Would you like to purchase a CDW? (If you don't you could be liable for thousands of dollars in case of an accident. Are you sure you want to take that risk?)So, which question am I answering? Would you like to purchase a CDW?, or Are you sure you want to take that risk?.
In contract, an important element to a finding of "contract" is a meeting of the minds. The words on paper usually hold, and their direct meaning is what is found. All that "plain English" requirement for property contracts? Driven because people were confused. Were the old contracts tossed out? Nope. You sign it, you live with it.
We agree completely that the language of the Living Will is confusing (at best). And I agree that the wording of unchecked boxes, heck ALL of the wording on a page, even parenthetical distractions, can mislead a reader. I know from experience that short, self-contained, unambiguous and unequivocal statements are the most "effective" form of communication. THey are the most likely to result in accurate communication of an idea or instruction. THis model Living Will was obviously written by a lawyer.
I'm a cynic. I don't expect changes for the better. Not coming from legislatures, not coming from courts. The people have to wise themselves up. They need to get educated, self-reliant, and moral. Change for the better comes from the bottom, up. A society that is run from the top down will last about as long as a company that is run that way.
The whole purpose of these living wills is to have permission to kill people WITHOUT going into court!
I agree. Which is why I would argue that the material change of wording, even in an unchecked box, should destroy the presumption that the document is prima facie valid. While the presumption of validity may have an unfortunate effects in cases where the model is followed precisely, I would argue that in this particular case the fact that the model wasn't followed should void the presumption, rendering the broader problem irrelevant to this particular case.