Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Probably not. So you do something to "stop it." You take the bottle of pills out of her hand by force. Technically you are within the law. Practically, you could be setting yourself up for a domestic violence arrest or even getting murdered (a person who can commit suicide can commit murder). Or what happens the next time she pulls an attention-getting stunt. I would get as far away from the situation as you can.

Is this an actual question, or are you doing a homework assignment from first year Criminal Law in Law School?

At common law, there was no "duty to rescue." This applied in tort law, and in criminal law. The classic illustration in law school was a Michigan case from over a hundred years ago called People v. Beardsley. Beardsley was a married man, who had an affair with a woman while his wife was out of town. During this "affair" Beardsley and his mistress drank excessively, and the mistress was given champor and morphine. Beardsley caught her taking the morphine, and took the remaining pills away from her. She was taken to the basement to be hidden from Beardsley's wife who was feared to return at any moment. Concerned over the mistress' condition, the occupant of the basement called a doctor who pronounced the mistress dead.

Beardsley was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to prison. On appeal, however, his conviction was set aside. The Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that Beardsley was not in a special relationship with this mistress, but did point out in passing that a husband would owe a duty to rescue his wife.

The only case that I am aware of in California, is Barber v. Superior Court. (2nd Dist. 1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1006.) In that case, a man was recovering from surgery for closure of an ileostomy, when he suffered cardiac arrest and was placed on life support. After several days, the family requested that life support be removed, including IV tubes that provided food and hydration. Obviously, the man died.

The doctors were charged with murder by LA's hardworking DA. (Who has nothing better to do, like chase down real murderers.) The Superior Court found sufficient evidence to hold the doctors over for trial (a term of art, called being bound over for trial, after a prelim.) The Court of Appeal reversed, in a Petition for a Writ of Prohibition, finding that withdrawing life supporting measures is not the same as causing the death. "There is no criminal liability for failure to act unless there is a legal duty to act."

The argument can be made, that a husband should take steps to save his wife, because he stands in a special relationship. But I am unaware of any direct authority on point.