I don't think so. IANAL, but my understanding is that every frivolous claim in a legal brief undoes the effects of several meritorious ones. And some of the claims here are IMHO obviously frivolous.
For example, the last comment on the ADA claim notes that nothing in [the ADA] shall be construed to authorize the discontinuance of feeding/hydration. That may be true, but so what? If there's nothing in the ADA which forbids such discontinuance and there's something in such other statute that allows it, then it's legal. If there is something in the ADA which forbids such discontinuance or there's nothing in another statute to allow it, then the action is illegal but unaddressed by this claim. In short, the comment about the ADA and feeding tubes does nothing to support the claim, and weakens other aspects that would otherwise be meritorious.
I don't mean to disparage the people who are trying to fight on Terri's behalf, but sloppiness in legal procedings can be deadly. There are enough claims of substantial merit that including frivolous claims severely weakens the Schindler's case.
There are enough claims of substantial merit that including frivolous claims severely weakens the Schindler's case. "
I certainly don't see this as a frivolous suit. And your complaint doesn't seem very strong to me.
On page 17, the lawsuit actually says:
Moreover, the pertinent federal regulations for implementation of the A.D.A. specifically provide that "Nothing in the Act or this part authorizes the representative or guardian of an individual with a disability to decline food, water, medical treatment, or medical services for that individual."(cf. 28C.F.R. Ch. 1, sub part B, Section 35.130)
In other words the federal guidelines for implementing A.D.A. specifically says that the representative is not authorized to decline food and water for that individual.
So basically, you are saying it's ok for the State of Florida to go against the Federal regulations. I don't think that's what the State of Florida intended to do. That's why they came back and changed the law. The first law allowed for starving a person to death if that person had a living will, but did not address the issue if there is no living will and there is a dispute as to the wishes of the disabled.
Now with Terri's law, they have a chance to address this issue.
I don't believe most people want to starve to death. Pulling the plug on someone that is brain dead is a completely different issue. Other states allow pulling the plug, but do not allow starving a person to death.