Who pays medical costs for a John Doe who dies in the hospital? Say that a John Doe case (i.e. someone whose identity is unknown and the patient can't tell them) comes into the hospital and collapses, becoming incapacitated. They receive treatment yet ultimately die. As the hospital staff doesn't know the identity of the John Doe, they can't tell if they have insurance to pay for the coverage, nor do they have any known next of kin. So who is ultimately responsible for their medical costs? This question was inspired by the 2016 Doctor Strange movie where Strange brings the Ancient One into the hospital yet she dies, then Strange leaves without identifying her.
In the United States, Medicare and Medicaid pays for indigent patients in hospitals, via Disproportionate Share Hospital programs. This is not a direct reimbursement but a program based on certain qualifications and the ratios of indigent patient days to normal patient days in periods. Medicare link
I am not a lawyer; I am not your lawyer. You do not cite a jurisdiction so this makes it very difficult to get a definitive answer. What follows is for Australia but the general principles are common law and would be applicable to other common law jurisdictions except where statues apply or case law has diverged. In the first instance, it seems that you were not party to any arrangement to pay for the electricity. So on the face of it you are not party to any contract requiring you to pay. Even if there was such an agreement: family, domestic, social and voluntary agreements (which this would be) are presumed not to be intended to legally bind the participants. Whether this presumption would be overturned would depend on the specific facts. On the face of it, there is no legal obligation to pay. Your options are: Do nothing; this puts the ball in their court, they can: Forget about it (it would then be over) Attempt to sue you with little prospect of success (which would cost them and you a lot more than $50 irrespective of who won) Do something illegal like beating you up (you really need to assess this risk) Tell everyone they know (in person and on social media) what a skiving prick you are (you could probably sue them for damages but that's not really going to happen, is it?) Pay them what they are asking Offer to pay them something less. Option 1 is likely to break any relationship you have with the person, Option 2 is likely to preserve it and Option 3 could go either way. Ultimately, like most legal questions, this is not about the law; it's about relationships ... broken ones mostly.
It doesn't matter if a debt arises as a result of normal commercial transactions or because of liability for a legal wrong - if you owe money you owe money. While you are alive you are responsible for settling your debts out of your assets as and when they fall due. When you die, your executor has the same responsibility. The executor's first responsibility is to settle the debts of the deceased - only after they have done this can they make distributions to the beneficiaries. One of their duties is to advertise the death of the person and invite anyone who has a claim against the estate (as a creditor or beneficiary) to come forward - the law puts time limits on how long they have to do so. If some of these liabilities are disputed then the executor must hold back enough funds to cover the disputed amount (and the costs of defending against it). Intangible assets (copyright, patents etc.) are no different from tangible assets - they can be offered to the creditor to (part) settle the debt or the can be liquidated (sold) to get cash to settle the debt if there is insufficient cash in the estate. Once all known debts have been settled or successfully denied the executor can distribute whatever assets are left in accordance with the will (or the law if there is no will). If they do all this in accordance with the law then they have no liability. The beneficiaries never have any liability. Sometimes the estate will be insolvent - its liabilities are greater than its assets. The executor's duty in that case is to follow the applicable bankruptcy law.
Here is the section of NYC law on the medical examiner. §17-207 provides for a &quot;Root cause analysis&quot;, in case there is a &quot;significant event&quot;. A significant event, as defined in that section, is where there is probably a technical screw-up in the office of chief medical examiner; the designated root cause analysis officer then develops guidelines for determining whether a significant event has occurred, then reporting, and other procedures. Then if it is determined that there was a screw-up, there shall be a report written, and this may get reported to the mayor or city council. Although there is no explicit statement therein about outsiders filing a complaint, you can always file an administrative complaint, and the law does say that there shall not be any disclosure of the identity of &quot;any complainant, victim or decedent&quot;. I assume the purpose of this complaint would be to force the medical examiner to change his report. If you simply just want to proffer an alternative claim, you can hire your own pathologists to make a different conclusion. One might care about the suicide / homicide distinction in case there was for instance an insurance policy that depended on the cause of death not being suicide. In which case, you would sue the insurance company, and the jury would look at the evidence for and against the suicide claim. As far as I can tell, there is no mechanism purporting to force the medical examiner to re-write his report and reach a different conclusion (the courts will not compel him to express a particular viewpoint).
It would merely be a &quot;jerk move&quot;. HIPAA only applies to &quot;covered entities&quot;: Healthcare Providers Health Plans Healthcare Clearing Houses (i.e. Paying for your health care) Business Associates of the Above) Source: CDC page on HIPAA
You generally are not required to share your medical details with people you don't want to. That said, the camp would also not be required to allow people who don't comply to enroll. They can't force you to divulge your information, but you can't force them to let you come if you don't, either. HIPAA deals with the ability of healthcare providers to disclose medical information to parties who aren't the patient themselves - it would be a HIPAA violation for your doctor to disclose your information directly to the camp without your consent. HIPAA has absolutely no bearing on who you choose to disclose your own information to, however - you can disclose your own information to anyone you want.
In Illinois: The General Assembly has established numerous protections for the generous and compassionate acts of its citizens who volunteer their time and talents to help others. Basically, if you are a licensed medical profession, or have had successful training in CPR provided by the the American Red Cross or the American Heart Association, and you try in good faith to save somebody's life and fail, you are not liable for their death, under the assumption you did not cause harm in the first place (i.e. you can not stab someone in the chest, attempt CPR, and be exempt from lawsuit(s)). Note that this doesn't apply to just CPR or physicians. This also covers dentists, Pharmacists, Optometrists, Physical Therapist, etc.
In the US, it depends on why you are doing this, and how you go about performing the operation. There are approved devices and procedures, and there is the other stuff. In an emergency that is life-threatening or threatens severe debilitation, it is permitted for a physician to try an extreme measure – if the state has a "Right to Try" law. Otherwise, a review and official approval by the relevant IRB is required. The devices are regulated by the FDA, but the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine, so the feds don't have a say in whether a procedure is allowed. Nevertheless, use of unapproved devices can be taken to be evidence of failing to meet the required standard of care, in the case of a malpractice suit or punitive action by the state regulatory board. There is no specific law prohibiting removing lots of organs and replacing them with prostheses, though arguable what happened was that the brain was removed (it's not that a replacement shell was built around the person). Ordinarily, intentionally "killing" a person is illegal (except in case of sanctioned execution or self-defense). There is zero case law that would tell us whether removing a brain from a body "kills" the person. Most likely, there would be a prosecution for unlawfully causing a death, and either the legislature would tune up the law w.r.t. the definition of "causing death", or the courts would do so.