In short
If life support was ended, the family reads who wrote the decision, and what was said to them. How the support would be stopped in the clinic is not in this writing. Notice not being given to someone is not the subject of this record either. Death does not turn the note into a finding of fault by itself.
Who wrote the note
The ending stands in the file as a note or a request. If the note carries the writer's name and the hour, those are read. If there is no hour, which one was first is not invented. A corridor conversation is not put in place of a signed note. If there is no note, a decision is not treated as given. A board name is not invented in this text. If there is a board minute in the file, the date and the signature are read from there. If there is not, a minute is not added as if it were there.
The note is not opened in order to describe how the device or the support was stopped. A description is not on this page. If the note counts a device name, the name is not turned into an order of stopping. If the order is not in the sentence of the note, it is left as not there. A gap that is left is not sampled from another patient's file.
The patient separates which page the note stands on, and which day of the admission the page belongs to. If the day differs in the nurse's observation and in the physician's note, the two days are written apart. The difference is not reduced to a single hour. If the observation does not repeat the physician's note, it is not treated as repeating it. Treatment never having been started, and the ending of a support that was continuing, are not the same note. If the note says it was not started, that sentence is read. If the note says it was ended, that sentence is read. If both are there, they are on separate lines. One is not the method of the other. A method is not on this page. If there are different views inside the family, the view is read if it stands in the file. If it does not stand, it is left as not standing. A relative's request does not take the place of the patient's earlier written document. If the document and the relative's request conflict, the conflict is not closed. The conflict is read by looking at whose signature is on the decision line. The relative's request is not treated as having changed the person who gave the decision. If there are two physician notes at a change of shift, each signature is in its own sentence. The handover note is not treated as having assumed the earlier physician's ending sentence. Assumption is read only if the handover note writes it. If it does not write it, the two physicians are not joined as a single signature.
What was said to the family is a separate note
What was said to the family is separate from the decision line. If there is a notice sentence, the addressee and the hour are read. If there is no sentence, one does not say it was said. The frame of notice not being given to someone is in the writing on information in intensive care. This record does not repeat that writing. Notice having been given does not produce the method of the stopping either. The notice note is not the signature of the ending decision. The signature does not erase the notice note either.
If whom the patient chose as addressee is written in the file, that person is read. If there is no written choice, every relative in the corridor is not counted as an addressee. If the choice and the person who called later differ, the difference is marked only if it appears in the note. If there is no note, a difference is not assumed. A difference that is not assumed does not write a sum either.
The general list of an application to the hospital is in the writing on patient rights. The ending note is not read as an item of that list. The application says which note stands in whose signature. A general complaint, before the note is shown, will not have built the decision line.
The patient's earlier written wish
Article 25 of the Patient Rights Regulation writes that, outside cases that are legally compulsory, the patient may refuse treatment that is planned to be applied, or that is being applied, or may ask for it to be stopped. In this case, the consequences that will arise from the treatment not being applied must be explained to the patient, to their legal representatives, or to their relatives, and a written document showing this must be taken. If there is a document, the document is read. If there is no document, a sentence heard from the family is not written in place of this document. How the document will be filled in, and how the support would be stopped in the clinic, are not here.
Article 24 says that the wishes a patient who cannot explain their wish during a medical intervention explained earlier will be taken into account. An earlier wish is not a copy of the later note. If the earlier document refuses a treatment, the refusal is read from the document's own words. The word is not treated as having changed the ending note by itself. If the later note mentions the earlier document, the mention is marked. If it does not mention it, a mention is not invented.
The same article also writes that, in a vital danger where consent could not be taken, and where consciousness is closed, the intervention does not depend on consent, and that the situation will be put on the record. This sentence is not the short name of the ending note. An emergency-intervention record and the ending line stand apart. If one exists, the other is not assumed to exist as well. The definition of consent is in the writing on informed consent. This page does not repeat that definition.
The prohibition does not describe a method
Article 13 prohibits euthanasia. The right to life cannot be renounced on a medical ground, or for another reason. Even if it is their own request, or another person's request, no one's life can be ended. This prohibition does not narrate an order of stopping, a tool, or a clinical step. A step that is not narrated is not added inside the note either. The note opens to debate that the prohibition was breached only from its own sentence and from the other records in the file. This page does not fill that debate with a method.
Article 14 says that, even if it is not possible to save the patient's life or to protect their health, it is compulsory to try to reduce or to relieve the suffering. The compulsion does not take the place of the ending note. The compulsion does not describe how the support would be stopped either. If there is an observation in the file relating to this compulsion, the observation is on its own line. If there is no observation, it is left as not there. Cases that are legally compulsory are outside the right of refusal in Article 25. Which case was counted as compulsory is read from there if there is a sentence in the file. If there is no sentence, a compulsion is not assumed. A compulsion that is not assumed does not give a description for the support being continued, or for it being stopped, either. If the patient earlier drew a treatment limit in writing, and the date of the document stands before the date of the ending note, the priority is read from the dates. If there is no date, the document is not made the ground of the note. If the document refuses a particular intervention, the refusal is read as limited to that intervention. The document is not interpreted as covering all treatments. The interpretation is not widened from the words of the document.
If the note is in your hand, the signature line can be read separately through contact. The reading does not give a clinical description.
A death note does not write fault
Death does not turn the ending note into a finding of fault. If the hour of death and the hour of the ending note differ, the two hours are written apart. If one is missing, the other is not put in its place. A burial document does not show who wrote the note. The document does not build the hour the family was informed either. The notice hour is read only if it stands in the notice note.
Who will bring the action is in the writing on when the patient dies. The name of the items is in the writing on heads of compensation. A sum is not on this page. A certificate of inheritance does not change the signature line of the ending note. The document has who can carry the capacity to sue read from a separate record. This body does not rewrite that capacity. A death minute and the ending note are separate papers. The minute can carry the name of the physician who established the death. That name does not have to be the person who signed the ending note. If the two names differ, the difference is marked. The difference does not build a finding of fault. If there is no minute, the death is not drawn from the ending note. If there is no note, the ending is not drawn from the minute.
If there is no hour, an order is not invented
If there is more than one note, the order is built from the hours that were written. If there is no hour, one does not say before or after. A night shift and a day shift are not read as tying a note that has no hour to a person on duty by themselves. If the name of the person on duty is in the note, the name is read. If it is not, the name is not completed. A sentence added later is read with the date it was added. The addition is not treated as having changed the earlier hour. That it changed it is written only if it writes this.
The family does not mix the discharge-summary copy in hand with the note in the file. The discharge summary is the summary of the discharge or of the death. The summary may not be the signature line of the ending decision. Which one carries a signature is looked at from the page. A summary that does not carry a signature is not presented as the decision.
Conclusion
If life support is ended, the family reads who wrote the decision, and what was said to them. There is no clinical method of stopping. An earlier written wish and the later note stand apart. Not being called, and who will bring the action after death, are in separate records. The frame is on the health law page. The basis is Articles 13, 14, 24 and 25 of the Patient Rights Regulation.