I want to add another legal implication of this case:
It is doubtful that most people who marry would consciously agree to put their spouse in the position wherein if they are disabled they would grant near arbitrary authority to spend funds allocated for health care on euthanasia lawyers, deny antibiotics, halt dental care, restrict parental visitation, forbid swallowing training, withdraw nutrition when the diagnosis is disputed etc.
This case dramatically illustrates the fact that at least in Florida, this is precisely what one is doing when signing on the dotted line of a marriage license.
Consider this precedent if you're contemplating marriage: Is this a person with whom I would trust my life more than my parents?
I would be unwilling to marry someone who I could not trust in this manner. I suspect most people would agree.
I've been married 40 yrs., but I doubt very, very seriously that I would marry again if anything happened to my husband or to the marriage due to circumstances beyond my control.