support, a Mozingo claim in a suit by a patient). Thus, the students have not cited, and we have not found, a single North Carolina case permitting unrelated third party victims of a patient to sue the patient’s health care providers for medical malpractice, or even suggesting that such claims are possible. Instead, North Car olina courts have emphasized the policy reasons counseling rejection of such suits; “ ‘doctors- should owe their duty to their patient and not to anyone else’ so as not to compromise this primary duty.” Russell v. Adams, 125 N.C.App. 637, 482 S.E.2d 30, 33 (N.C.Ct.App.1997) (rejecting a third party claim of harm based on the care provided by a medical provider to a patient) (citations omitted); see also Childers v. Frye, 201 N.C. 42, 158 S.E. 744, 746 (N.C.1931) (<HOLDING>); Nash v. Royster, 189 N.C. 408, 127 S.E. 356,
holding that terminally ill patients do not have a fundamental liberty interest in committing suicide holding doctors letter is inadmissible hearsay holding that a patients settlement of a prior action brought against him by doctors for payment of a bill did not bar medical malpractice action against doctors holding that doctors do not have to accept patients holding that doctors may limit the extent of their responsibility to patients by narrowing the scope of the doctorpatient relationship