[supercat]

It's a good argument. But it isn't a slam dunk, and the judge's decision won't necessarily turn on that argument. He has other tools to justify whatever outcome he wants.

The statute says that any document which follows this model (XXXX) must be considered prima facie valid. The document in this question does not follow the model. I would highly recommend that Ken talk to a lawyer about what needs to happen to ensure that Mae gets a jury trial if the issue of the living will comes up. A judge might not consider the deviations from statutory language to be valid, but a jury almost certainly would.

[Cboldt]

I would highly recommend that Ken talk to a lawyer about what needs to happen to ensure that Mae gets a jury trial if the issue of the living will comes up.

An objective determination of the liklihood of critical confusion is very persuasive. I don't know what the result would be, one might be surprised and find that most readers "get it right," as the model; and don't "get it wrong" with phrase 2 reversed. But my spidey sense says that either version will have about the same rate of critical confusion.

[supercat]

A judge might not consider the deviations from statutory language to be valid, but a jury almost certainly would.

Self-correction: A judge might not consider the deviations from statutory language to be valid significant, but a jury almost certainly would.