[supercat]

However, an objective test of the model language, where the results show a substantial liklihood of critical confusion, would be persuasive to legislators. I beleieve, however, that even a controlled proof of liklihood of confusion would not, on its own, result in any changes. Public/media pressure must alos (or even in the alternative) be brought to bear.

I would suggest that perhaps a good tack would be to make certain aspects of required formatting explicit in the legislation. If formatted correctly, the model language is really not all that bad, though replacing a colon with an elipsis would improve it considerably.

In this way, the legislators would not have to admit that their earlier language was bad--merely recognize the possibility that some people might not recognize the importance of accurate formatting [or--though you don't have to say this--might recognize the opportunities awarded by inaccurate formatting].

[Cboldt]

If formatted correctly, the model language is really not all that bad ...

I disagree. I do langauge for warning labels where the stakes are much lower. The language of the Living Will could be MUCH better. The stakes are very high. Figure that the average person signing it has 8th grade education and 5th grade reading skills.

Pick one:
I direct that food and water be withheld until I die (probably of dehydration).
I direct that food be withheld until I die (maybe of starvation), but I want to have water.
I direct that water be withheld until I die (maybe of dehydration), but I want to have food.
Don't withhold food or water. I want to die of something other than dehydration or starvation.