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.
The suit as a whole is not frivolous. But parts of it are poorly written and make frivolous points.
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.
No, it says "nothing in this act shall authorize..." It says nothing about whether there exist other acts--federal or state--which could offer such authorization. I suspect that particular language probably exists to prevent someone like Felos from using the ADA to starve someone on the grounds that doing so would "improve" their condition.
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.
All the above quoted text from the ADA says is that the ADA shall not istelf be construed as providing authorization for denial of food or liquid. It says nothing which would prohibit such denial if it was otherwise authorized.
Suppose I have a card in my pocket which says "Acme Fitness Center Main Facility Guest Pass--THIS CARD DOES NOT AUTHORIZE USE OF RACQUETBALL COURTS". Does the allcaps text say that I am not authorized to use the raquetball court? What if I have another card in my pocket which says "Acme Fitness Center Racquetball Court Guest Pass--THIS CARD DOES NOT AUTHORIZE USE OF MAIN FITNESS CENTER"? Would the two cards contradict each other?
Now with Terri's law, they have a chance to address this issue.
More people need to be informed of what a feeding tube is and isn't. That would be one important start.
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.
That needs to be fixed, as do a number of other weaknesses in existing law. For example, IMHO the most important is that the law which requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem in case of a potential conflict of interest between guardian and ward needs to be amended so as to make explicit certain cases in which such a person must be appointed whether or not the judge acknowledges a potential conflict of interest.
Out of curiosity, I always hear these things refered to as "starving"; is that because, except in Terri's case, they provide hydration?