O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 31-39-7 (2019)

Liability of persons carrying out in good faith decisions regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation; notification

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

of next of kin or authorized person of patient by physician refusing to comply with order not to resuscitate.

(a) No physician, health care professional, nurse, physician assistant, caregiver, health care facility, other licensed facility, emergency medical technician, or person employed by, acting as the agent of, or under contract with any of the foregoing shall be subject to criminal prosecution or civil liability or be deemed to have engaged in unprofessional conduct for carrying out in good faith a decision regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation authorized by this chapter by or on behalf of a patient or for those actions taken in compliance with the standards and procedures set forth in this chapter.

(b) No physician, health care professional, nurse, physician assistant, caregiver, health care facility, other licensed facility, emergency medical technician, or person employed by, acting as the agent of, or under contract with any of the foregoing shall be subject to criminal prosecution or civil liability or be deemed to have engaged in unprofessional conduct for providing cardiopulmonary resuscitation to a patient for whom an order not to resuscitate has been issued, provided that such physician or person:

(1) Reasonably and in good faith was unaware of the issuance of an order not to resuscitate; or

(2) Reasonably and in good faith believed that consent to the order not to resuscitate had been revoked or canceled.

(c) No persons shall be civilly liable for failing or refusing in good faith to effectuate an order not to resuscitate. No person shall be subject to criminal prosecution or civil liability for consenting or declining to consent in good faith, on behalf of a patient, to the issuance of an order not to resuscitate pursuant to this chapter.

(d) Any attending physician who fails or refuses to comply with an order not to resuscitate entered pursuant to this chapter shall endeavor to advise promptly the patient, if conscious, or the next of kin or authorized person of the patient that such physician is unwilling to effectuate the order. The attending physician shall thereafter at the election of the next of kin or authorized person:

(1) Make a good faith attempt to effect the transfer of the patient to another physician who will effectuate the order not to resuscitate; or

(2) Permit the next of kin or authorized person to obtain another physician who will effectuate the order not to resuscitate.

(e) Any emergency medical technician who fails or refuses to comply with an order not to resuscitate entered pursuant to this chapter shall endeavor to advise promptly the patient, if conscious, or the next of kin or authorized person of the patient, if reasonably available, that such emergency medical technician is unwilling to effectuate the order.

History

Code 1981, § 31-39-7, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 1853, § 1; Ga. L.

1995, p. 722, § 5; Ga. L. 2011, p. 379, § 5/HB 275.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1999–1999 · leading case: Hardy v. Georgia Baptist Health Care Sys., Inc., 521 S.E.2d 632 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
Hardy v. Georgia Baptist Health Care Sys., Inc., 521 S.E.2d 632 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “, a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and a defense pursuant to OCGA § 31-39-7. In the federal action, defendant moved for, and on April 25, 1997, was granted summary judgment on all theories.”
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.