanced practice registered nurse.

Cited. 209 C. 692.

Section removes any legal duty for the hospital to follow the wishes of a patient's relatives. 166 CA 432.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1989–2016 · leading case: McConnell v. Beverly Enter.-Connecticut, Inc., 553 A.2d 596 (Conn. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McConnell v. Beverly Enter.-Connecticut, Inc., 553 A.2d 596 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 18× “” General Statutes § 19a-571. Second, if a patient, to the contrary, is deemed by his or her physician to be in a terminal condition, life sustaining technology may be removed, in the exercise of the physician’s best medical judgment, when that judgment has received the informed…”
Marsala v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., Inc., 142 A.3d 316 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 17× “General Statutes § 19a-571 (a) places a duty on any licensed medical facility, such as the Hospital, to consider only the patient's wishes when considering to remove a life support system of a terminal and permanently unconscious patient.”
Law v. Camp, 116 F. Supp. 2d 295 (D. Conn. 2000). · cites it 10× “Law also asserts that Conn. Gen.Stat. § 19a-571 (the “Removal of Life Support Systems Act”), 3 is not applicable as a defense in this case because Mrs.”
State v. Guess, 715 A.2d 643 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 19a-571 provides: “Liability re removal of life support system of incapacitated patient.”
In Re Est. of Longeway, 549 N.E.2d 292 (Ill. 1989). “) By construing this provision in conjunction with another statutory provision which the court determined distinguished "beneficial medical treatment" as distinct from "nutrition and hydration" (see Conn.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.